![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 122 to 146 of 161. Go back in thread:
Posted by Janelle on April 26, 2002, at 2:09:59
In reply to Re: Can we end this??????? » Shar, posted by Anyuser on April 26, 2002, at 1:41:10
> We disagree about what's interesting. But why not ignore the thread if you're not interested? What's your purpose in trying to stop others from discussing it?
Absolutely ... those who are no longer interested or are burned out by this discussion can chose simply to ignore the thread. There are still some of us who are bothered and feel the need to continue the discussion.
Posted by Janelle on April 26, 2002, at 2:12:11
In reply to Should we PBC Dr. Bob? :-) (nm) » Janelle, posted by kiddo on April 26, 2002, at 2:07:49
Dr. Bob himself admitted that the new boards *exclude* people, which has been a bone of contention with them.
Posted by Phil on April 26, 2002, at 7:27:46
In reply to LOL, but I was trying to make a point..! » kiddo, posted by Janelle on April 26, 2002, at 2:12:11
Old-Timers, including me, have a new board. We post on it, you don't.
Y'all have no middle ground and seemingly ignore or still make sarcastic remarks when someone makes a suggestion.
I'm leaving this discussion because I feel like I'm wasting time.
Yes. The board excludes new people. Either you like the idea or not. Don't like it, sorry.
I'll let you guys figure out the magic words to make the 2000 board disappear.
WE HAVE AN OLD TIMERS BOARD FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED THIS SITE LONGER. WE POST ON IT, YOU DON'T. WE LIKE THE BOARD dR bOB SUPPORTS IT.
LET IT GO......
YOU ARE NOT AN OT, IT'S AN OT BOARD. WE POST, YOU CAN READ. OKAY??BYE
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 26, 2002, at 10:14:49
In reply to Re: How about this? Then I'll go, posted by Phil on April 26, 2002, at 7:27:46
i really find most of your posts supportive and certainly understand that bad feelings have arisen because of this discussion, but what did you expect?
and how can you use terms like "sarcastic" and capital letters (a big no, no in the cyber world, you know) and not consider that you've lowered yourself to whatever level you think the non-old- timers are sitting on?
frankly, i don't think it is going to end until the board is opened up. perhaps you should stop posting to this thread, stop reading it, and stick to the new board.
i may see you over there - i hope, if so, we can converse like we have before and leave this here. it is an administrative issue.
- :( kk
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 26, 2002, at 10:18:51
In reply to Re: How about this? Then I'll go, posted by Phil on April 26, 2002, at 7:27:46
again, i prefer as open a forum as possible, and i feel this thread should continue as long as it has life.
but it's getting pretty raunchy based on pbc rules. i can't even point them all out here w/o a great effort - and it's new And old timers.
can you step Dr. B and try to bring it back to topic? or maybe it Does need to end...
some of the insults directed At specific people - my, my.
- kk
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2002, at 10:37:56
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand. » DinahM, posted by Lini on April 25, 2002, at 16:02:37
> > > 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.OK, I think I see now, if you're opposed to exclusion as a matter of principle, then it doesn't have to do with whether you yourself are excluded or not.
But aren't these other rooms also exclusive to some extent? Since I block people?
> 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.
>
> DinahMThose who feel no special affinity for others from their year won't be interested in these rooms. That's OK. Not everyone goes to their class reunions, either. Speaking of which, are you morally opposed to them, too?
--------
> I think you're finally getting through to me here.
Finally! :-)
> So, *the* most supportive thing for OTs could be a reunion board? I think that that could be valid.
> 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.Right. And also it's not like the class of 2000 has the only special room, the class of 2001 has one, too. Which they could do something nice with instead of boycotting...
> I think its a can of worms to start creating special "rooms" to help people out cause it will get endless.
OK, but we're a long way from endless, and isn't some degree of diversity usually a good thing?
> 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.
>
> LiniI don't think it's either-or. Encouragement like that would be great! But, you know, I might rather have people do one thing, and still they might do something else...
