![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 134 to 158 of 161. Go back in thread:
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...
Posted by tina on April 27, 2002, at 11:20:57
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
> 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.Jay
I can't remember who posted it or which board it was posted on, but someone said that they don't post at the PB board anymore because "if they see another *weaning off effexor* thread, they'll go crazy" or something to that effect. This is one of the main reasons I believe that the PB posts have decreased. OT's now have a place to post where most of the other posters already know what they are taking, what they are talking about in therapy and how long they've had their illnesses, what weaning feels like and what new med side effects are so we don't need to go over it again and again and again. The same questions are being asked over and over on that board and frankly, if the poster simply searched the archives before posting, they could easily have their questions answered without a word on the actual board.
It's just easier to discuss one's situation with the ones who already know all about it. I confess it's a real pain to have to explain one's "cocktail, past traumas and therapy sessions" with every new person who joins the board. The OT's don't have to anymore and it's comfortable and familiar once again.But, that's just my take on it.
T
Posted by Lini on April 27, 2002, at 14:56:05
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand (I don't!) » jay, posted by tina on April 27, 2002, at 11:20:57
Tina -
I think that you have valid points, and I do understand the creation of an OTs board, but I *don't* understand why it necessarily has to be "exclusive." I think "reunion" boards are different from PSB and PB for exactly the reasons you mentioned, BUT, I am not sure it would take anything away from the OT board if it wasn't just limited to OTs. For example, there are people that maybe didn't join in 2000 that know what's going on with you and have provided support - why block them from catching up with you just because they joined at a different time? I just don't see the value of it, but I definitely see the negative impact it has had(OT vs. New, all this traffic on PSA etc.).
The concept of a reunion board makes sense, but I think it could happen naturally, with people who have established relationships finding their way to their own "room." This whole "the year you joined" thing is arbitrary and doesn't signify anything except division.
I have said this before, but the same way that the book club "room" attracts readers, the reunion rooms will attract those that know each other! I think that if Bob really wanted to end this subject simply keeping the reunion rooms and ending the exclusiveness would solve it. Everybody would be happy. But I doubt it would make a good research topic.
-L
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2002, at 19:18:31
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
> I have noticed a *dramatic* drop on the main PB of replies 'older' PB'ers could contribute to, but don't
Sorry, what exactly was it that dropped dramatically? You don't by any chance have numbers, do you? I'd be interested...
> 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.
What rules apply to only certain people? Most therapy groups are limited to a certain number of people...
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2002, at 19:37:38
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand (I don't!) » jay, posted by allisonm on April 27, 2002, at 6:48:25
> people ... 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.
I wish we could discuss this without people taking things so personally. So many people seem to be feeling rejected. :-(
Bob
Posted by allisonm on April 27, 2002, at 22:45:08
In reply to Re: please be civil » allisonm, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2002, at 19:37:38
> > people ... 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.
>
> I wish we could discuss this without people taking things so personally. So many people seem to be feeling rejected. :-(
>
> BobOK, Dr. Bob. Your point is taken.
I guess I shouldn't take offense to posts like this:
--Next thing you know, the "Old Timers" board members will feel so special, superior and power-hungry, their own exclusionary board won't be enough for them. They'll want to take over all of PB, and no one new will be allowed. The old timers will take over, eventually they'll lose interest or die off, and PB will cease to exis…In any event, I think the idea of exclusionary boards is great. Let's have as many factions as possible. Now that Dr. Bob has
endorsed the concept of "The Other," we know which ones we should hate. After all, it's all for the benefit of our "Mental Health."--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.
--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'.
--"I don't quite get why this 2000 board is such a huge deal. I'm an old timer."
...Well, then, maybe that explains why you don't get it.
--On the other hand, the really scary thing is the mere existence of a voluntary and exclusive club of "old timers." Why would one seek information or advice from an old timer? Who on earth would want to belong to such a club?
Yes, well, Dr. Bob, a long time ago this used to be more of a supportive place. So I've been here long enough to be an "old-timer." So you create a board. I think it's nice to talk with people whose names I have not seen in quite awhile. Then all at once, I'm elitist, I belong to a country club, an exclusive domain. All at once being an "old-timer" I get categorized as someone too stupid and uninformed to "get" someone's post and I/we are characterized as something akin to a pariah.
Sorry, I stand by my post that these people are not only "unsupportive but pretty much not nice at all."
Basically the overarching message I'm hearing is: you're privileged, you're elitist, you're shutting us out, we hate you. I truly would be out of my mind to post anything personal with this much animosity.
