![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 25. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by rayww on May 5, 2003, at 13:57:36
If not here somewhere on Psycho Babble, where else on the Internet can one go to post when feeling wacky? Is there a place for drunk people or those on drugs to post when under the influence? What's wrong with inviting THEM here?
In a way, I love the wacky moments, when anything goes and everything rolls, when the writing does the writing without holding back. It's feel-good writing.
Why can't this be a wacky site too? For some of us, normal is quite that way - out of choice. I have my wacky moods and accept them. In fact, becaus of PB I even recognize them.
This site provides a great education, including all the wonderful links and book ideas that other posters post. You do a great service to those of us who struggle to simply understand, but you also do a dis service with your banning and shunning policy. At times it feels like a sick game.
Do you have moods Dr. Bob? Are you on AD's? Do you ban and block according to mood that particular day? Just wondering.
IMO there is only one reason why wacky posts should be deleted, and that is by the person who wrote them. Meaning, if I write something in a weak wacky moment it may feel good then, but a few days later it is going to be embarrassing.
On other boards you can go into your own post and edit or delete some time later. Personally, I think that would solve a lot of your problems here. BECAUSE, wacky people aren't wacky all of the time, only when in the mood.
Posted by stjames on May 5, 2003, at 14:17:24
In reply to feeling wacky Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on May 5, 2003, at 13:57:36
Perhaps substute "wacky" for manic ?
Posted by rayww on May 5, 2003, at 17:24:57
In reply to Re: feeling wacky Dr. Bob, posted by stjames on May 5, 2003, at 14:17:24
> Perhaps substute "wacky" for manic ?
exactly my point :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2003, at 8:20:19
In reply to feeling wacky Dr. Bob, posted by rayww on May 5, 2003, at 13:57:36
> Why can't this be a wacky site too?
Because it has other goals.
> On other boards you can go into your own post and edit or delete some time later. Personally, I think that would solve a lot of your problems here. BECAUSE, wacky people aren't wacky all of the time, only when in the mood.
Editing has come up before. (1) A thread might not make sense if someone goes back and edits something. But allowing editing of only the most recent post in a thread would address that... (2) It would be kind of a big project to add it.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 6, 2003, at 8:48:01
In reply to Re: editing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2003, at 8:18:55
I think allowing people to edit their own posts would be a bit crazy-making. I'd be going around wondering if I had imagined reading something, since it was no longer there. I think that's one reason that people object when even you, Dr. Bob, delete posts.
Mind you, I'd be delighted to be able to correct a post where I inadvertantly put personal information, or to delete a post that was probably ill considered. But weighed against the value of knowing what was on the board today won't look completely different tomorrow, it doesn't seem like a worthwhile tradeoff.
I've heard some pretty unpleasant stories about sites where people where able to edit their own posts, and the resulting misunderstandings and chaos.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 8, 2003, at 1:53:58
In reply to Re: editing » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2003, at 8:48:01
> I think allowing people to edit their own posts would be a bit crazy-making. I'd be going around wondering if I had imagined reading something, since it was no longer there.
I know. I've seen boards where it says if a post's been edited, that would help, at least, wouldn't it?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on May 8, 2003, at 8:51:10
In reply to Re: editing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 8, 2003, at 1:53:58
>
> I know. I've seen boards where it says if a post's been edited, that would help, at least, wouldn't it?
>
> BobNot enough, Dr. Bob. Not enough.
I was kind of hoping I wouldn't have to be more explicit. I hate to have a negative view about people. But there are some visitors to the site who might enjoy leaving up a rude comment to someone else just long enough for it to be seen, but not long enough for you to see it. Then any replies on the thread would appear to be meanspirited. Allowing only the last post to be edited might help that a bit, since someone would have to be pretty quick about it. Of course, if you added a post to a thread where the last post was unkind, you would be keeping the poster from hitting and running, but on the other hand you would have to be concerned that doing so would enable the person targetted to see a post they otherwise might not see. Quite a dilemma for someone who hates unkindness, and one that I would hope you wouldn't place on posters. If you yourself could see the pre-edited post so that unkindness wouldn't be allowed to sneak through, maybe. But still.....
I think having everything "on record" is still the better idea.
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2003, at 1:38:06
In reply to Re: editing » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 8, 2003, at 8:51:10
> if you added a post to a thread where the last post was unkind, you would be keeping the poster from hitting and running, but on the other hand you would have to be concerned that doing so would enable the person targetted to see a post they otherwise might not see.
Hmm, interesting point, thanks for your input...
