![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 41 to 65 of 161. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a ..., posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 4:08:28
> That still doesn't really address the issue. I'm not going to post there now (she says defiantly, then the next day, there's a hello from "Kingfish" :)).
Sorry, what issue?
In general, "multiple identities" tends to be a problem here, so I'd rather transfer your "membership" to Krazy Kat. I hope that's OK.
> I don't care if folks have their own groups... I Do think it's more appropriate elsewhere.
Why so?
> I think Fi summed it up best - it's just become much more complicated than it was.
>
> - kkI know. Oh, those simple days of yore. :-)
--------
> In a word, the 2000 board has created a CLIQUE, which imo is abhorrent and juvenile (geez, it harkens back to junior high and high school days).
"Clique" does have negative connotations, but as Phil says, PB itself could be seen as a clique. And in fact has been.
> I cannot believe what I've just read here - that people are actually be BLOCKED from posting on the old timers/200 board. Huh? So, now there's the CLIQUE of INSIDERS, the inner circle, the inner sanctum and there's the OUTSIDERS, those who are literally BLOCKED OUT. This is ABSURD.
This was discussed some before:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020308/msgs/4185.html
> I don't want to leave here (the info I've learned and people have been wonderful) ... I just hope I can get past some of these feelings. They're very raw right now.
>
> JanelleI appreciate that.
I do want to see if this can work and want continued input, so my intention is *not* to deflect criticism, but I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?
Bob
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 14:07:39
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
Dr. Bob:
Seems like a good time to look at this concept to me. If I recall correctly, you have advocated the good of the whole over the good of the individual here. I actually tend to lean more towards the Ayn Rand view overall, but that's neither here nor there.
I cannot see how this new board is good for the whole. Again, I can (happily) post there, but it still makes me feel odd.
Re: why should this be done elsewhere? Because it Can be interpretted as playing favorites, and isn't that something you're always trying to avoid with civility issues?
It seems like an odd thing for you to do, potentially destructive, though again, I certainly understand the "old timers" desire to "get together".
Isn't there a different solution?
- kk
Posted by SusanG on April 21, 2002, at 14:13:52
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
Dr. Bob I am just wondering....Suppose you were doing group therapy. This group occasionally admits new members, as some do. They contribute to the group as the others do even though they do not have as much "history" with the group as the original members do, and their contributions are valuable. Now one day, some of the original group members decide they want to catch up on some old issues and want to spend the first half of group time each week discussing these thing. The newer members are allowed to sit in their chairs, and listen, but can't speak, question or contribute. Good therapy? IMHO, no.
With regard to the idea that there are other groups out in the real world that are exclusive: sure there are. But many of the examples given don't really match this situation. It was my understanding that this board was created to provide an avenue for people....all kinds, shapes, and sizes of people...to share, support and learn from each other. Having any kind of situation here that excludes some (other than those being inappropriate) is, I feel, unwise, potentially quite hurtful, and not worth the ill will it has apparently created.
I'm feeling that we're all special, but here some are more special than others. Shades of Animal Farm.
Perhaps the "group" mentioned above should have just arranged to go out for coffee together.
Posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 14:33:36
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a ..., posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 4:08:28
Hi Janelle,
I must mention that you sound much better. What do you think? As I read through your posts on this thread, it occurred to me that you seem MUCH more focused. You expressed yourself so well. I do hope that you are feeling better.
Bekka
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 21, 2002, at 14:42:37
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
> I know. Oh, those simple days of yore. :-)
Hey bob.. you made me laugh!
Posted by DinahM on April 21, 2002, at 16:12:50
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
> > I don't want to leave here (the info I've learned and people have been wonderful) ... I just hope I can get past some of these feelings. They're very raw right now.
> >
> > Janelle
>
> I appreciate that.
>
> I do want to see if this can work and want continued input, so my intention is *not* to deflect criticism, but I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?
>
> BobI daresay that's true Dr. Bob. Those of us who weren't in the popular cliques in junior high or high school, and those of us who have a history of being excluded probably do feel worse at being excluded now. And you're asking because you think that makes the objections of those who have personal experience with the effects of exclusion less valuable? Or perhaps just less objective? And are less objective opinions on an issue of emotional rather than logical content less valuable or should they be given less weight?
I'm actually not aware of feeling personally hurt by the new board; I guess it's possible that I am hurt without being aware of it. I don't remember being hurt by cliques in my youth either. I always figured it was OK for people who liked each other and had a lot in common to hang out together. I remember being hurt by those who went out of their ways to pick on me, but I was sort of live and let live as to cliques.
But I'll admit to being annoyed at the institutional endorsement of this group, and more importantly the seeming dismissal of the hurt feelings of those who are hurt by the idea. I don't see that splitting the group into those who can or can't post on a certain board is good for the whole. I wholeheartedly endorse the opinion stated far more clearly by Susan G.