Bob
Posted by Shar on April 26, 2002, at 13:15:45
In reply to Re: Can we end this??????? » Shar, posted by Anyuser on April 26, 2002, at 1:41:10
>What's your purpose in trying to stop others from discussing it?
Far be it from me to stop others from doing anything on these boards. Expressing my opinion that this is getting nowhere fast (if people are interested in resolving a situation they see as problematic) and believing that getting nasty to or about others serves a purpose antithetical to problem resolution, doesn't mean I want to stop others from "discussing" anything. No matter how "discussion" is defined.
So, let the posting continue...or not! I have no power or say so at all over who does what. And, don't think I should. I have an affinity for the truth, and when "discussions" begin to consist of name-calling and sarcasm, the truth is they are no longer about resolving a problem, or voicing an opinion on an administrative issue. So, IMO, we should not pretend that those posts contribute anything positive to the discussion of the situation at hand, or resolving the problem at hand.
Shar
Posted by Lini on April 26, 2002, at 13:27:11
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand., posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2002, at 10:37:56
Maybe it would have made more sense to create a reunion board and not block people, unless it became necessary? The people that have an affinity for special topics (books, OTs, tele-whatever it is) can then have their room, newbies/older OTs can jump in every now and then, but it would still be that particular year's "special" room, just without the door being locked. If someone steps all over things and makes a mess, then boot them out. (No initial PBC, just stright to the Please get the hell off this particular board, also known as PGTHOTPB)
I just think maybe you could solve both problems by having these reunion "rooms" or special focus "rooms" and also having them be open. Just like I don't post in the book club cause it just ain't my thing, i wouldn't post in 2000, cause it ain't my thing either. BUT should a book, or a topic come up that I have something to add to, I might. I haven't seen people being unsupportive in tele-psycho babble or the book club, so i would have to assume that the reunion board could continue to be supportive and still be open. . .
and by the way, if someone goes to their class reunion, they can usually bring whoever they want as their guest, so your reunion board is actually *more* exclusive than an actual class reunion. AND, (while I am splitting hairs) I am not actually boycotting the 2001 room, I am just not interested in it. Okay? :)
Cool.
(Sorry Phil. This thread just won't die).
Posted by Shar on April 26, 2002, at 13:36:28
In reply to phil - -, posted by Krazy Kat on April 26, 2002, at 10:14:49
> frankly, i don't think it is going to end until the board is opened up.
I think, unless pressure is applied to posters, that the 2001 board will slowly begin to be used, and after a couple of weeks or so, this will all be a moot point.
I don't think the boards will be opened up, and IMO they should not be. Now, whether people will continue to post to admin and lobby for the boards to be opened up, I don't know...I do know that if they do, they have a lot more energy than I.
Only a handful of us are still "discussing" the issue...relative to all posters at this site. That doesn't mean we should stop, just an observation that it doesn't seem to be a major problem for most people. Or, if it is, they aren't expressing it.
Shar
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 26, 2002, at 14:09:03
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand. » Dr. Bob, posted by Lini on April 26, 2002, at 13:27:11
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2002, at 14:12:33
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand. » Dr. Bob, posted by Lini on April 26, 2002, at 13:27:11
> Maybe it would have made more sense to create a reunion board and not block people, unless it became necessary?
But if they're open, they're not really any different from PSB, are they?
> and by the way, if someone goes to their class reunion, they can usually bring whoever they want as their guest, so your reunion board is actually *more* exclusive than an actual class reunion.
OK, you got me there. I did mention a long time ago the possibility of people from one year "sponsoring" those from others, but thought that might be a can of worms...
> If someone steps all over things and makes a mess, then boot them out.
One aspect of this I've alluded to is that these boards aren't just exclusive, they have fixed memberships. So they may in a way be safer: people can't crash the party and "step all over things" like they can at an open board.
> AND, (while I am splitting hairs) I am not actually boycotting the 2001 room, I am just not interested in it. Okay? :)
OK! :-)
Bob
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 26, 2002, at 14:12:36
In reply to When will it end? » Krazy Kat, posted by Shar on April 26, 2002, at 13:36:28
Posted by CtrlAlt n Del on April 26, 2002, at 14:54:52
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand., posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2002, at 10:37:56
> Right. And also it's not like the class of 2000 has the only special room, the class of 2001 has one, too. Which they could do something nice with instead of boycotting...No...no need for myself to rush into nice clean snow .