Bob
Posted by slinky on May 9, 2003, at 10:35:50
In reply to Re: editing, posted by Dr. Bob on May 9, 2003, at 1:38:06
> Hmm, interesting point, thanks for your input..
Bob love~lovely..I have two interesting points and have input but I'd unplug him for you delicious sweety~pie .
kissssss
Posted by shar on May 10, 2003, at 14:43:50
In reply to Re: editing » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on May 6, 2003, at 8:48:01
Posted by Zo on June 20, 2003, at 20:08:53
In reply to Re: go into your own post, posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2003, at 8:20:19
How about if people could add brief comments / followups to their own earlier posts?
This could serve to keep people better updated on each other. . .and possibly relieve a lot of worries.
All this would require is replying to your own post, and using a special preface in the subject line.
Something like--
FL: It was a mood swing, I'm okay. (nm)
or
CT: Got my meds straight, thanks.
or just
CT: Sorry if I sounded angry.
(there's probably a *much* better preface, am kind of stupified today. but pleasantly so.)Zo
Posted by zenhussy on June 20, 2003, at 23:15:13
In reply to Re: go into your own post » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on June 20, 2003, at 20:08:53
I like it Zo.
Now if we can just convince a couple of folks that we are two separate human beings on different sides of the continent now that would be changing things. ; )
it's only taken me an hour to get this and another post up on this dinosaur unstable beast I'm using here at the family residence--ugh!
zenhussy (not Zo fer gosh sakes!!!)
> How about if people could add brief comments / followups to their own earlier posts?
>
> This could serve to keep people better updated on each other. . .and possibly relieve a lot of worries.
>
> All this would require is replying to your own post, and using a special preface in the subject line.
>
> Something like--
>
> FL: It was a mood swing, I'm okay. (nm)
>
> or
>
> CT: Got my meds straight, thanks.
>
> or just
>
> CT: Sorry if I sounded angry.
>
>
> (there's probably a *much* better preface, am kind of stupified today. but pleasantly so.)
>
> Zo
>
>
Posted by OddipusRex on June 21, 2003, at 6:19:14
In reply to Fantastic idea there! » Zo, posted by zenhussy on June 20, 2003, at 23:15:13
>
> Now if we can just convince a couple of folks that we are two separate human beings on different sides of the continent now that would be changing things. ; )
>
>
Posted by wendy b. on June 21, 2003, at 7:18:32
In reply to Fantastic idea there! » Zo, posted by zenhussy on June 20, 2003, at 23:15:13
> it's only taken me an hour to get this and another post up on this dinosaur unstable beast I'm using here at the family residence--ugh!
>
> zenhussy (not Zo fer gosh sakes!!!)
GAWD!!Who'd want to be HER?
(just jokkkking!)
:-]
(^^^^^^^ obligatory smiley, indicating irony)
Vend.
(not Zenhussy, or anybody else)ps: dear ZH, you are in my thoughts, and I am hoping you are as well as can be.
Posted by Zo on June 21, 2003, at 21:26:45
In reply to Re: Fantastic idea there! » zenhussy, posted by wendy b. on June 21, 2003, at 7:18:32
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2003, at 5:03:08
In reply to Re: go into your own post » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on June 20, 2003, at 20:08:53
> How about if people could add brief comments / followups to their own earlier posts?
>
> All this would require is replying to your own post, and using a special preface in the subject line.People can already do that, can't they?
Bob
Posted by Zo on June 23, 2003, at 18:48:27
In reply to Re: add brief comments / followups, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2003, at 5:03:08
> People can already do that, can't they?
>
> BobI suggest you designate a special prefix.
Then people don't have to say, You know, about my previous post.
And wouldn't it clarify the thread? If our comment on our own post were usually just the subject line and (nm), prefaced not with Re:, but instead maybe
8R:
PS:
Ideas, anyone?Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 3:15:21
In reply to Re: go into your own post, posted by Dr. Bob on May 6, 2003, at 8:20:19
[from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/253004.html]
> Eeeeeek!!! Say it isn't so, Dr. Bob. Oh, the opportunities for mischief! Posting something dreadfully uncivil, leaving it up just long enough for it to be seen, and then removing it, leaving any objections to seem ridiculous and mean spirited. Isn't it better to ask people to think before they hit the confirm button, not after it's up for the whole world to see?
It's not necessarily either-or. And there may be more mischief, but also fewer hurt feelings.
You don't think it would be good enough, as discussed earlier, to allow editing of only the most recent post in a thread, to indicate if posts have been edited, and, of course, to continue to address any residual incivility?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on August 22, 2003, at 6:24:49
In reply to Re: opportunities for mischief, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 3:15:21
>
> You don't think it would be good enough, as discussed earlier, to allow editing of only the most recent post in a thread, to indicate if posts have been edited, and, of course, to continue to address any residual incivility?
