![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 43. Go back in thread:
Posted by dj on February 7, 2001, at 17:56:28
In reply to Re: Wow...... » Greg, posted by Rzip on February 7, 2001, at 16:41:17
You, RZip are making a LOT of assumptions, once again, based on limited information and your own perceptions. People are sharing or not sharing and being personal and impersonal as they so choose. Nothing has made it unsafe for you here except your perception, as is the case with everyone here. We all individually choose how safe or unsafe we believe it is to express ourselves here and elsewhere and the degree we choose to be intimate is up to each of us individually and is then reflected in the group(s).
Individuals and cliques come and go, just as at a party and in life. Though you may exercise some influence here in how you choose to participate you have NO control over the outcome only your percptions, so don't sweat it, draw your conclusions and do as you choose and the go through the cycle again and again and again and again and....
There was a NYer cartoon one time that showed St. Peter at heaven's gate going over a long list and commenting to the person in front of him: "No that's not a sin either, you must have worried yourself to death." Don't sweat the comings and goings. That's life on-line, as off. Cyclical and ever changing...
Posted by allisonm on February 7, 2001, at 18:08:45
In reply to Re: Wow...... » Greg, posted by Rzip on February 7, 2001, at 16:41:17
I don't think it's the article at all. I think the current climate change has been coming for some time for a number of reasons.
As the board population grew, a less intimate feeling was bound to crop up. That was exacerbated by unusually disruptive posts and the myriad emotions that followed.
The current fallout (IMO) seems to be over two strong opinions -- that people should be candid but civil; that people should always be supportive. I think the approaches always have been here but were able to coexist well before. Maybe the recent disruptions have rubbbed things raw.
Everyone has different definitions on what is objective, supportive, civil, hurtful. I always just ignored the posts by those whose "technique" I found irritating. It just seems to me that everyone now has less tolerance than they did last winter, for example, and both types feel freer now to criticize if something doesn't fit their definitions. i.e., the gloves seem to be off.
Personally, I was always a little nervous about posting, but found myself saying more than I should have (in retrospect) in one emotional moment or another. My nervousness got blown into temporary horror when someone once searched the archives for all of my posts and pretty much read up on and pieced together my life story. Very unnerving. When I read that Cindy W's posts were used against her by someone outside this "community," and that someone (at one point) named boBB was taking advantage of people's volunteered email addresses, using them to spread strange and sometimes very personal messages, I also felt less safe.
Add to that the length of time I've been here and my shared weariness of seeing the same questions coming up over and over ad nauseam because no one wants to bother to search the archives, and yes, I must say I have been posting a lot less.
To blame it all on one article that showed up this late in the game is too easy.
Posted by ksvt on February 7, 2001, at 21:40:48
In reply to Grinding the horse's bones into the ground, posted by allisonm on February 7, 2001, at 18:08:45
> I don't think it's the article at all. I think the current climate change has been coming for some time for a number of reasons.
>
> As the board population grew, a less intimate feeling was bound to crop up. That was exacerbated by unusually disruptive posts and the myriad emotions that followed.
>
> The current fallout (IMO) seems to be over two strong opinions -- that people should be candid but civil; that people should always be supportive. I think the approaches always have been here but were able to coexist well before. Maybe the recent disruptions have rubbbed things raw.
>
> Everyone has different definitions on what is objective, supportive, civil, hurtful. I always just ignored the posts by those whose "technique" I found irritating. It just seems to me that everyone now has less tolerance than they did last winter, for example, and both types feel freer now to criticize if something doesn't fit their definitions. i.e., the gloves seem to be off.
>
> Personally, I was always a little nervous about posting, but found myself saying more than I should have (in retrospect) in one emotional moment or another. My nervousness got blown into temporary horror when someone once searched the archives for all of my posts and pretty much read up on and pieced together my life story. Very unnerving. When I read that Cindy W's posts were used against her by someone outside this "community," and that someone (at one point) named boBB was taking advantage of people's volunteered email addresses, using them to spread strange and sometimes very personal messages, I also felt less safe.
>
> Add to that the length of time I've been here and my shared weariness of seeing the same questions coming up over and over ad nauseam because no one wants to bother to search the archives, and yes, I must say I have been posting a lot less.
