![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 73 to 97 of 104. Go back in thread:
Posted by Shar on April 16, 2002, at 0:43:35
In reply to Re: can we just try it?!, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2002, at 9:30:18
>>I do think it's worth giving a try, but my inclination is not to leave it completely open. Since what would distinguish it from PSB then?
I think it would be an 'honor system' thing that people who post meet some criterion such as being registered on one of the Babble boards for a year, or whatever amount of time you want to make that.
This seems to be getting waaay too complicated. I didn't really envision an old timer's board being a substitute for PSB, but more of a reunion place. A place to connect. See who is still out and about. If anybody knows how Harry B. is. That kind of thing.
> And I'm still thinking about a number of "class of xxx" boards instead of just one reunion board.
Hmmm, now that would be interesting. That would mean if Phil, Greg and I joined in different years, we wouldn't be on the same board? Doesn't seem too appealing. Also, seems like the groups on the 'class of xxx' boards might be pretty small, considering that we are talking about (I would guess) a tiny subset of all registrants in year xxx.
>And what to do about ancient history, B.R. (before registration).
Have I got a solution for you! Just have it so that the BR group is grandfathered in, and then set some criterion for others joining if you want one.
Or! Even better, grandfather in EVERYONE registered, and the BR people, when the Reunion Board goes up. This would include current newbies, but will probably be viewed as more fair. Then, after the date the reunion board goes up, people could post there after being registered for however long you say.
Ta daaa! Easy squeezy!
>
> > > do you have concerns about having to monitor a new board? Will it add to your work load a lot?
>
>Or if there are lots of complaints. :-(Yes, complaints are a concern. I am not sure that the worries expressed so far would actually come true, at least if the reunion board is what I'm thinking it is...which is why I think we should just make a decision and do it. It's always (in my experience) easier to think of potential problems than benefits, and stringing it out has only led to repetition of previously voiced concerns.
Don't misunderstand...it's only right that people voice their concerns; my question is, how long does the fair hearing last?
I think the split from PB-only to PB and PSB took less time than this, and was a much more drastic step. At least from my perspective. Plus, I think registration was implemented around that time as well. A lot of change.
Let me know if I can help. 8:-)
Shar
>
> Bob
Posted by beardedlady on April 16, 2002, at 5:48:38
In reply to Re: can we just try it?! » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on April 16, 2002, at 0:43:35
I keep looking at this string of messages here, and I don't ever read any of them. Today, I just clicked on Shar's post, which had some of Willow's post in it, and I read a bit. But what I was going to say didn't change when I read the posts.
You sort of have that Old Timer's Board right here on PBA! Very few newbies ever read (or post) here because they're just not interested in this topic! So why don't you old-timers just put some really boring stuff in the subject line, so you'll know it's from each other, and voila! You've got your own board! (I am NOT being sarcastic, though I am sort of kidding.) Whoops. Except that I just now wedged my way in like a shim.
My point is really that you've been talking about it so long that I think it's the longest thread I've ever seen! So it seems you've already got a place. Maybe you can call your section "Old Timers Only" or "OTO," make it a different color with a little note that you must be a PB-er for one year to post there (through the good old honor system). Anyway, I agree with Shar; if you're gonna do it, do it. I don't think others would really be offended, unless it keeps you from speaking to us underlings. We would miss your wisdom (ancient though it is!).
butting-in beardy : )>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 10:34:45
In reply to Re: can we just try it?! » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on April 16, 2002, at 0:43:35
> > And I'm still thinking about a number of "class of xxx" boards instead of just one reunion board.
>
> Hmmm, now that would be interesting. That would mean if Phil, Greg and I joined in different years, we wouldn't be on the same board? Doesn't seem too appealing.Maybe people could have the option of changing their "official" year if they wanted to be in the same class as others? Don't schools do that? But probably it would need to go only from an earlier year to a later year.
> Also, seems like the groups on the 'class of xxx' boards might be pretty small, considering that we are talking about (I would guess) a tiny subset of all registrants in year xxx.