Oh boy ...I hope this burns itself out
Misunderstandings all round...
I can't see the funny side anymore...
Posted by Zo on April 26, 2002, at 18:40:11
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand., posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2002, at 10:37:56
>Speaking of which, are you morally opposed to them, too?Please don't exaggerate or make assumptions about others, Dr. Bob.
>Which they could do something nice with instead of boycotting...
Try maybe seeing their point of view?
Zo
Posted by Phil on April 26, 2002, at 18:45:59
In reply to phil - -, posted by Krazy Kat on April 26, 2002, at 10:14:49
I've offered suggestions to help make this work.
It's almost like nobody reads it and just repeats that it's exclusionary.I did wake up in a rotten mood this morning but I'm frustrated. That's why in my life, I avoid this kind of discussion. And I don't do commitees.
I do have a breaking point and am not going to continue on this board. This will be the Middle East Peace talks of babble. And yes, occasionally when I get angry, I'll get dirty with those that have opposing views. I don't want to be blocked or I can promise you, it would have been much worse. Again, that's why this just doesn't interest me anymore.
The board excludes people.
A. Yes, it was designed that way.
But that's exclusionary.
A. See above.
But that's not fair.
A. No it's exclusionary.
See, you said it too.
A. Yes, I did.
But you're excluding people.
A. I've offered ideas to make it obvious that, if you want to speak to someone on 2000, you can!
But we can't post.
A. No, it's exclusionary. What about the ideas offered?
We don't want that board exclusionary....
Hey, carry on without me.
Posted by jay on April 26, 2002, at 19:44:08
In reply to Re: KK: That's why I said BYE., posted by Phil on April 26, 2002, at 18:45:59
Just a few other points as I have posted in the below thread. I can see the direct effects on PB this day, and that is MANY people are going without support so we can have the PB exclusive country-club for 'old-timers'. If it directed help away from you a few years ago when you first started on here, you would be p****d off too. There is *no* need for this, period.
Jay
Posted by jay on April 26, 2002, at 19:52:11
In reply to Re: Can we end this - ITA ... » Anyuser, posted by Janelle on April 26, 2002, at 2:09:59
> > We disagree about what's interesting. But why not ignore the thread if you're not interested? What's your purpose in trying to stop others from discussing it?
>
> Absolutely ... those who are no longer interested or are burned out by this discussion can chose simply to ignore the thread. There are still some of us who are bothered and feel the need to continue the discussion.Yes, I agree Janelle. Maybe those who are no longer 'interested' would like their own board too?
If this where an 'actual' support group, which it seems to be modeled around, splitting it up and making exclusive rules for some would be abhorrent, and a complete disaster. Seems to be going that way, too.
Jay
Posted by Bekka H. on April 26, 2002, at 20:55:12
In reply to Elitist, and takes help away from others/newbies, posted by jay on April 26, 2002, at 19:44:08
Since PB has resorted to creating factions and exclusionary groups, how about a board for Whites only -- no other racial groups allowed. And how about one for Blacks only? I hope I didn't leave anyone out. If I did forget some racial or ethnic groups, maybe they can form their own "support" faction, and although they won't be welcome to post on the Black board or the White board, they are allowed to meet at the back of the bus.
Posted by Zo on April 26, 2002, at 20:58:29
In reply to Re: KK: That's why I said BYE., posted by Phil on April 26, 2002, at 18:45:59
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 26, 2002, at 21:09:36
In reply to Re: KK: That's why I said BYE., posted by Phil on April 26, 2002, at 18:45:59
you're wearing me out, phil
Posted by jay on April 26, 2002, at 22:43:47
In reply to No Blacks allowed; No Whites allowed , etc, posted by Bekka H. on April 26, 2002, at 20:55:12
I am sorry for my rant above. I still believe in what I said, but minus the anger. Thanks for listening anyhow..Jay
Posted by kiddo on April 26, 2002, at 23:09:43
In reply to No Blacks allowed; No Whites allowed , etc, posted by Bekka H. on April 26, 2002, at 20:55:12
Posted by jay on April 27, 2002, at 1:11:18
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand., posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2002, at 10:37:56
> > > > 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.
