![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 99 to 123 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 29, 2005, at 14:50:34
In reply to Re: reframing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 29, 2005, at 13:51:20
> > I was using the two examples to compare reframing, and how I feel when when someone spin doctors a subject, and then asks me to look at it differently.
>
> OK, at times it can be used to try to justify something immoral, but at other times reframing could be reasonable, couldn't it?
>
> BobOf course. If I didn't consistantly re evaluate my reactions to things, and why I feel how I do I wouldn't be alive.
What I find almost intolerably frustrating, is that someone like Dinah has demonstrated through every word how she considers almost all possible opinions and angles and that she is not a reactionary.
When you reply like that, it seems to me like that essential quality has been completely ignored.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2005, at 11:37:39
> > It isn't about feelings of envy. It's about feelings of exclusion. Those are two different things entirely.
So one way to see it is to focus on those who will feel excluded if there are small boards.
But another way to see it is to focus on those who do feel excluded currently on the main boards.
Most people who are against small boards already feel included on the main Babble boards. They are worried about feeling excluded from the small Babble boards.
But what about the people who don't feel included on the main Babble boards? They may feel included on the small Babble boards.
So by creating small boards more people may get that feeling of inclusion...
So envy is: "painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage"...
Where the "same advantage" could be feelings of inclusion.
And resentment is: "a feeling of indignant displeasure or persistent ill will at something regarded as a wrong, insult, or injury"...
Which is how people seem to view small boards...
>at other times reframing could be reasonable, couldn't it?
> How would you feel if you were told instead they were enjoying the opportunity to connect with each other?
I think it is a good idea to have more places for people to feel included...
If you don't want me to post to you anymore then you'll have to join the cue...sigh.
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:09:54
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
Does the definition of politeness really stretch so far as to think it's ok for two posters on Social to tell a third that they are having a private conversation and that they do not wish to hear input from the third?
Well, no wonder I'm having so much trouble in this conversation. You and Dr. Bob are working from a different underlying definition of the word polite. I hadn't realized that the parameters of polite stretched that far. Perhaps it's a cultural thing of the South to think that would be impolite.
And here I thought that Dr. Bob was just trying to divert me from the main point with a silly argument that it would be polite for two posters to do that. It never occurred to me that he was serious.
And do you have any teensy suspicion that *I* would feel worry for one teensy weensy itty bitty second about being excluded from the small boards? After reading what I've said about small boards for how long now?
Well, now I'm just getting angry.
And after I promised myself I wouldn't. After I *told* you that I didn't want to get involved in this. Not with Dr. Bob, not with you. Not with anybody.
I know a lost cause when I've seen it.
And now I'm head splittingly angry over one.
And I feel insulted to boot.
And I don't want to meet Dr. Bob.
Posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 21:11:11
In reply to Alexandra, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
Clearly I shouldn't post when my head is about to explode.
I tried three times to compose a reply. That was the calmest of the lot.
I can't afford to get this upset right now. I'm this close to cancelling, despite the nonrefundable deposits, out of sheer anxiety. I can't add anger into the mix.
I really just can't.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 21:18:25
In reply to Alexandra, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
> Does the definition of politeness really stretch so far as to think it's ok for two posters on Social to tell a third that they are having a private conversation and that they do not wish to hear input from the third?
Hmm.
Lets seeMain Entry: po·lite
1 a : of, relating to, or having the characteristics of advanced culture b : marked by refined cultural interests and pursuits especially in arts and belles lettres
2 a : showing or characterized by correct social usage b : marked by an appearance of consideration, tact, deference, or courtesy c : marked by a lack of roughness or crudities <polite literature>I don't think that would be polite.
But I didn't think we were talking about politeness so much as feelings of inclusion / exclusion...
So is it that there are two reasons why you don't like the idea of small boards:
1. They are impolite
2. They will result in feelings of exclusion???
I think Dr Bob (and myself) were looking at 2.
Which is a seperate issue from 1.
1. could be prevented by making small boards only viewable to members (IMO)...> And do you have any teensy suspicion that *I* would feel worry for one teensy weensy itty bitty second about being excluded from the small boards? After reading what I've said about small boards for how long now?
I thought you were worried about other people who might be...
> Well, now I'm just getting angry.(((Dinah)))
This thread has become diverted from the intended topic.
I didn't intend to start up the small board stuff again.
I intended to help you persuade Dr Bob that it would be better if small boards were only viewable to members, remember???
I didn't divert the thread back onto the costs / benefits of small boards but it seemed that other people wanted to talk about this again...
Posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 21:22:52
In reply to I'm sorry, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 21:11:11
Forget about Dr Bob (no offence)
Think of all the other babblers you are going to get to meet.Partly Cloudy, Poet, Fallsfall, Auntie Mel, Annierose, and all the rest.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:27:39
In reply to Alexandra, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
> Does the definition of politeness really stretch so far as to think it's ok for two posters on Social to tell a third that they are having a private conversation and that they do not wish to hear input from the third?