>
> To blame it all on one article that showed up this late in the game is too easy.
Posted by danf on February 7, 2001, at 22:56:20
In reply to Grinding the horse's bones into the ground, posted by allisonm on February 7, 2001, at 18:08:45
The article probably had some effect on a few people....
I participate in other BBs as well & have for a while, a couple of yrs...
They all change & folks come & go...
They all seem to go thru plagues of jerks as well. Boards that are well moderated keep the intended theme alive... as has babble so far...
One of the big differences in babble & other boards, is... most folks here have problems, easy to anger, to take offense, to be hurt & to attack ... all are part of the things we must deal with. Hopefully babble helps us see things in a better perspective.
There is change in life as well...
babble is still a safe place for limited interaction..
oh well, just babbling along, wondering if I can make a good soup from ground up horse bones...
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 0:32:01
In reply to Grinding the horse's bones into the ground, posted by allisonm on February 7, 2001, at 18:08:45
> Add to that the length of time I've been here and my shared weariness of seeing the same questions coming up over and over ad nauseam because no one wants to bother to search the archives...
I mentioned before the idea of a separate board limited to old-timers, etc. Maybe that would help reduce burnout? OTOH, already it's only on the medication board, and not, for example, at Psycho-Social-Babble, that the same questions keep coming up, right?
Bob
Posted by allisonm on February 8, 2001, at 5:29:51
In reply to Re: same questions coming up, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 0:32:01
I agree. It seems to be only on PB and not so much PSB -- probably because people's personal situations will always vary, while most of us seem to share problems with drugs and there are a limited number of those to talk about. Also, my perception is that PSB is much less active.
What would be the purpose of a board for oldtimers? Wouldn't "we" be perceived even more as a clique? How would you define an oldtimer?
Posted by allisonm on February 8, 2001, at 5:34:42
In reply to Re: Grinding the horse's bones into the ground, posted by danf on February 7, 2001, at 22:56:20
> oh well, just babbling along, wondering if I can make a good soup from ground up horse bones...
Good points. My only suggestion would be to add a few stalks of celery, an onion or two, bay leaf, maybe some vegetable bouillon... And how about some noodles? I think collectively we have enough salt and beans...
:)
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 22:23:16
In reply to Re: same questions coming up, posted by allisonm on February 8, 2001, at 5:29:51
> What would be the purpose of a board for oldtimers? Wouldn't "we" be perceived even more as a clique? How would you define an oldtimer?
Good questions... The main purpose, from my end, would be to provide some sort of perk or reward for participating (so the definition would probably be number of messages posted or something like that). What the oldtimers would use it for, I don't know, it would be up to them. Would it be something you'd be interested in? Maybe I need to think this through more -- or maybe it would just be a matter of seeing what happened.
Yes, whenever some people have something that others don't, there's the risk of feelings of envy, resentment, etc., and that would need to be weighed against the potential benefits.
Bob
Posted by shellie on February 8, 2001, at 23:08:26
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 22:23:16
> Good questions... The main purpose, from my end, would be to provide some sort of perk or reward for participating (so the definition would probably be number of messages posted or something like that).Many people who post a lot have given a lot of support and knowledge to the board; others who post alot have simply found a sounding board. Therefore to count amount of posts as a "reward" seems kind of strange to me.
My take on psychbabble is that besides the few people who ask specifically for scott, or johnL, or andrew; people who started out as receivers of information then become the next group of givers of that information. Maybe the old timers need not accept the responsibility of answering repetitive posts--and if a newby receives no reply, someone can simply direct them to the archives or the individual folders.
What is your expectation (or hope) of how long someone participates on this board? Especially someone who is no longer depressed. For me it seems a good thing for those who are getting less depressed to spend less time on this site, and move on to other aspects of their life. There is only so much time in a day.
So the concept of rewarding "staying" is also interesting to me. I think that as I get less depressed I respond less on the board because I spend more time doing other things. I still like to check in, but not as much as six months ago. This has more to do with my interests expanding than with problems on the board. I think I will always in some way relate to psychobabble and social-pb. I see it as a group of people who understand how depression (and/or mania) feels and are sharing and asking questions because they truely want to get better, with really very few exceptions. My depression has lessened (not gone away), but I am also keenly aware that what is working for me now may not be working next year; this board also helps me see "what's out there", concerning new meds and new combinations.