>
> OK, I think I see now, if you're opposed to exclusion as a matter of principle, then it doesn't have to do with whether you yourself are excluded or not.
>
> But aren't these other rooms also exclusive to some extent? Since I block people?
>
> > 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.
> >
> > DinahM
>
> Those who feel no special affinity for others from their year won't be interested in these rooms. That's OK. Not everyone goes to their class reunions, either. Speaking of which, are you morally opposed to them, too?Bob, I likened PB in many ways to a support group. I have noticed a *dramatic* drop on the main PB of replies 'older' PB'ers could contribute to, but don't since they prefer to have their exclusive domain. (And many have even admitted they like having their problems only discussed with an 'exclusive' group of people. If even an informal group therapy or counseling session was run like that, and only certain rules applied to certain people, it would be a disaster and quite a nasty thing.)
I honestly believe we are taking away from newer people who may get less support because of this new setup. I think all's you would have to do that is to calculate some numbers on who is in the 2000/2001 groups, and what they are providing to the main PB vs. pre-2000/2001 groups.
I think you should also look at the number of replies vs. requests for help, as well as length of threads on PB. Please, don't ignore this negative impact. I know you don't mean it to be such, but we can't ignore the numbers and impact/level of support on PB.Thanks for listening...
Jay
Posted by Janelle on April 27, 2002, at 2:05:32
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand (I don't!) » Dr. Bob, posted by jay on April 27, 2002, at 1:11:18
As Jay has mentioned in a thread above, I have also noticed a *sizeable* drop on the main PB of post that 'older' PB'ers could contribute to, but no longer seem to be doing.
Therefore, I agree with Jay in his belief that we are taking away from newer people who may get less support because of this new setup (i.e., the creation of the new boards).
I would like to ask you to consider doing what Jay has suggested - to calculate some numbers on who is in the 2000/2001 groups, and what they are providing to the main PB vs. pre-2000/2001 groups.
I would also ask that you consider his sugestion to also look at the number of replies vs. requests for help, as well as length of threads on PB before the new boards versus after the new boards.
I think Jay has a VERY valid point. There appears to be some *negative* impact on what was your original *baby* - the PB board, by the creation of the new boards.
I will echo Jay in saying that I also know you don't mean it to be this way, but the numbers and impact/level of support on the original PB shouldn't be ignored.
Thank you.
Posted by allisonm on April 27, 2002, at 6:48:25
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand (I don't!) » Dr. Bob, posted by jay on April 27, 2002, at 1:11:18
Hi Jay,
I don't disagree with your idea to compare postings on PSB now with previous periods, but I would suggest Bob wait a little longer. I don't think there has been enough time to collect enough information (postings) to have an accurate count. I suspect that a lot of time and energy lately has been devoted by everyone to the PBA site sted PSB.
As for my own situation, I don't post on PSB. I haven't in more than a year, probably closer to 2 years. There is no one I know there, and I am not about to trust my situational problems with folks I don't know. I posted there a few times in the past when I was a newer member and when the board was new, and I am not sure it worked out so well. So yea, this 2000 board has something to do with trust also because I know these people. There are a lot of new people and I have gotten into uncomfortable, unsupportive discussions with them in the past. If you take the here and now, why in hell would I want to talk about anything personal, when people (listed off the top of my head) like you and Jannelle and Bekka and Anyuser are not only unsupportive but pretty much not nice at all. After reading the names you have called the older members and after reading your perceptions of how you think we are (elitist and pretty much contemptible and evil), NO! I'd confide in a person off the street (and I have) before I would say anything on the PSB board.
Also, since my Dx 4 or more years ago, I don't feel such a need to discuss life/social problems because I know I'm the one who has to live with them and deal with them myself. No one can help me there...
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.