>
> Bob
>I don't think it would be good enough, no. It might be good enough if you retained the pre-edited post so that you could make a reasonable guess as to whether there was a genuine rethinking and attempt to correct, or if someone was trying to use the feature to be provocative. Coupled, of course, with a willingness on your part to go back to the prior method if problems are cropping up.
Posted by Larry Hoover on August 22, 2003, at 10:15:58
In reply to Re: opportunities for mischief, posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 3:15:21
> [from http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030808/msgs/253004.html]
>
> > Eeeeeek!!! Say it isn't so, Dr. Bob. Oh, the opportunities for mischief! Posting something dreadfully uncivil, leaving it up just long enough for it to be seen, and then removing it, leaving any objections to seem ridiculous and mean spirited. Isn't it better to ask people to think before they hit the confirm button, not after it's up for the whole world to see?
>
> It's not necessarily either-or. And there may be more mischief, but also fewer hurt feelings.
>
> You don't think it would be good enough, as discussed earlier, to allow editing of only the most recent post in a thread, to indicate if posts have been edited, and, of course, to continue to address any residual incivility?
>
> BobMy personal opinion is that would *not* be good enough. You can't unsay words. The hurt they engender is not removable by apology or retraction.
The current process, wherein it is necessary to both submit and confirm your message, is adequate time to rethink the selection of words.
Lar
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 22, 2003, at 15:35:13
In reply to Re: opportunities for mischief » Dr. Bob, posted by Larry Hoover on August 22, 2003, at 10:15:58
> I don't think it would be good enough, no. It might be good enough if you retained the pre-edited post so that you could make a reasonable guess as to whether there was a genuine rethinking and attempt to correct, or if someone was trying to use the feature to be provocative. Coupled, of course, with a willingness on your part to go back to the prior method if problems are cropping up.
>
> DinahYes, the pre-edited versions would be retained, and I would try to keep an open mind about going back. But as we've discussed before, intent can be hard to be sure about...
> My personal opinion is that would *not* be good enough. You can't unsay words. The hurt they engender is not removable by apology or retraction.
>
> The current process, wherein it is necessary to both submit and confirm your message, is adequate time to rethink the selection of words.
>
> LarIMO, apologies and retractions are in fact often appreciated, so though they may not completely remove hurt, they may at least ameliorate it. And a given amount of time may be adequate, but more may be better...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2007, at 21:00:10
In reply to Re: edit and polls, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 4:24:47
Edits are on your to do list? I hope they're way down your to do list. The possibility for mischief is endless if you're allowed to edit posts you really shouldn't have made to begin with, and if someone sees them before you edit, and responds as if they had seen it, no one else will know what the heck is going on.
Why would you open that can of worms? I didn't realize you were even considering that.
I am gravely disappointed.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 15, 2007, at 21:00:10
In reply to Re: edit and polls, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2007, at 4:24:47
> > I have been on message boards where you can edit (but only in a short time frame) your posts. This could come in handy for those who have stated they have said things they regret. Granted they would not have a long time to edit but it could be useful
>
> This also has come up before:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20030404/msgs/224641.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050823/msgs/546521.html
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060622/msgs/662558.html
>
> and is already on my to-do list. Sorry about not having more time to do things on it.
>
> > The reason I feel it would not be good to have too much in the way of posts on it ..is because recently I was at another site ... and someone had a poll per the owner of that site. Fights started because some would vote and then say why they said no....then the person who posted the poll would post back to them and it became a debate and justification issue. Some voters felt pressured and the results were messed up..
>
> Well, the idea here is not to have fights. And IMO the reasons people have are important...
>
> BobThanks ....I didn't word my post as well as I wish I could. I too believe reasons are good...where I fall away from that is when their reasons become an attack or demand for another to justify their belief, reason or opinion. As I have seen this, elsewhere I would hope that would not be allowed.
I am glad to hear on the edit feature.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2007, at 21:05:26
In reply to Re: edit and polls » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 12, 2007, at 9:19:58
> Edits are on your to do list? I hope they're way down your to do list. The possibility for mischief is endless if you're allowed to edit posts you really shouldn't have made to begin with, and if someone sees them before you edit, and responds as if they had seen it, no one else will know what the heck is going on.
I guess we still disagree. I think it's clear they haven't been very high on my list...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 15, 2007, at 21:44:46
In reply to Re: edit, posted by Dr. Bob on January 15, 2007, at 21:05:26
We disagree on so many things.
Sigh.
This is the end of the 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.