What have I/we done to be blasted and blamed like this other than to have stayed on as members of these boards for a few more years? Yea, I take this personally.Call me uncivil. Take me off this board. You would be doing me a favor.
Allison
Posted by allisonm on April 27, 2002, at 22:55:30
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by allisonm on April 27, 2002, at 22:45:08
>>Call me uncivil. Take me off this board. You would be doing me a favor.<<
Dr. Bob,
Apologies. You have enough to deal with right now. I'll do myself that favor.
Posted by Janelle on April 28, 2002, at 2:14:31
In reply to Nevermind, Dr. B, posted by allisonm on April 27, 2002, at 22:55:30
figure out why you singled me out with those others as being unsupportive, not nice, etc., when I have tried SO hard to word my posts carefully, etc.
What have I said or done that has made you feel I've been unsupportive or not nice? Can you cite something SPECIFIC? I'd be more than glad to read and consider it.
All I was doing was just expressing my feelings ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS here I might add, about the new boards, and I was a nervous wreck hitting the "confirm" button during one particular post.
Ironically, I can recall a specific instance in which YOU were not nice to me but I will be civil and refrain.
Well, be happy because you have won. I will return to read any response you might have, because I really want to know what on earth caused you to label me the way you did, but I will NOT be posting here any more. Your comments hurt me beyond belief and I no longer feel comfortable at this site.
Posted by Janelle on April 28, 2002, at 2:19:22
In reply to Nevermind, Dr. B, posted by allisonm on April 27, 2002, at 22:55:30
>, 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)
Allisonm, PLEASE realize that I was NOT one of those who EVER called the OT "elitist" or "contemptible" or "evil" -- my threads here PROVE that. I never ever used any of those words. I called the new board "exclusionary" that is the only adjective I EVER used. I am stunned and shocked that you claim I used words that I NEVER EVER did.
Posted by Janelle on April 28, 2002, at 2:48:44
In reply to Re: please be civil » allisonm, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2002, at 19:37:38
I am SOOOO out of here. You won't see another post from me. I cannot and will not deal with having been singled out (in another thread further above) by name as being unsupportive and not nice when all I was doing was expressing my feelings like so many others, and being FALSELY accused by the same person of using certain words to describe OT's, words which I NEVER used, i.e. having words put in my mouth that were never there.
Posted by Janelle on April 28, 2002, at 3:08:10
In reply to Re: please be civil » allisonm, posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2002, at 19:37:38
There is one person who I dare not name because I do not single people out by name whose posts are ALL OVER this board, many of that person's posts are downright mean, use swear words and put down others, are sarcastic, poke fun of others, yet this person has not gotten a PBC? Something is dreadfully wrong with this picture imho.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 28, 2002, at 9:49:06
In reply to I cannot for the life of me » allisonm, posted by Janelle on April 28, 2002, at 2:14:31
> > I wish we could discuss this without people taking things so personally. So many people seem to be feeling rejected. :-(
>
> Sorry, I stand by my post that these people are not only "unsupportive but pretty much not nice at all."Sorry, I'm going to block you from posting for a week then.
> all at once, I'm elitist, I belong to a country club, an exclusive domain. All at once being an "old-timer" I get categorized as someone too stupid and uninformed to "get" someone's post and I/we are characterized as something akin to a pariah.
>
> What have I/we done to be blasted and blamed like this other than to have stayed on as members of these boards for a few more years? Yea, I take this personally.
>
> AllisonThat's the point, you haven't done anything. So I wish you wouldn't take it personally. Or at least not post anything uncivil. Don't you remember how this works?
--------
> All I was doing was just expressing my feelings ALONG WITH MANY OTHERS here I might add
Two wrongs don't make a right.
> Ironically, I can recall a specific instance in which YOU were not nice to me but I will be civil and refrain.
Sorry, but even that could be taken as accusatory, so I'm going to block you from posting for a week, too.
Bob
Posted by Anyuser on April 28, 2002, at 11:58:26
In reply to Re: I'm glad you understand (I don't!), posted by Lini on April 27, 2002, at 14:56:05
Exclusiveness limits (1) size and (2) turnover.
I understand that in a smaller, sustained group some conversations can be had and some relationships can be formed that would be problematic in a larger, continually changing group. To me, the best analogy is to group therapy. "Group therapy" may, indeed, be a description more than an analogy. Imagine being in therapy with the same group of 15 people for a couple of years, and compare that to a situation where scores if not hundreds show up, and 75% at any given time are newbies that you know probably won't show up at the next meeting. Where the analolgy breaks down is that the 2000 board is a small, sustained group in a sound-proof room, but there is a gang of protestors in a different room that can hear what's going on in the sound proof room, and they're steamed. Occasionally, an OT will leave the sound proof room to confront the protestors.