I agree. I think a conversation where two people are "enjoying getting to know each other" (or however Dr. Bob put it) should be in a chat or emails if they do not want others to join in--not in a public place.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:29:58
In reply to Re: Alexandra » Dinah, posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:27:39
I guess I should have kept reading.
Sorry for adding to distress.
Dinah, you can sit next to me. :)
gg
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 9:21:25
In reply to Okay, read the whole thread first, GG!, posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 0:29:58
It's ok, you didn't.
I'll be happy to. :)
I really am scared. I think daily Risperdal is keeping me from actually cancelling.
And *naturally* therapist is on vacation starting tomorrow afternoon. :)
I suppose this ought to be on the party thread, although I don't want to be a real downer.
Posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 13:33:51
In reply to Re: Okay, read the whole thread first, GG! » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 9:21:25
Well thank goodness for Risperdal, then. I'm nervous, too. And excited. It's a bit daunting to think that we have these images of folks, and we will have them altered in some fundamental way when we meet in person. For example, I always think of KK as a blonde, but she informed me she was brunette. I just can't put that together. If I ever met her, I suppose I would have to give up my image of her as blonde.
And your T going on vacation, oy! Bad timing. Unless you want to pretend that he is coming to Chicago to watch over you from a safe distance? (But not allow you to see him, of course!)
:)
gg
Posted by AuntieMel on May 30, 2005, at 16:29:30
In reply to Alexandra, posted by Dinah on May 29, 2005, at 20:36:27
But we want to meet you!
If you are still angry we can skip dinner. I promise not to leave you hanging there by yourself.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 30, 2005, at 19:00:28
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on May 28, 2005, at 17:41:04
> It reminded me forcefully of a reply in a presidential debate.
I find the request-(it's rarely a mere suggestion) "choose to focus" to be condescending and a bit silly. I can see where it could be useful if someone knows one very well, like a therapist, and they see a continued pattern of unhealthy focus. However when it's used by people in specific situations I would find it would offend me far less if the euphemistic *choose* was left out. After all how can one advise someone else what they should *choose?*
It reminds me of Henry Ford saying you can paint your car any color you want as long as it's black.
>
>
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:12:27
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » Dinah, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 30, 2005, at 19:00:28
I have a fair amount to say on the matter, but I think I'll wait a week. :)
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:15:00
In reply to Re: Okay, read the whole thread first, GG!, posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 13:33:51
I like that thought! I think I can manage it. He's hiding right out of sight.
At least he'll be there the next Monday.
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:16:28
In reply to Re: Okay, read the whole thread first, GG!, posted by gardenergirl on May 30, 2005, at 13:33:51
I don't think I have images of people in terms of color of hair, or how tall they are. But I definitely have images of their styles. As you say, I might really have to make some major adjustments.
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:18:42
In reply to Re: Alexandra » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on May 30, 2005, at 16:29:30
My husband's response to my desire to cancel was so extreme that I think I'm even more afraid to stay home. :)
Good to know you guys will be there to bolster my flagging confidence.
And I'll just mostly avoid Admin. It's only another three days. Eeeek!
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 30, 2005, at 20:23:08
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:12:27
I was not thinking!!!!
Oh I feel so terrible. I did NOT Think about drawing you in.
I wasn't thinking about the whole concept, just the expression, and well..Oh I'm sorry.
No need to reply.
Posted by henrietta on May 30, 2005, at 20:24:26
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
Just feel like giving you a big hug, so I will!
(((((Alex)))))
hen
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 20:28:15
In reply to I'm so sorry! » Dinah, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 30, 2005, at 20:23:08
I appreciate your post. I'm just being careful where I reply.
No need to apologize *at all*.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 30, 2005, at 21:14:10
In reply to Re: publicly viewable » alexandra_k, posted by henrietta on May 30, 2005, at 20:24:26
I appreciate that.
You have one yourself :-)(((hen)))
Posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 22:02:41
In reply to Re: Thanks » henrietta, posted by alexandra_k on May 30, 2005, at 21:14:10
I'm stressed about any number of things right now, many completely unrelated to Babble. Including going off a much needed mood stabilizer so that my system can be clean for another one in late June.
I blew up, and I'm sorry for that. I really try hard not to blow up at fellow posters. And I'll try really hard not to do it again.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 30, 2005, at 22:04:25
In reply to Alexandra, I apologize, posted by Dinah on May 30, 2005, at 22:02:41
Thats ok.
I've blown up on admin before.
I understand.(((Dinah)))
You take care of yourself.
Posted by AuntieMel on May 31, 2005, at 9:57:32
In reply to Re: publicly viewable, posted by alexandra_k on May 29, 2005, at 20:06:17
Just my 2c
>>>Most people who are against small boards already feel included on the main Babble boards. They are worried about feeling excluded from the small Babble boards.