Maybe. But maybe small is good. And you never know...
> >And what to do about ancient history, B.R. (before registration).
>
> Have I got a solution for you! Just have it so that the BR group is grandfathered in, and then set some criterion for others joining if you want one.The problem with the BR group is that I have no way of really knowing who they are. The BR and AR Bobs, for example, are different people.
> I think we should just make a decision and do it. It's always (in my experience) easier to think of potential problems than benefits, and stringing it out has only led to repetition of previously voiced concerns.
I'd consider the decision made, but like I said, it's going to take me some time to set it up...
> I think the split from PB-only to PB and PSB took less time than this, and was a much more drastic step.
But it was less involved in technical and procedural ways, since it was an open board -- and also this is a busy time for me...
Bob
Posted by shelliR on April 16, 2002, at 13:24:17
In reply to Re: can we just try it?!, posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 10:34:45
How about just starting with one reunion board for the time being--in the form that you think best.
I agree with Shar, that this whole thing is getting too complicated.
Starting just one, might give you some opportunity to assess what the use is--in terms of type of posts and quantity of posters. Then you could think about whether reunion boards are really needed by year; I'm not sure (outside of the small group that wants this board), how interested anyone else is in preserving the core of their group during a certain year. Years seem so arbitrary on the boards where things seem change in cycles, unlike high school where almost all your friends were in your graduating class.
I think Shar and Greg are trying to recapture a specific cycle, not a specific year. Can we see how it works for them, before you start working out all the details for many reunion boards?
Shelli
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 16, 2002, at 19:47:57
In reply to Cuter even than my little cyber kitty! =^..^= (nm) » CtrlAlt n Del, posted by IsoM on April 15, 2002, at 21:06:04
freshly caught this morning.. (fish)
hi bob .. many apologies x
>~3))))'o>
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 20:03:31
In reply to Re: can we just try it?! » Dr. Bob, posted by shelliR on April 16, 2002, at 13:24:17
> How about just starting with one reunion board for the time being--in the form that you think best.
I thought of a different way to set this up, and it was a relatively simple, so go ahead and give it a try:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000
> I agree with Shar, that this whole thing is getting too complicated.
I agree with both of you! For one thing, I really couldn't figure out a good way to work in the BR period...
> Years seem so arbitrary on the boards where things seem change in cycles, unlike high school where almost all your friends were in your graduating class.
Maybe it isn't the best analogy to use, but let's see how it goes? It'll also be an experiment with a fixed membership, ie, no "newbies"...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on April 16, 2002, at 22:27:50
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 16, 2002, at 20:03:31
I don't agree with it. I don't think it's right. I think that regardless of whether people admit it or not, there will be hard feelings and people will be hurt over it.
Posted by Lini on April 16, 2002, at 22:54:59
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by kiddo on April 16, 2002, at 22:27:50
second that . . .i don't know why, but I can't seem to let this thread go, might be because Dr. B won't/hasnt answered my questions which is only fueling my annoyance with the whole thing further, and it might be because I have to take the GMAT tomorrow and I would rather complain about the creation of an OT board, than study.
i think that i actually don't even care about an OT board, but rather the discussion around it . . . people said that they felt like it was unsupportive and Dr. Bob didn't really seem to care or address it. (Am I projecting here? I can't tell) But I do feel annoyed and I hate to feel annoyed. :)
Anyway, the concept of the board never really made sense to me and no one was able to explain how it would be *more* supportive than what currently exists but um, i think i will go pop some Zoloft and study.
uncivily yours,
lini
Posted by IsoM on April 16, 2002, at 23:02:12
In reply to Re: little cyber kitty =^..^= has a treat ! » IsoM, posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 16, 2002, at 19:47:57
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 0:19:54
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000 » kiddo, posted by Lini on April 16, 2002, at 22:54:59
> people said that they felt like it was unsupportive and Dr. Bob didn't really seem to care or address it.