I guess what I am really saying is that I don't want to either be rewarded or penalized for the amount of time I spend on this board. Shellie
Posted by Neal on February 9, 2001, at 5:11:47
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers » Dr. Bob, posted by shellie on February 8, 2001, at 23:08:26
Rather than an "old timers" board, what about and "Advanced Topics" board where those who want to really get into D2 agonists, 5HT1d terminal autoreceptors, presynaptic alpha 2 heterorceptors, or just the latest research & exotic drugs from around the world, can jam. Maybe once in a while Dr. Bob could bring in a guest commentator who is actually doing research.
And as to the repetition on the board now, it seems to me that no new ground-breaking drugs have been released in the last 5 years; therefore not much to be excited about; and therefore a heightened interest in European drugs, anti-psychotics, mixing cocktails correctly, etc. Not saying any of these topics is wrong; but it shows to me that there just isn't much more to say about the SSRI's, is there?
Posted by dj on February 9, 2001, at 8:47:00
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Neal on February 9, 2001, at 5:11:47
I agree with Shellie. Enough boards here, already.
Posted by shar on February 9, 2001, at 13:11:31
In reply to Re: Do you guys think that Dr. Bob's article triggered » shar, posted by Rzip on February 7, 2001, at 3:10:13
Rzip:
You are very good at distancing yourself from "you guys." When I asked you how YOU felt about the things you asked, your response included little of your feelings, and you still talked about "people" and what they might have experienced.So, I have paraphrased the questions you asked of "you guys" and think it would be interesting if you answered them. Are you game?
1. Rzip, do you think that Dr. Bob's article somehow triggered the recent partings of some of the posters?
2. Rzip, if posters were triggered to leave because of the article, how and why do you believe this occurred?
3. Rzip, does the fact that Dr. Bob wrote an article and published it somehow make you feel uncomfortable?4. Rzip, do you feel there is a general air of discomfort in response to the article?
I am genuinely interested in your responses because you do have a tendency (IMO) to take an "us" and "them" stance toward the board. Almost as an evaluator of some sort, or a contributing professional. That results in "you guys" (other posters) not getting to know you very well. That is, getting to know how you feel about things, what is going on in your life, what you need to talk about to feel better, etc.
Of course, if your goal is to evaluate the board instead of partaking in it, or to offer professional analyses or questions in response to things that happen, then you can ignore the questions I asked above.
5. Rzip, is your goal to be more of a contributor or evaluator, vs. a participant in Psycho-Babble?
I encourage you not to leave the board in response to this message or personalize it too much. It is not a criticism, only an observation that could be TOTALLY WRONG, and an effort for me to learn about the real you and your goals.
Shar
Posted by shar on February 9, 2001, at 13:18:19
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 22:23:16
Dr. Bob,
I must say you are a brave soul to even consider a board for old-timers, given the s**t storms that have erupted over "cliques" and people feeling left out in the past--and feeling this in reaction to threads they could have participated in.I will watch with GREAT interest should you develop an old-timers board.
Shar........8-}
Posted by Noa on February 9, 2001, at 13:42:46
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers » Dr. Bob, posted by shellie on February 8, 2001, at 23:08:26
I, personally, don't feel a need for an oldtimer's board.
Posted by Noa on February 9, 2001, at 13:44:45
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Neal on February 9, 2001, at 5:11:47
> Rather than an "old timers" board, what about and "Advanced Topics" board ....
Now that is an interesting idea!
Would you allow some of us who are not that scientifically oriented to come and ask how things work?
Maybe it could be called the pharmocology or physiology board?
Posted by Rzip on February 9, 2001, at 14:13:44
In reply to Re: Do you guys think that Dr. Bob's article triggered » Rzip, posted by shar on February 9, 2001, at 13:11:31
Shar,
OK...
> 1. Rzip, do you think that Dr. Bob's article somehow triggered the recent partings of some of the posters?
Yes.