And while I see my objection as being based in principle not in personal feelings, I will keep your question in mind. Although perhaps you could clarify why you asked it, along the lines of my first paragraph.
Posted by DinahM on April 21, 2002, at 16:40:24
In reply to Re: those who have been neglected » Dr. Bob, posted by DinahM on April 21, 2002, at 16:12:50
Your question just struck me as an odd one, but I don't usually "hear" things in the way other people do, so perhaps it's just me. So I posted what was meant to be a philosophical discussion of the new board in the context of your question. But I don't know if the tone of my previous post came across that way. It seems in reading it over to be a bit confrontational, and I didn't mean it to be. Not this time. :)
Sorry again.
Posted by shar on April 21, 2002, at 19:45:07
In reply to Re: And one more thing!, posted by Phil on April 21, 2002, at 9:39:29
[Wow! This thread has so much energy in it!]
I notice that in some posts people use the term "this board" to refer to the web site. I wanted to point out that we have: the original PB (meds), PSocialB, Tele-Psycho (or Tell a Psycho as I like to think of it), PBAdmin, PB2000, PB book board, once was PBChildren board. That's 6 now, 7 tried so far. The 6 boards have fairly different levels of support to them, probably PSB and PB having the most. I worry when people stop making distinctions and begin to paint things with one broad brush (and/or using superlatives).
So, there isn't really "a" board now, like there was when I came (PB only).We've had other occurrences similar to the current one as the new boards cropped up, where feelings got hurt, people stopped posting for a period of time, there was polarization, etc. I expect that the uproar about the 2000 board will calm down--I hope so.
Hurt feelings suck--been there many times. Like the family this site is, there are bound to be ups and downs, healing, hurting some more....a big unpredictable series of events where people may meet in the middle on one issue, and be at opposite ends on another.
Above all, tho, we do seem to pull together and support each other pretty well overall, plus when we are shocked or shaken at the things that happen around us. I am thinking of Sar's death, of course, and 9/11, as examples that shook us all.
Shar
P.S. "I am a prestigious member of an old timers board for mentally ill people" - Phil, lol, gotta get those points in where we can!
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 19:58:59
In reply to The Bouncing Babble Boards , posted by shar on April 21, 2002, at 19:45:07
and please correct me if i'm wrong, that people have not been Unable to post before. if you are not registered before 2000, write a post and submit it, you are told you cannot post.
that's exclusionary.
Posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:28:42
In reply to the difference is... » shar, posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 19:58:59
read my next thread on here, directed to Dr. Bob! The wording of how you are blocked from posting on the new board is major league insulting, imo. Bad enough the existence of an exclusionary board that has divided this community, but check out my next thread where I get into how it's all worded. Ugh.
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 20:31:24
In reply to the difference is... » shar, posted by Krazy Kat on April 21, 2002, at 19:58:59
that comment of mine sounds really short - i'm sorry. i really didn't mean it that way...
Posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:37:34
In reply to You are right, Krazy Kat and it gets worse... » Krazy Kat, posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:28:42
Insult (literally) is added to the injury of the new exclusionary 2000 board by the message which appears when an OUTSIDER tries to post there. For kicks and grimaces I tried to post a test message there after reading on here that as an OUTSIDER I would be REJECTED, and I could not believe the wording of the rejection message! It is downright INSULTING. It says (and I have copied/pasted directly here): Sorry, but this board is restricted and you don't seem to have permission to post to it. If you think you should, please email me.
Excuse me, but PERMISSION? You don't seem to have PERMISSION to post to it? What's with PERMISSION - kindergardeners need PERMISSION slips to go on field trips. Geez.
If there's gotta be this exclusionary board, the very LEAST that could have been done should have been more sensitive, more politically correct wording of the rejection message, i.e., something along the lines of "this site does not seem to be AVAILABLE to you ..." (the rest is fine)
But to tell people they don't have PERMISSION to post there is, as I said above INSULTING. jmho.
Posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:47:59
In reply to In a word, the new board creates a - Janelle, posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 9:29:59
Hi Bekka,
At least SOMEONE (you!) agrees with and understands everything I said. It took me a LONG time and many revisions before I held my breath (I was a nervous wreck) and hit the "confirm" key to put up that thread on here about the CLIQUE created by the formation of the exclusionary 2000 board.
Wow, so you are also looking into other venues for support now, because it is clear that this is not the group you thought it was when you joined several months ago. Same exact thing here. Like you I will probably continue to post and read, but my feelings about PB have also permanently changed.
I didn't mention it in any of my threads here, but I am also appalled that Dr. Bob would allow and condone the OT board. I think you worded it PERFECTLY when you stated that you find it very worrisome that Dr. Bob, a psychiatrist, trained in mental health and human behavior, does not seem to see through what is going on here.
