![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 94 to 118 of 161. Go back in thread:
Posted by beardedlady on April 24, 2002, at 5:08:35
In reply to Re: Gimme some truth » trouble, posted by Shar on April 24, 2002, at 0:56:11
I always love your posts--especially your explanation posts. The napkin to the corner of the lip is priceless. I almost got a picture of you doing it, but I pictured you with long-ish blonde hair and wings (that '70s name for bangs that are parted and feathery). Did you say that you were a writer in real life?
beardy : )>
Posted by Lini on April 24, 2002, at 9:56:24
In reply to Re: Greg - Look what's happened! » Lini, posted by Greg on April 23, 2002, at 20:46:02
One year wait? Okay. Agreed!
Posted by Lini on April 24, 2002, at 10:28:20
In reply to Re: how wars are started, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 20:25:24
> So, Doctor with the Surfboard (Phil's posts are pretty damn funny) what shall be the resolution?
It's too early to say. I'm just trying to ride this wave. :-)
> How many people have to hate the idea before it gets booted and how many people have to love it before it stays permanently?
>
> LiniIn both cases, just one. :-)
Silly Me! I confused this for a democracy! I do that sometimes, it's the politician in me. Do let us know what you decide, and if you have rationale, that's even better (but of course not required, this being your board and all)
I have to say, the whole thing has gotten amusing. This is quite the experiment in online group psychology. Don't know if you have the best subjects though . . . :)
Either way, if you have a sense of humor, I bet we make great research! Are you going to publish a paper about the "out" versus "in" group, or the effects of adding an exclusionary variable in an online environment?
Good stuff! ;)
Posted by Shar on April 24, 2002, at 14:45:28
In reply to Shar, you're great. » Shar, posted by beardedlady on April 24, 2002, at 5:08:35
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 24, 2002, at 18:51:42
In reply to (I am a writer wannabe in real life.) Thanks! (nm) » beardedlady, posted by Shar on April 24, 2002, at 14:45:28
are writer wannabe's... perhaps that's why we're so cranky. :)
'Separate the "struggle" from the "artist"' my favorite woodstock fortune teller/advisor suggests. otherwise that's always how you'll always think of yourself.
i just love her...
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 19:15:03
In reply to Re: how wars are started, posted by Lini on April 24, 2002, at 10:28:20
> I have to say, the whole thing has gotten amusing. This is quite the experiment in online group psychology. Don't know if you have the best subjects though . . . :)
I'm biased, of course, but I do think I have the best subjects. :-)
> Either way, if you have a sense of humor, I bet we make great research! Are you going to publish a paper about the "out" versus "in" group, or the effects of adding an exclusionary variable in an online environment?
So many papers, so little time...
Bob
Posted by Zo on April 24, 2002, at 23:12:00
In reply to Re: great research, posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 19:15:03
Posted by Mitchell on April 25, 2002, at 1:46:21
In reply to Re: so much energy, posted by Dr. Bob on April 21, 2002, at 23:16:36
> And 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?
Absolutely. It might be interesting to compare hypothetical abhorrent social motivations for a sub-group to conduct an exclusive conversation that could be heard but not joined by the rest of the group against hypothetical reasons a sub-group would consider it educational or supportive to publish its exclusive conversation for the rest of the group to see.
Posted by Phil on April 25, 2002, at 7:09:40
In reply to Re: so much energy » Dr. Bob, posted by Mitchell on April 25, 2002, at 1:46:21
Absolutely. It might be interesting to compare hypothetical abhorrent social motivations for a sub-group to conduct an exclusive conversation that could be heard but not joined by the rest of the group against hypothetical reasons a sub-group would consider it educational or supportive to publish its exclusive conversation for the rest of the group to see.
~~~~~~~~~
Uh....exactly, what he said. It's a reunion board. I don't think any of us are geniuses considering that we are educating people by writing the same goddamn things we've been writing since we arrived here.
But, hey, it's something to ponder.
"1972 graduates of a high school in Texas kill
1971 graduates because they had a 30 year class reunion first." This is all too weird. I don't like studies, I try to just get by.
Posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 10:37:00
In reply to Re: so much energy, posted by Phil on April 25, 2002, at 7:09:40
Only in Texas!
Basically these boards are like rooms. Usually we get to run around, in and out or whichever room we want. Now you guys have gone and locked the door to one and we're all standing outside banging our heads up against it. We don't particualry want to go in your room, we just want the door to be unlocked. See what I mean? Just providing a room that we can lock ourselves in doesn't really solve it.
But, Dr. Bob, like a janitor, has got all the keys, so party on. If you guys don't mind all of us on the other side of the door, we'll probably get tired and go to our own room to bitch. :)
such is life!
Posted by Shar on April 25, 2002, at 12:10:25
In reply to Re: so much energy » Phil, posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 10:37:00
>We don't particualry want to go in your room, we just want the door to be unlocked. See what I mean?
L-
I think people would not be any happier if the door was unlocked but still closed.Using your analogy--If the boards are rooms we can run in and out of, the 2000 board is IMO not really one with a closed and locked door. It is one that has an open door and a doorway at which you can stand and hear/read all the conversation and see who is in there. You just can't go inside and converse. Which ought to be ok if you meant it when you said "We don't particualry want to go in your room..."
Shar
Posted by Anyuser on April 25, 2002, at 12:52:19
In reply to Re: so much energy » Phil, posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 10:37:00
> Only in Texas!
>
> Basically these boards are like rooms. Usually we get to run around, in and out or whichever room we want. Now you guys have gone and locked the door to one and we're all standing outside banging our heads up against it. We don't particualry want to go in your room, we just want the door to be unlocked. See what I mean? Just providing a room that we can lock ourselves in doesn't really solve it.
>
> But, Dr. Bob, like a janitor, has got all the keys, so party on. If you guys don't mind all of us on the other side of the door, we'll probably get tired and go to our own room to bitch. :)
>
> such is life!Lini,
I agree with everything you have to say on this topic. When we catch one of the Kool Kids wandering outside their private room, complaining about how we outsiders just don't get it, we should give them a wedgie. :)
Posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 13:14:59
In reply to Re: so much energy » Lini, posted by Shar on April 25, 2002, at 12:10:25
>L-
I think people would not be any happier if the door was unlocked but still closed.Using your analogy--If the boards are rooms we can run in and out of, the 2000 board is IMO not really one with a closed and locked door. It is one that has an open door and a doorway at which you can stand and hear/read all the conversation and see who is in there. You just can't go inside and converse. Which ought to be ok if you meant it when you said "We don't particualry want to go in your room..."
Shar
I must have been unclear, cause you're missing my point . . . standing at the door and looking in, however not being able to converse, is pretty much equivalent to the door being locked, closed, an invisible force field, a junk yard dog or anything else that basically says NO TRESSPASSING. (ie. no posting)The issue is that the boundary exists, not what's on the other side. Get it? I have no interest in a reunion board, but I am interested in the concept of exclusiveness, or separateness or no tresspassing and how it relates to a support group. I think that this is a pretty simple concept to get.
You don't need to feel like you have to justify the reunion boards existence - you didn't create it. If Dr. Bob created a "Lini and Friends" board, you'd bet I'd be on there, enjoying it, and feeling pretty supported, but it wouldn't be a mystery to me why others might be offended...
Posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 13:16:48
In reply to Re: so much energy » Lini, posted by Anyuser on April 25, 2002, at 12:52:19
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 25, 2002, at 13:43:27
In reply to Re: so much energy » Lini, posted by Shar on April 25, 2002, at 12:10:25
i really admire your posts and would love to converse with you further here or There. :)
but there is a difference - when one Can access something and chooses not to, it's their choice. when one Cannot access something, it places them in an inferior position.
why do i seem to be the only "old timer" who sees this?
just confused.
- kk
Posted by DinahM on April 25, 2002, at 14:17:07
In reply to oh, shar, it's so different..., posted by Krazy Kat on April 25, 2002, at 13:43:27
> i really admire your posts and would love to converse with you further here or There. :)
>
> but there is a difference - when one Can access something and chooses not to, it's their choice. when one Cannot access something, it places them in an inferior position.