> 2. Rzip, if posters were triggered to leave because of the article, how and why do you believe this occurred?
I think they were disillusioned to believe that this is a private exchange service. Someone once mentioned a fireplace chat. So, (IMO) I do not think people realized that what goes on here can be put into a public arena (i.e. a publication). The reality of it of course, is that this is a public site and many millions of people checked into this site every day, worldwide.
> 3. Rzip, does the fact that Dr. Bob wrote an article and published it somehow make you feel uncomfortable?Yes, because I am a very private person. So, I do not like aspects of me to be shared in any public media. OTOH, that I am so private and internal is precisely the problem. So, in a sense, it is good that this is a public site. It is personal struggle for me (to let go of old habits and fears/anxieties). I kind of respond differently, depending how I am feeling.
> 4. Rzip, do you feel there is a general air of discomfort in response to the article?
I think there is an unspoken air of uneasiness. But, that is just in my opinion.
> 5. Rzip, is your goal to be more of a contributor or evaluator, vs. a participant in Psycho-Babble?
Contributor (Not a evaluator)...and I do not know how else to express this more clearly, I love being a participant on PB. I love it :-) It is such a joy to me to communicate back and forth. The problem is that I have an impulsive aspect to my personality, so things tend to get out of hand. I am learning when to pull back through. I just want to actually participate couple of times per week. But, I read the posts here couple of times per day :-)
Thanks,
Rzip
Posted by Greg on February 9, 2001, at 17:01:34
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 22:23:16
Bob,
Definitely a BAD idea. It appears that some of the problem here is that some of the newer members feel shunned or left out by some of the older members and a board targeted for just the old-timers would only serve to validate those feelings.
Besides, if I just found this board for the first time today, I would still have to be considered an old-timer... by definition of course :)
As always IMHO,
Greg> > What would be the purpose of a board for oldtimers? Wouldn't "we" be perceived even more as a clique? How would you define an oldtimer?
>
> Good questions... The main purpose, from my end, would be to provide some sort of perk or reward for participating (so the definition would probably be number of messages posted or something like that). What the oldtimers would use it for, I don't know, it would be up to them. Would it be something you'd be interested in? Maybe I need to think this through more -- or maybe it would just be a matter of seeing what happened.
>
> Yes, whenever some people have something that others don't, there's the risk of feelings of envy, resentment, etc., and that would need to be weighed against the potential benefits.
>
> Bob
Posted by allisonm on February 9, 2001, at 19:25:29
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 22:23:16
Bob,
I'm not sure that the risks don't outweigh the benefits. And I think we have quite a few boards already -- I have trouble sometimes keeping them all straight, but I'm getting better at it.
Maybe this subject justs needs more thought and conversation.Thanks.
Posted by Adam on February 9, 2001, at 23:31:19
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2001, at 22:23:16
I think the salient issue is "how to keep people here." Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems the "old-timers" board is a kind of carrot.
Howabout this? If there is some need to "elevate" the discussion, or provide extra stimuli for those maxed-out on some aspects of psychobabble (especially the highly recurrent ones that are to be expected of every newbie), lets provide something really new. Howabout a "guest expert" every so often, a periodic fresh face, someone who is willing, with certain disclaimers, of course, to come in every once in a while and answer science questions, maybe, or discuss what a particular diagnosis means, etc. I think if it could be made clear that this person wasn't there to service people medically, but merely to lend their expertise to answering questions for curiosity's sake, or to help someone understand what a particular term means, or something of that sort...
Well, I think that would be incredible. You know, kind of a psychobabble guest-speaker, a temporary participant every so often, who injected a little something extra into the discussion. I think both old-timers and newbies alike would have a ball with that. I think it would enhance other discussions by serving as a point of reference, as well. Few answers are as easily gotten or as well crafted as those formulated for a direct question. And isn't that why many of us are here? Not only to lend support, but also to get answers to questions?
> > What would be the purpose of a board for oldtimers? Wouldn't "we" be perceived even more as a clique? How would you define an oldtimer?
>
> Good questions... The main purpose, from my end, would be to provide some sort of perk or reward for participating (so the definition would probably be number of messages posted or something like that). What the oldtimers would use it for, I don't know, it would be up to them. Would it be something you'd be interested in? Maybe I need to think this through more -- or maybe it would just be a matter of seeing what happened.