I've been nodding in agreement with what others have been saying, but I guess you didn't notice. :-)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are two main concerns:
1. It'll draw people away from the other boards. That's possible, but (a) it might not (the book club board was brought up as an example, and this board could be another), (b) it might in fact do the opposite (if they keep checking a reunion board they might be less likely to drift off completely), and (c) even if it does (PSB may in fact have drawn some posters away from the main PB), that would seem to imply that those posters get more out of a group like that, which is something positive for them.
2. People will feel excluded. (a) Yes, but even now, A may feel excluded if B responds to C instead of to them. But does that mean B shouldn't support C? (b) As Tina said, "at some point, everyone becomes an oldtimer".
> um, i think i will go pop some Zoloft and study.
I hope you finally did hit the books after you complained. :-) Good luck tomorrow!
Bob
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 17, 2002, at 4:39:14
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 0:19:54
how about an "outsiders" board for all us strange incomprehensibles
'<{{{{{6~~ (carrot)
(\/)
(';')
(")(")_
Posted by Willow on April 17, 2002, at 8:30:12
In reply to Re: little cyber kitty =^..^= has a treat ! » IsoM, posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 16, 2002, at 19:47:57
Posted by kiddo on April 17, 2002, at 8:56:27
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 0:19:54
Need to think on #1.
> 2. People will feel excluded. (a) Yes, but even now, A may feel excluded if B responds to C instead of to them. But does that mean B shouldn't support C? (b) As Tina said, "at some point, everyone becomes an oldtimer".
> BobI don't think A would feel excluded if D, E, or F responded; however, they may feel slighted by B. On the other hand, I think A may feel excluded by B and C if they were given special 'status' or treatment because B and C were around longer and given a separate place for them to post where A wasn't allowed to based on the length of time they'd been around.
Yes, at some point everyone does become an "old-timer" but it's "Psycho-Babble 2000" for those that have been here before or during Y2K. So regardless of when you become an "old timer" it makes no difference.
I don't think I should be given special treatment because I've been here longer than say.....Janelle (no offense dear :-) ) because I've been here longer than her...
I just don't think it's right--
Kidd
o
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 9:23:16
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by kiddo on April 17, 2002, at 8:56:27
> I don't think A would feel excluded if D, E, or F responded; however, they may feel slighted by B. On the other hand, I think A may feel excluded by B and C if they were given special 'status' or treatment because B and C were around longer and given a separate place for them to post where A wasn't allowed to based on the length of time they'd been around.
Even if D, E, and F still responded?
> Yes, at some point everyone does become an "old-timer" but it's "Psycho-Babble 2000" for those that have been here before or during Y2K. So regardless of when you become an "old timer" it makes no difference.
It makes no difference that they would get Psycho-Babble 2001 or Psycho-Babble 2002 or something?
> I don't think I should be given special treatment because I've been here longer...
Well, that makes you special, so you *should* get special treatment. :-) But you're free, of course, to decline to participate. Like no one *has* to go to their class reunions...
Bob
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 17, 2002, at 20:36:15
In reply to Use the bones to make a good fish chowder! (nm) » CtrlAlt n Del, posted by Willow on April 17, 2002, at 8:30:12
Dearest Willow,
Thanks for the recipe but it doesn't appeal to my palette -tis the bacon that's a no no.
Hmmm can I create a cute pig -OINK!
</. . ' Q______,?
(oo)\~
bOB don't know how to re-direct but I'll have a go so no TUT TUTS if it don't work: )YUCK! UGLY FISH CHOWDER
1 pound frozen or fresh fish fillets
2 cups cubed, pared potatoes
2 teaspoons salt
1/2 teaspoon pepper
3 slices little piggy
1/2 cup chopped onion
2 cups milk
3 tablespoons flourThaw frozen fish . Cut fish into 2-inch pieces. Cook potatoes in 2 cups of turpentine for 5 minutes. Add fish, salt and pepper. Simmer, covered; for 10 to 12 minutes. Cook little piggy until crisp. Drain and mummble; reserve drippings YUCK!!. Cook onion in drippings. Add crumbled bacon OINK! and onion to fish mixture. Slowly blend milk into flout; add to chowder. Cook, stirring constantly until hand aches. Makes 6 servings if lucky.