>
> why do i seem to be the only "old timer" who sees this?
>
> just confused.
>
> - kkKrazy Kat, I just love you. And I don't say that often. :)
Dinah
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2002, at 14:35:31
In reply to Re: so much energy, posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 13:14:59
> Basically these boards are like rooms. Usually we get to run around, in and out or whichever room we want. Now you guys have gone and locked the door to one and we're all standing outside banging our heads up against it. We don't particualry want to go in your room, we just want the door to be unlocked.
If you don't want to go in, does it matter if the door is locked?
> Just providing a room that we can lock ourselves in doesn't really solve it.
Why not?
> If you guys don't mind all of us on the other side of the door, we'll probably get tired and go to our own room to bitch. :)
I guess that would be one way of supporting each other, but I'd rather have these new boards come together in a more positive way. I guess that's civility again...
> The issue is that the boundary exists, not what's on the other side. Get it? I have no interest in a reunion board, but I am interested in the concept of exclusiveness, or separateness or no tresspassing and how it relates to a support group.
Think about the people inside the boundary, not the people outside. Sometimes it's nice to be with those you've shared experiences with. But including just them means excluding others.
Bob
Posted by DinahM on April 25, 2002, at 15:06:21
In reply to Re: rooms and doors, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2002, at 14:35:31
> > Just providing a room that we can lock ourselves in doesn't really solve it.
>
> Why not?
>
Because, Dr. Bob, if we are opposed to exclusion, providing us with our own exclusive domain will not solve our moral objections. As I said before, I will not post in the 2001 room because the dear friends I met in 2002 are not welcome there, the dear friends I have yet to meet in 2002 and 2003 are not welcome there, and my dear friends who began posting in 2000 or before are not welcome there. That's why. Sigh.> > If you guys don't mind all of us on the other side of the door, we'll probably get tired and go to our own room to bitch. :)
>
> I guess that would be one way of supporting each other, but I'd rather have these new boards come together in a more positive way. I guess that's civility again...
>
I'd like to have the whole site come together in a more positive way. That's civility too.
>
> Think about the people inside the boundary, not the people outside. Sometimes it's nice to be with those you've shared experiences with. But including just them means excluding others.
>
It's all too obvious that you are thinking of the people inside the boundary, not the people outside. Including just them DOES mean excluding others.But I'm going to quit wasting my breath, or fingers. And one day, Dr. Bob, I am going to have my mother come give you that little talk.
Posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 15:10:43
In reply to Re: rooms and doors, posted by Dr. Bob on April 25, 2002, at 14:35:31
>Think about the people inside the boundary, not >the people outside. Sometimes it's nice to be >with those you've shared experiences with. But >including just them means excluding others.
>Bob
Hhhm, I think you're finally getting through to me here. So, *the* most supportive thing for OTs could be a reunion board? I think that that could be valid. The only thing that remains however is how "unsupported" those outside the boundary feel, and if one group's "support" should usurp anothers.I don't envy your position, the scales you have to use, but I guess we're going to have to rely on your judgement. Besides the obvious fact that you can do whatever you want with YOUR board, you are also (i hope!) a little more plugged into "health" in the mental sense.
Best wishes
Posted by DinahM on April 25, 2002, at 15:23:18
In reply to Re: rooms and doors » Dr. Bob, posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 15:10:43
Because I sure don't. And I don't like how it makes me feel about Babble. And I don't like how it changes my view of Dr. Bob.
I too appreciate the time he gives to running this site.
But I don't appreciate that he doesn't seem to be listening. He doesn't have to end up agreeing. But it would be nice if he was listening. Perhaps that's just my perception. I suppose if I could hear him repeat back the objections in a way that gave me a sense he understood them....
Oh well.
Posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 16:02:37
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand. » Lini, posted by DinahM on April 25, 2002, at 15:23:18
Dinah,
Yeah, I was pretty bothered about it when I first read about and OT Board, but I do appreciate the discussion around it, and I think that I do *understand* the sentiments on both sides finally. Though my vote would of course be to forgo additional boards, I think what Dr. Bob is trying to ride out whether the support an OT board affords those that have felt disconnected is worth the annoyance/hurt that others will feel by its creation.
I basically think that there are alot of things that could be done to help people feel more supported (things I have alluded to in humor and seriously in other posts) but I really think that people should try and find a way to connect/be supportive on PSB, not create more boards. I think its a can of worms to start creating special "rooms" to help people out cause it will get endless. (and by this I mean exclusive rooms, not the PSB/PB split)
Adapting is a fact of life, and I am not sure that creating a special board for people to catch up on is better than encouraging OT/Newbies to try to figure out a way to catch up/connect/be supportive with what currently exists. I do think that PSB can get a little rowdy, but I would rather see people figure out how to navigate and be supportive/connected there, than for people to retreat to their own corners.
SO, I am sorry that it bothers you, and if it was my board, it would be different, but there would probably just be something else that upset people, because it really is hard to please everyone. That's why it's best to stay out of the pleasing business. :)All the best to you Dinah, glad you're here.
Posted by Phil on April 25, 2002, at 18:22:11
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand. » DinahM, posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 16:02:37
Even if people were successful in 'closing' the OT board, you would piss the OT's off and then you would probably lose a lot of people.
There's really no turning back unless the board doesn't attract enough people.
We can debate this till the cows come home but it's a done deal.
If we get a lot of the OT's back and you find that you relate to what they're saying; post on PSB that you want to talk to geezer boBB. Everytime I come to PB, I visit PSB, geezer board, and lately, this board. If the person you want to talk to missed you post, we could relay the message. Meanwhile more new people are arriving, etc. It could ACTUALLY be a positive move for everyone. Especially if we get boBB back.
Posted by Anyuser on April 25, 2002, at 19:05:10
In reply to Can we end this???????, posted by Phil on April 25, 2002, at 18:22:11
> Even if people were successful in 'closing' the OT board, you would piss the OT's off and then you would probably lose a lot of people.
>
> There's really no turning back unless the board doesn't attract enough people.
>
> We can debate this till the cows come home but it's a done deal.
>
> If we get a lot of the OT's back and you find that you relate to what they're saying; post on PSB that you want to talk to geezer boBB. Everytime I come to PB, I visit PSB, geezer board, and lately, this board. If the person you want to talk to missed you post, we could relay the message. Meanwhile more new people are arriving, etc. It could ACTUALLY be a positive move for everyone. Especially if we get boBB back.I, for one, think it's an interesting topic. If others think it's interesting and want to talk about it, what's the harm?
Posted by Shar on April 26, 2002, at 0:55:22
In reply to Re: Can we end this??????? » Phil, posted by Anyuser on April 25, 2002, at 19:05:10
> I, for one, think it's an interesting topic. If others think it's interesting and want to talk about it, what's the harm?
......I guess your definition of talking about an interesting topic is pretty different from mine:
>When we catch one of the Kool Kids wandering outside their private room, complaining about how we outsiders just don't get it, we should give them a wedgie. :)
.......or, maybe the message above is exactly the type of thing you like to contribute to group discussions.
Shar
> > Even if people were successful in 'closing' the OT board, you would piss the OT's off and then you would probably lose a lot of people.
> >
> > There's really no turning back unless the board doesn't attract enough people.
> >
> > We can debate this till the cows come home but it's a done deal.
> >
> > If we get a lot of the OT's back and you find that you relate to what they're saying; post on PSB that you want to talk to geezer boBB. Everytime I come to PB, I visit PSB, geezer board, and lately, this board. If the person you want to talk to missed you post, we could relay the message. Meanwhile more new people are arriving, etc. It could ACTUALLY be a positive move for everyone. Especially if we get boBB back.
>
Posted by Shar on April 26, 2002, at 0:58:53
In reply to Can we end this???????, posted by Phil on April 25, 2002, at 18:22:11
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.