>
> Yes, whenever some people have something that others don't, there's the risk of feelings of envy, resentment, etc., and that would need to be weighed against the potential benefits.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2001, at 3:22:57
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Adam on February 9, 2001, at 23:31:19
Sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread, I'll start a new one to continue this discussion.
Bob
Posted by shar on February 10, 2001, at 16:23:26
In reply to IMO... (I'm definitely gamed, Shar) » shar, posted by Rzip on February 9, 2001, at 14:13:44
Rzip:
Thanks!
In question #3, where the question asked you about how you felt, and you answered with how you felt, I felt more of a connection with you. Like you were giving of yourself and about yourself, instead of talking about "people" or things outside of yourself.
I would like it if you did more of that!
Shar
> Shar,
>
> OK...
>
> > 1. Rzip, do you think that Dr. Bob's article somehow triggered the recent partings of some of the posters?
>
> Yes.
>
> > 2. Rzip, if posters were triggered to leave because of the article, how and why do you believe this occurred?
>
> I think they were disillusioned to believe that this is a private exchange service. Someone once mentioned a fireplace chat. So, (IMO) I do not think people realized that what goes on here can be put into a public arena (i.e. a publication). The reality of it of course, is that this is a public site and many millions of people checked into this site every day, worldwide.
>
>
> > 3. Rzip, does the fact that Dr. Bob wrote an article and published it somehow make you feel uncomfortable?
>
> Yes, because I am a very private person. So, I do not like aspects of me to be shared in any public media. OTOH, that I am so private and internal is precisely the problem. So, in a sense, it is good that this is a public site. It is personal struggle for me (to let go of old habits and fears/anxieties). I kind of respond differently, depending how I am feeling.
>
>
> > 4. Rzip, do you feel there is a general air of discomfort in response to the article?
>
> I think there is an unspoken air of uneasiness. But, that is just in my opinion.
>
> > 5. Rzip, is your goal to be more of a contributor or evaluator, vs. a participant in Psycho-Babble?
>
> Contributor (Not a evaluator)...and I do not know how else to express this more clearly, I love being a participant on PB. I love it :-) It is such a joy to me to communicate back and forth. The problem is that I have an impulsive aspect to my personality, so things tend to get out of hand. I am learning when to pull back through. I just want to actually participate couple of times per week. But, I read the posts here couple of times per day :-)
>
>
> Thanks,
> Rzip
Posted by Rzip on February 10, 2001, at 17:10:09
In reply to Rzip Reveals--Yea! » Rzip, posted by shar on February 10, 2001, at 16:23:26
Shar,
> In question #3, where the question asked you about how you felt, and you answered with how you felt, I felt more of a connection with you. Like you were giving of yourself and about yourself, instead of talking about "people" or things outside of yourself.
>
> I would like it if you did more of that!I'll certainly try. Old habits are hard to break.
Right now, I feel very glad and giddy that you took the time to draw me out. I appreciate that very much. Thank you.
- Rzip
Posted by Cass on February 12, 2001, at 15:32:08
In reply to Do you guys think that Dr. Bob's article triggered, posted by Rzip on February 6, 2001, at 22:16:22
Since I haven't been around that much lately, I am not familiar with Dr. Bob's article. Did it include some excerpts of PB posters? If it did, I'm not sure I care since I am anon, but can someone give me the link? What was the article about?
Cass
Posted by Craig on February 13, 2001, at 2:42:12
In reply to Re: Do you guys think that Dr. Bob's article triggered, posted by Cass on February 12, 2001, at 15:32:08
Scroll up to the "The article" thread. Dr. Bob posted the link on 1/25/01.
************************
> Since I haven't been around that much lately, I am not familiar with Dr. Bob's article. Did it include some excerpts of PB posters? If it did, I'm not sure I care since I am anon, but can someone give me the link? What was the article about?
> Cass
Posted by Cass on February 13, 2001, at 16:47:09
In reply to Re: Do you guys think that Dr. Bob's article triggered » Cass, posted by Craig on February 13, 2001, at 2:42:12
Thanks.
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.