![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 43. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 9, 2001, at 22:38:16
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers, posted by Adam on February 9, 2001, at 23:31:19
> Howabout this? ... 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.
Ask, and you shall receive. :-)
Bob
Posted by Cece on June 26, 2001, at 0:51:37
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers - Oh No... » Dr. Bob, posted by Greg on February 9, 2001, at 17:01:34
Could someone please tell me what this 'article' is and how I can find it to read. I seem to have missed out on this info, wherever it appeared.
From these boards, I have great respect for Dr. Bob and would trust that he would use what he has learned from all of us in a construtive manner.
Another question for you'all- what exactly do you mean by 'personal' posts? Do you mean telling your personal history rather than just sticking to actual med info? Your story was quite creepy Alison, and definitely has given me pause.
Thanx,
Cece (not really an old-timer, but nice to see names on this thread that I haven't seen on posts for awhile)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2001, at 2:51:06
In reply to Re: board for oldtimers - Oh No..., posted by Cece on June 26, 2001, at 0:51:37
> Could someone please tell me what this 'article' is and how I can find it to read. I seem to have missed out on this info, wherever it appeared.
>
> From these boards, I have great respect for Dr. Bob and would trust that he would use what he has learned from all of us in a construtive manner.Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, but let me know what you think after you see it, too. :-)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
Bob
Posted by grapebubblegum on June 27, 2001, at 11:14:32
In reply to Re: this 'article', posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2001, at 2:51:06
But could someone point me to the "really creepy story" by Alison, if it is appropriate to ask? My voyeurism is showing. I just want to know if it is an internet-related issue.
Anyway, more importantly, I have to say that I have posted on message boards and I have run my own for a while and I closed it down recently. For what it is worth, I want to let everyone know that being a board operator must have the highest rate of burnout of any paid or non-paid profession or hobby.
I used to be critical and obnoxious at times when I was simply a poster (not implying anything about anyone except myself) and then when I ran my own board I quickly saw how very critical and demanding my posters could be (and also, coincidentally, how many of them are total sweethearts), and I gained an appreciation for how much work and heart goes into running a large board for hundreds of readers and posters. Dr. Bob deserves lots of credit; I buckled from the stress after a short while and closed my board down. I've learned some lessons, though, and if I ever open another board I will have gained some experience and I will structure it far more carefully ahead of time. I've been on all sides and I know what it is like to want, ask, and even half-kiddingly demand changes from the owner of the board I like to frequent, although I would like to think that for the most part I have been the "easy" and pleasant variety of board poster; I've also seen that I have at times spent way too much time reading and posting to boards and should spend less time on them; as I said, I've seen what it is like to manage one and the way that inevitably becomes a time-eater...
Also, everyone should keep in mind that everything we write here is as good as a piece of paper posted to every grocery store corkboard all over the world. People can copy, print, circulate, and use every single character you type as they see fit. And people can have little files with everything you've written, and keep tabs on your IP address and such, and go around reading what you write for as long as you post on the internet, although hopefully that would not happen and people can "stalk" passively or actively in real life just as they can facilitated by the internet, but remember that just posting on the internet makes much more "public" figures of all of us, so....
Sorry to sound scary and gloomy. On the other hand, with proper precautions and a knowledge of the public-ness of what you write, the internet is a tremendous resource whether you choose to use it passively (just reading) or actively (interacting with others.) Keep in mind that this board, like all boards (the internet has only been actively used by anywhere close to as many people as it is being used right now for just a few years, remember) is a work in progress. This is just my long-winded way of tipping my hat to Dr. Bob. I've already mailed him a private hat-tip, so he does not need to acknowledge this. ;o)
Posted by grapebubblegum on June 27, 2001, at 15:31:25
In reply to Pardon me for coming into this conversation late, posted by grapebubblegum on June 27, 2001, at 11:14:32
If it is the one farther up in the thread (Allison's story). Please disregard my request for a pointer, then.
Well, then it goes back to what I was saying above about all of these posts being public record. Kind of daunting at times. On the internet as in real life, it is too bad that a few weirdos have to spoil the experience for the rest of us but I guess that is just the way it goes. Sorry to hear of that horrifying experience, though, Allison, and the others you mentioned.
I also got a weird request a few months ago to join a bulletin board designed for the sole purpose of basically ranting about how SSRIs are the work of the devil. I glanced at it enough to see that I don't agree, and I wondered how the parties involved got my e-mail address. Most likely from here, if I even made my address public (I don't know.) I just considered that the electronic form of third-class mailing list junkmail and shrugged it off.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 28, 2001, at 8:25:48
In reply to Pardon me for coming into this conversation late, posted by grapebubblegum on June 27, 2001, at 11:14:32
> This is just my long-winded way of tipping my hat to Dr. Bob. I've already mailed him a private hat-tip, so he does not need to acknowledge this. ;o)
I hope it's OK if I do, anyway. Thanks! :-)
Bob
Posted by sar on June 30, 2001, at 13:17:29
In reply to Oh, I think I found it, posted by grapebubblegum on June 27, 2001, at 15:31:25
Where is the article Dr. Bob wrote? How would I go about finding a copy? I'm just curious.
by the way, Dr. Bob, I've been very appreciative of you for a few months now. but i was shy to tell you. thanks for the board.
sar
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.