Posted by Lini on April 17, 2002, at 20:54:25
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 0:19:54
>2. People will feel excluded. (a) Yes, but even now, A may feel excluded if B responds to C instead of to them. But does that mean B shouldn't support C? (b) As Tina said, "at some point, everyone becomes an oldtimer".
touche. yes. but, here are my bones (can you believe i am still typing about this?) what if i think that it is a good idea to have a Woman's only board. Or an African American's only board? Because it supports me (exclusively) does that mean that it is supportive to everyone? not really, and therefore, I wouldn't want it to be created. I guess, to me, the creation of an OT board signifies that *all* of our needs should attempt to be met here in Dr. Bob's world, and I guess I am always suspect of that, so I am completely obsessing over what I perceive as an attempt at that. (sorry to take all ya'll down this road with me).
This is what happens when you don't continue therapy, you find things/people that represent your issues and you talk them to death. Poor Dr. Bob. :)
toodles,
the L
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 21:06:48
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Lini on April 17, 2002, at 20:54:25
> what if i think that it is a good idea to have a Woman's only board. Or an African American's only board? Because it supports me (exclusively) does that mean that it is supportive to everyone? not really, and therefore, I wouldn't want it to be created.
But nothing's supportive for *everyone*...
> I guess, to me, the creation of an OT board signifies that *all* of our needs should attempt to be met here in Dr. Bob's world, and I guess I am always suspect of that, so I am completely obsessing over what I perceive as an attempt at that.
If the site can meet the needs of more people, isn't that a good thing?
Bob
PS: So how was the GMAT?
Posted by Shar on April 17, 2002, at 21:22:42
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 21:06:48
Would you be willing to put the PB 2000 name (or maybe a descriptive name like "Reunion Board") in the top section with PB, PSB, etc.?
And, were you planning to say anything about having a new board on PSB? Like, I think you did a kind of announcement thing when you set up the Children's board.
If you don't want to announce (like on PSB), I will, but you know I am offending people left and right as it is. Some may even decide not to talk to me anymore! I don't mind making a wave or two, but I'm up to tsunami's now, I think.....8-&
Shar
Posted by Lini on April 18, 2002, at 11:25:56
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 21:06:48
>If the site can meet the needs of more people, isn't that a good thing?um, well, yes. but it's a slippery supportive slope (i think i will copyright that phrase). For us unstable folks, we like things to be defined. I bought into the whole concept of boards by "topic" not by any sort of characteristic of the people that post. And when things head in that direction, well, people either get left out or special treatment. A "topical" approach lets people decided whether it makes sense for them. An OT board doesn't let people decide, because if you don't have the particualr characteristic that the board caters to, than you're locked out. (dramatic, but you get my point). SO, have I thoroughly made myself clear young man? :) Be glad that we're not face to face, I talk alot faster than I type.
On to other pleasant topics, the GMAT was an absolute terror. I am considering suing the Educational Testing Services for post-traumatic stress disorder. :) I did not do as well as I would of liked - I am already waitlisted at two Iveys, so I was hoping to dazzle them with my new scores, however, I will have only succeeded in humoring them with my attempts.
If only I had left the topic of OT boards alone and studied. Hahaha
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2002, at 14:11:58
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000 Listed in top section? » Dr. Bob, posted by Shar on April 17, 2002, at 21:22:42
> Would you be willing to put the PB 2000 name (or maybe a descriptive name like "Reunion Board") in the top section with PB, PSB, etc.?
>
> And, were you planning to say anything about having a new board on PSB? Like, I think you did a kind of announcement thing when you set up the Children's board.No problem, I just wanted to get it up and make sure it was running OK first. I should be able to get to it sometime this weekend.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2002, at 14:16:28
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Lini on April 18, 2002, at 11:25:56
> I bought into the whole concept of boards by "topic" not by any sort of characteristic of the people that post. And when things head in that direction, well, people either get left out or special treatment... if you don't have the particualr characteristic that the board caters to, than you're locked out.