As for your inquiry about my health, how sweet of you to make the observation you did and to ask about me ... the answer is not what you might think, but due to the changing nature of this board, as much as I do want to share details with you, I do not feel comfortable opening up on here. Perhaps on PB we can catch up, but I'm not ready to even go posting on there as of yet. I'm still too shook up by the formation of the new board and what it stands for. I hope you understand.
Thanks for your interest!
Posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:36:20
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
Why do you want to "see if this can work"?Zo
Posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:40:04
In reply to Re: when i started posting, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 13:35:40
"I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?"
Is that really appropriate? No.
Does it give the impression we are not really heard? Yes.
Is it possible that something genuinely harmful to the board as a whole, and hurtful to a number of people, has occured?
Could you have made a mistake?
Zo
Posted by kiddo on April 21, 2002, at 22:33:55
In reply to dr. b, others, hurt feeling and old timers board, posted by Krazy Kat on April 19, 2002, at 10:46:19
I can't believe there weren't a few PBC's thrown into this one!
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:16:36
In reply to DR. BOB - ''permission?'' ''PERMISSION?'' ???, posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:37:34
> Re: why should this be done elsewhere? Because it Can be interpretted as playing favorites
>
> - kkHmm. So it would be OK if it were out of my hands, but I shouldn't encourage it?
I can see that a "frequent fliers" board would be playing favorites, but does that apply to "class of xxx" boards? I know right now there's just 2000, I guess one thing I need to do is get going on 2001...
--------
> Suppose you were doing group therapy. This group occasionally admits new members, as some do. They contribute to the group as the others do even though they do not have as much "history" with the group as the original members do, and their contributions are valuable. Now one day, some of the original group members decide they want to catch up on some old issues and want to spend the first half of group time each week discussing these thing. The newer members are allowed to sit in their chairs, and listen, but can't speak, question or contribute. Good therapy? IMHO, no.
But in this case nothing's taken away from the other boards...
> Perhaps the "group" mentioned above should have just arranged to go out for coffee together.
>
> SusanGAnd in fact it could be seen as going out for coffee on their own. Except that it's not as private. Would it be better if others couldn't listen in?
--------
> > I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?
>
> you're asking because you think that makes the objections of those who have personal experience with the effects of exclusion less valuable? Or perhaps just less objective? And are less objective opinions on an issue of emotional rather than logical content less valuable or should they be given less weight?
>
> DinahMI suppose, if pushed, I'd have to say yes, perhaps less objective. But I wouldn't say this is an issue of emotional *rather than* logical content, but one of both. Since there is the practical issue of how to proceed.
--------
> If there's gotta be this exclusionary board, the very LEAST that could have been done should have been more sensitive, more politically correct wording of the rejection message, i.e., something along the lines of "this site does not seem to be AVAILABLE to you ..." (the rest is fine)
>
> JanelleThanks for the suggestion, whew, it's nice to have something specific I can fix. :-)
Bob
Posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 23:38:52
In reply to To BEKKA H (Dr. Bob, you oughta read this too!) » Bekka H., posted by Janelle on April 21, 2002, at 20:47:59
Hi Janelle,
I was feeling so disgusted that I wasn't going to post on PB for a while, too, but then I ended up posting a few things there this evening. There is a lot of good on PB, but I still feel that the formation of a CLIQUE -- and Dr. Bob's endorsement of it -- is grossly inappropriate for this sort of community. On a much larger scale, this is how wars are started. We are all one people, but those who are insecure or narcissistic often feel the need to set up imaginary boundaries between themselves and others to give them the illusion of superiority or delusion of grandeur or some such thing. They probably need to fancy they are more special than the rest of us because they really don't feel special at all. I'm no shrink, but I've had a lot of therapy, my dad was a psychiatrist, I come from a medical family, I work in the medical field, and if I've learned anything in all these years of being surrounded by doctors, I've learned that doctors are human and fallible, just like the rest of us. Doctors burp and fart just like the rest of us, and sometimes they exercise very poor judgment.
Bekka
Posted by DinahM on April 22, 2002, at 0:29:15
In reply to Re: so much energy, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:16:36
Hmmm. I was afraid I had understood your question. I hope you don't mind, but I have taken the liberty of pasting your thoughts on this thread and your answer to JohnX2 on the next thread together. I left John X2's comment in solely for the sake of providing context for your answer.
From this thread:
> > > I do also wonder, maybe this is harder for people who've been neglected in the past?
> >
> > you're asking because you think that makes the objections of those who have personal experience with the effects of exclusion less valuable? Or perhaps just less objective? And are less objective opinions on an issue of emotional rather than logical content less valuable or should they be given less weight?
> >
> > DinahM
>
> I suppose, if pushed, I'd have to say yes, perhaps less objective. But I wouldn't say this is an issue of emotional *rather than* logical content, but one of both. Since there is the practical issue of how to proceed.