So, I can understand why OTs would benefit from exclusiveness and I can understand why the group host would want to create one or more exclusive enclaves where narratives and familiarities can develop. But I also can understand in this particular case why outsiders resent the OTs. In just the way it came in to being, outsiders could sense, rightly or wrongly, that they were being excluded from an elite, not allowed to sit at the grownup table, not allowed to join in all their reindeer games.
From the group host's perspective, the OTs probably are a special group, but not necessarily for the qualities the OTs would attribute to themselves. By knowing how the 2000 board was created, but before reading a single post, you can know this about OTs (as a group, on average): (1) They stick around. Compare this to the 48% that split after one post. (2) They don't seem to get better. Compare this to the vast majority (if you believe the drug cos and advocates of talk therapy) that shake off their mood disorder within a year or so. (3) The group has a much higher concentration of "very important posters" and a lower concentration of sinister "determined individuals" as defined by Dr. Bob.
Even so, you can't possibly have an "us" without a "them," and this particular "us" rankles some of "them," at least for the moment. The "us" has already been around for a couple of years and the "them" turns over continually. It will be interesting to see if the cycle of resentment and defensiveness burns itself out or is continually renewed by fresh "them."
Is there a way to create the benefits of exclusiveness without causing resentment? You say the whole year-you-joined thing is arbitrary and doesn't signify anything but division. I think it's not arbitrary enough, and I think signifying division could be a good thing, if you buy into the benefits of exclusiveness. I think it would be interesting if Dr. Bob were to create a number of exclusive groups that were absolutely random, with no notional raison d'etre at all. Announce the establishment of exclusive panel A, open to the first 50, or whatever, subscribers. When panel A is full, announce the opening of panel B. New friendships, narratives, etc., could form in the exclusive groups. New very important posters could emerge. There would be no grounds for resentment, because the establishment was completely random, first come first serve. At any given moment subscription to a new exclusive panel would be available to a newcomer. You like what you see in panel A, B, etc.? They're looking for new members for panel E, being formed now. Group identity would be promoted by having numerous groups, and with any luck people would be more tolerant and less touchy with members of their own exclusive group. It would also be interesting to compare the development of the different exclusive groups. The boards would be different. Some would be more successful than others. Jeez, group A is at it again, throwing dishes around and screaming at each other. Group B is so boring, all they want to do is talk about dopamine agonists. Don't you think group C goes on a little bit too much about overcoming delayed orgasm?
Perhaps some of the groups could be self-selecting to some extent. I suppose to the extent possible, newcomers would tend to cluster with other newcomers viewed to be sympathetic and interesting.
In random exclusive boards, the group host would get a random incidence of characters and mood disorders. I do think the mere exercise of signing up (which exercise could be reduced or increased by the group host as he sees fit) would assure better than average participation by the subscribers, and they would be motivated to sustain participation once the benefits of exclusiveness and group identity kicked in. Some boards would not get going, would not achieve critical mass. All boards would lose critical mass as posters got well and moved on. Maybe Dr. Bob doesn't want random, life-limited exclusive boards. The 2000 board may be immortal, for all I know. I'm only guessing at Dr. Bob's perspective on all this. Why shouldn't he be fond of his OTs? On the other hand, maybe he created the 2000 board because it was the easiest way to create an exclusive board with a better than average membership (from his perspective). A couple of mouse clicks instead of a bunch of work. He sure was quick to form the 2001 board, for all the good it did anybody. I hope I don't sound the least bit snotty about Dr. Bob. I think the guy's kind of heroic. I'm not a group host, I'm just playing one in this post.
Speaking as an outsider from an outsider's perspective, I have no interest in the OTs sensibilities. I think they're bugged more by turnover than size. They can't know why that old gang of theirs broke up. Maybe a critical mass got bored, maybe they got well and moved on, maybe they found a web site they like better than PB. I think it would be vastly more interesting to observe new groups emerge rather watch the OTs recreate the good old days. An OTs, however, needn't have any interest in an outsider's sensibilities, and there's no reason they should. An OT could have a point when they say, leave us alone, we don't exist for your amusement or benefit. Zero-sum, as one poster put it.
Oh well. It's interesting to think about.
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.