I'm not "worried" about feeling excluded, as I don't want to be included in the first place. To me (remember, this is just *to me*) being excluded from a small group would be much like being excluded from a Mexican prison.
>>>>So one way to see it is to focus on those who will feel excluded if there are small boards.>>>>But another way to see it is to focus on those who do feel excluded currently on the main boards.
There is a difference here, you know. On the current boards no one is *physically* excluded.
Where, on the small boards there *would be* a physical exclusion. period.
One is fact, the other is perception.
Apples and oranges.
>>>But what about the people who don't feel included on the main Babble boards? They may feel included on the small Babble boards.>>>So by creating small boards more people may get that feeling of inclusion...
Is this true? I had a hard time at first, believe me. For a while I felt ignored. Then, by accident of timing, I was taken to be a troll. If the option of small boards had been there I might have joined one - and then I would have quit trying on the other boards.
Sure I would have felt included more at first. But in the long run it would have paled in comparison to what I have now.
So - to sum it up - I don't "resent" the idea of small boards, I wouldn't feel "excluded" or "envious" or any of those other things. I just don't like them on principle, and I don't (personally) think they would be good for babble.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 31, 2005, at 12:59:51
In reply to Re: my two cents » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 31, 2005, at 9:57:32
> > Most people who are against small boards already feel included on the main Babble boards. They are worried about feeling excluded from the small Babble boards.
>
> I'm not "worried" about feeling excluded, as I don't want to be included in the first place. To me (remember, this is just *to me*) being excluded from a small group would be much like being excluded from a Mexican prison.I think Alex made some good points in the post you're referring to. I could see how some might disagree with the assumption that most people who are against small boards are worried about feeling excluded from smaller Babble boards, but I think there's is truth behind the argument that most people who are against small boards already feel included in the existing, larger Babble boards.
I also don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I felt offended by the notion that being included in a smaller group would be like being in a "Mexican prison" (by which I guess you mean a completely distasteful place by ALL accounts, since no healthy, happy person wants to be in any prison). This is the kind of attitude I ran into when I started my Babble women’s group and it baffled me that such emotion was directed toward the idea of such a group.
> > So one way to see it is to focus on those who will feel excluded if there are small boards. But another way to see it is to focus on those who do feel excluded currently on the main boards.
>
> There is a difference here, you know. On the current boards no one is *physically* excluded.
> Where, on the small boards there *would be* a physical exclusion. period.
>
> One is fact, the other is perception.It is exactly perception, even the idea that Psycho-Babble is infinitely inclusive. It is a support and education resource for the mentally ill. You have to register to participate fully, though non-members can listen in all they want (if they have access to the Internet). And I doubt that the system Bob uses could handle it if every person on the planet tried to register, so actually there are physical limits here too.
I see the difference as how some people might feel at a large convention. Perhaps when the group/convention started out, it was much smaller. In the beginning, the group was small enough for the members to get to know each other pretty well. That doesn’t mean they all like each other, but when they communicate, they’ve got that foundation. And they get to know new members as they join in. And this might work pretty well while the group measured in the dozens. But once it hits hundreds or thousands – well, there are some people who would walk into that convention hall and turn right around and walk back out. And there would be some in that convention hall (some old-timers and some newbies too) who would eventually be overwhelmed by the size of it all too. They’d look for a smaller room to meet in. And that room would only accommodate so many people. But as some wandered out, others would be welcome to wander in. I don’t see it as uncivil that some might want to meet in a smaller group, unless they get selective about who can come in.
> > But what about the people who don't feel included on the main Babble boards? They may feel included on the small Babble boards.
>
> Is this true? I had a hard time at first, believe me. For a while I felt ignored. Then, by accident of timing, I was taken to be a troll. If the option of small boards had been there I might have joined one – and then I would have quit trying on the other boards.
>
> Sure I would have felt included more at first. But in the long run it would have paled in comparison to what I have now.Does one have to suffer being ignored and misunderstood before becoming a bona fide member of the group? And isn't it possible that after being a member of a smaller board, some might feel more courageous about posting on larger ones?
> So - to sum it up - I don't "resent" the idea of small boards, I wouldn't feel "excluded" or "envious" or any of those other things. I just don't like them on principle, and I don't (personally) think they would be good for babble.
But are they necessarily *bad* for Babble? To me, it seems trying them out would be no worse than all the discord that's surrounding the debate. People have threatened to leave and predicted that Babble will die, or never be the same, if smaller groups (change) are “allowed” to happen. But change, IMO, is inevitable, especially when a group has grown to the size of this one. (The group HAS changed.) People will continue to feel excluded and misunderstood (like you and I and many others have) regardless of the structure. The key thing is getting the rules into place to minimize that as much as possible, IMO.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.