>
> --------From the next thread:
>> Does anyone besides me feel like they are "walking on egg shells" when posting to this web site?
>>
>> John>I know it can be an effort, but I do appreciate it. IMO, the fewer broken eggs, the better!
>Bob
Again, it may just be me, and I will undoubtedly see the truth of the matter later and regret posting this, but.... Isn't there a certain lack of congruence between your thoughts on the one thread and your thoughts on the other? Since your post on this thread seems to imply that less objective feelings should be given less weight, while on the other thread.... Oh well, if this makes any sense, fine. If not, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Posted by shar on April 22, 2002, at 1:52:00
In reply to To BEKKA H - Janelle, posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 23:38:52
Getting a bit far afield here, are we?
>We are all one people, but those who are insecure or narcissistic
often feel the need to set up
imaginary boundaries between
themselves and others to give them the
illusion of superiority or delusion of
grandeur or some such thing.>They probably need to fancy they are
more special than the rest of us
because they really don't feel special at all.Hmm. I may have illusions, delusions, be insecure, narcissistic, and not feel special at all thus need to fancy I'm more special than the rest...whew!...but that just means I'm generally screwed up, not that the 2K board 'membership' fills any of those alleged holes in my psyche. Would that it could heal me!
Shar
Posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 2:40:46
In reply to To BEKKA H - Janelle, posted by Bekka H. on April 21, 2002, at 23:38:52
Hi Bekka (a kindred spirit!)
I admire you for being able to get past your disgust and post a few new things on PB. I suppose in my heart of hearts I'll get to that point as well (heck, I'll have to - I've got health and med issues I need help with!) ... I'm just not there yet.
You are so right - there is a lot of good on PB, but I must echo your words that "the formation of a CLIQUE -- and Dr. Bob's endorsement of it -- is grossly inappropriate for this sort of community."
Interesting analogy you made to how on a much larger scale, this is how wars are started and your comments and insights on doctors and the med profession are terrific. In this case, a presumably good doctor and apparently well-meaning person has made a MAJOR MISTAKE with the formation of the exlusionary clique board.
Thanks!
Posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 2:45:17
In reply to For Bob to chew on » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 21, 2002, at 21:40:04
Zo - I realize we don't *know* each other well, but your name sure is familiar to me on here and I missed it while you were blocked. I must say, that in a few well chosen words (unlike me who runs off at the mouth!) you have raised some very important issues in this thread. Let's hope that Dr. Bob addresses them.
Posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 3:04:25
In reply to You couldn't have returned at a better time » Zo, posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 2:45:17
Well, as Dr. Bob indicated, there's now a 2001 posters board. Here we go ... soon there will be a 2002 and eventually 2003 and so on and so on ... what was once a cohesive family-like community will be unrecognizable.
It's rapidly becoming a totally fractionated (word?) - split and splintered bunch of separate, restricted clique message boards. This all seems so far askew from the intended(?) concept of a mutually supportive, caring website.
What is going on with the formation of these separatist boards defies comprehension. It makes no sense.
Posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 3:11:15
In reply to Up pops ANOTHER one... soon there'll be..., posted by Janelle on April 22, 2002, at 3:04:25
Dr. Bob - I'm flattered and honored that you took my previous suggestion about the wording of the blocking notification to heart and have already changed it. Thank you. :-)
I have one more suggestion that I apparently missed the first time around because I was so distracted and upset by the word "permission" -- do you really think it's necessary to bluntly state that the board the outsider is trying to post on is "RESTRICTED"??
It's obvious once the rejection notice pops up that there's a restriction - why must "this board is RESTRICTED" be slammed in someone's face?
Why can't the message simply say something like "This board does not seem to be available to you ... if you feel it should be, etc." Short, concise, factual statement, with no *igniting* or connotative type words! Whaddya think?
Posted by DinahM on April 22, 2002, at 4:48:33
In reply to Re: so much energy, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:16:36
Actually, CtrlAltnDel, probably has it right. The 2001 board probably should go uncommented on, but I'd like to try one more time, if I may...
First, I am sorry for my previous post. It is obvious that you ARE trying.
From some of your posts, I get the feeling you feel under attack. And I know that many posters feel misunderstood. And I'm very afraid that the 2001 board won't solve that, because... well I'm afraid that you might have misunderstood the objections to the 2000 board. Just my take on it you understand, but I don't think it's because everyone wants their own board.
So my final suggestion on the whole situation is this. Why don't you start a new thread on the topic. You can take a step back and listen rather than hear. We can take a step back and explain rather than get angry. Everyone can ask for clarification if needed.
And that's it for me. Because the part I was baffled and confused about was your part. I'm afraid that I may give you too much credit. A bad fault of mine. Projection I suppose. ;)
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.