Right, but if there's a reunion board for you, too, or a men's board in addition to a women's board, wouldn't that be OK?
> Be glad that we're not face to face, I talk alot faster than I type.
OK, I'm glad. Another advantage of the online medium. :-)
> I am already waitlisted at two Iveys
And already in somewhere else? Good luck with your score, and with the wait lists...
Bob
Posted by Lini on April 18, 2002, at 14:58:39
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2002, at 14:16:28
>Right, but if there's a reunion board for you, >too, or a men's board in addition to a women's >board, wouldn't that be OK?
yes, but are you really going to sign up to make sure everyone has a board that works best for them? cause we're talking major boards, if you look at your crowd.. . . .in that light:
Top Five Suggested New Boards
1. A "newbies" board: this would teach everyone that just found their way here how to search the archives and come up with a clever screen name. To advance to the "regular" PB and PSB you would have to pass a civility test.
2. A "Blocked" board: this would be for everyone that has been blocked. People could compare war stories and lesson learned, and wait patiently for their week to be up in the comfort of the uncivil. Swear words allowed.
3. A "Lou's Gates" board: This way Lou could converse directly with those interested in finding out just where the knight on the white horse went. Plus, he could have the free speech Dr. Bob continually denies him.
4. A "Dr. Bob's World" board. This is where Dr. Bob could post what he's really thinking about some of the posts people write and not have to worry about "ethics" and "civility" and "research"
and "rules"5. And finally, a "Lini creates/complains about new boards" board. Hhhmm, pretty self explanatory, but at the very least, this thread could die out peacefully . . .
;) See the pandora's box you invite!
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 18, 2002, at 15:13:12
In reply to Re: Boards! (Bored), posted by Lini on April 18, 2002, at 14:58:39
> Top Five Suggested New Boards
:-)
> at the very least, this thread could die out peacefully . . .
Well, this time period should be archived soon...
Bob
Posted by kiddo on April 18, 2002, at 15:44:07
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble 2000, posted by Dr. Bob on April 17, 2002, at 9:23:16
> Even if D, E, and F still responded?
Never really thought about that one. I guess that would depend on the mindset of A (I think). I think some would, some wouldn't.
> It makes no difference that they would get Psycho-Babble 2001 or Psycho-Babble 2002 or something?
If each class had one, that would be different I think. IMO people wouldn't feel excluded because each one would have their special "board". But is that really something you want to take on? I mean, sheesh, you must run in circles now :-)..sometimes I wonder if you sleep at all.
> Well, that makes you special, so you *should* get special treatment. :-) But you're free, of course, to decline to participate. Like no one *has* to go to their class reunions...
>
> BobI wasn't expecting an answer like that, and I have to admit it really threw me. That 'special' comment made my day. I can't recall anyone telling me that before for whatever reason (except my shrink-and he doesn't count because I pay him). I don't have the option to "decline", I'm not allowed to participate :-)
IMO, the OT board was misunderstood, (myself included) and snowballed from there. A "reunion" board I have no problem with, I thought it would turn into another PSB exclusive to old-timers and take away from what the offer to PSB.
Kiddo
Posted by susan C on April 18, 2002, at 18:07:07
In reply to Re: Boards! (Bored), posted by Lini on April 18, 2002, at 14:58:39
OK
I Read Every Post On This Subject And I Am ConfusedMaybe This Is What They Mean When They Say Regarding A Research Study That It Was "Poorly Designed"?
I Am Entertained By Lini's Five Suggestions
And Finally:
I Went To An Experimental College. The Reunions Are Not By Year You Graduated, They Are By The Current Year Of The Reunion. That Year Is Based On How Many Years The Reunion Is From The Time The College Opened...You Can Go If You Ever Were Accepted Into The College...Or Were Friends of People Who Were Students...Or Worked In The Food Service...Or...
Last Year's Mouse
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.