![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 133 to 157 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 28, 2005, at 17:02:37
In reply to Re: Just do it » Dinah, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 15:03:54
Yes, Dinah, thanks. I'm depressed not stupid.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 18:08:04
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
<<> say YOU or *I* am put into a group of people in this small town we do not LIKE at all..no matter how much we want to like them.
>
> Fallen4MyTDr. Bob repies....
Did I propose doing that?>>Did I say you did?? I do not think I did...but did you say that would never be the case? I didn't see that either....How would you know how anyone feels about anyone else on here? Again it's your site but I am lost as to why you just do not say what you are going to do no sales job is needed and do it. Most posters have said they do not want this so clearly it is your vision...go for it but why bother to ponder all the points as if they come into play on this
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 19:55:25
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms/ Dr Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 18:08:04
Oh, (((((Dinah))))). I hate to see you hurting.
My understanding is that this issue has come up a number of times. That Dr Bob has been keen on the idea for a while now, but that when he has suggested it, it has been met with a strong negative response from some quarters. What has he done then? He has seemed to let it go for a while, and wait…
Why hasn’t he implemented the idea already? Do you really believe that people’s negative responses have been completely unrelated to his decision to hold off? He has been discussing the issue when he could have just set up a board ages ago and only let the first x number of people who posted to it continue posting there (with this info at the top). He has provided a number of reasons to us, and while we might not be convinced by them they are reasons that he has attempted to provide for us so that we can try to understand where he is coming from. I personally take all this as evidence that he has shown reluctance to implement something that some people feel this strongly about. That shows me that he is reluctant to hurt people over this. Maybe he was hoping that people would come around in time… Maybe he is still hoping this…
But as he has also said fairly recently ‘I don't think it would work to base individual administrative decisions on how the person feels’. That may seem harsh. It is something that I had to think about a great deal to get my head around. That is something that I have been thinking about in relation to this issue. He has to base administration decisions like this by weighing up the potential benefits as well as the potential costs to the community. He has been doing that by providing reasons for the idea while other posters here have been providing reasons against. How can anybody really know what will benefit the present and future posters here the most unless we are willing to try out a few different things on occasion? We all have opinions, yes, but none of us really know how it will go. Over time will it seem more like a barred room, or a picnic at the park, or a room in a house party? The use of such analogies are a strategy used to attempt to evoke certain emotional responses in the reader. The trouble with such analogies is that they never are exact (two situations are never the same in all respects or they would not consitiute two different situations). Another trouble with analogies is that they do not provide reasons.Some people seem to see research fairly categorically as a bad thing. Dehumanising in that it treats people as objects and then we manipulate them to see what they will do. But that is a feature of experimentation which is only one kind of research. Dr Bob does not do experiments on us. We are not ‘lab rats’ or anything like that. He has told us that he runs the boards for support and education. If I had to guess the sort of thing he would do it would be something along the lines of asking us to write on our perspectives as to how VSM compare to VLG on those dimensions (those of support and education).
I have to say that in my opinion it makes a big difference what the proposed research is. If he starts this community with the intention of writing on ‘Gated communities and divisiveness within a VLG’ then I would not approve as he would be forseeing divisiveness but proceeding nevertheless. That would not be done with a supportive intention. If he intends to write something on ‘Cohesiveness and feelings of belonging within a gated community in a VLG’, on the other hand, then wouldn’t we say that he was well intentioned with this idea, even if it does turn to mush? Based on past research, however, I would think that it may be neither of those. It may well be something more along the lines of ‘inviting members to post their own perspectives’.
I did a little reading around on stuff about the internet. Lots of people still think that you can’t make friends off the internet. You can’t really get attached to or emotionally involved with people off the internet. We know that is bollocks. It is this forum that has showed me that it is bollocks. There are plenty of examples off these boards that would show other people that that is bollocks too if only some of the things that go on here were brought to their attention. There is a theraputic potential in the internet. It has been theraputic for me. I don’t think it is too much of a generalisation or assumption to say that it is theraputic for most of us or we wouldn’t be here. My understanding of his research is that that is something that Dr Bob is trying to show people. But we also know that that power to heal is also a power to hurt. Because we do get attached and emotionally involved with people and issues here. There are pros and cons…
I don’t feel particularly emotionally invested in this issue. My preference has changed a couple of times over the course of this discussion. Based on the reasons provided I have to say I am curious… But as I said before this really does seem to be bringing up strong emotional reactions for people. Based on the reasons I really don’t see how this can be so. Maybe the trouble comes from the use of analogy. Seeing VSG ‘as’ various things that have strong emotional responses attached to them. In the case of the various things that VSG remind us of our emotional responses are probably justified. In the case of VSG none of us know how that is going to go. But it won’t be exactly the same as whatever the other situation was. Because they are two different situations. There will be similarities (everything is similar to everything else) but it might not be as bad as it seems. It might turn out to be a good thing. And if it all does turn to custard then everyone who didn’t like the idea gets to say ‘silly silly Dr Bob – we told you so’.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 21:02:44
In reply to Disclaimer: my 2 cents..., posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 19:55:25
ok so this is a bit different from the last post.
this is most probably going to be the last I'll say on this (sigh of relief no doubt :-) )Say small boards get set up.
Say it is done the way I mentioned above.
Say that whenever the group is considered 'full' (at x ammount of posters) another board is started. That way everybody gets to be a member of a small board if they desire. There can be as many small boards as people willing to participate in them. Everybody has the opportunity to participate in a VSG community. We don't pick which community it is true, but we all can be part of one if we so desire. If after x amount of time we haven't posted then we lose our slot on that board and there is another space available for whoever wants to sign up. When we come back from our break we can join up to another VSG. We may even get to join up to the same one.Hate to use an analogy... but suppose you have a house party to which 'everyone is welcome'. Say you get lots and lots of people. Thousands of people (how many registered babblers are there?) Not everyone can fit into the same room at one time. Even if you rented a hall for that purpose the 'sound' (or in this case look) of everyone talking is too much it is too hard to hear / look at it is boggling. Especially if you don't know anybody when you arrive.
So to prevent that overwhelming atmosphere you have the party somewhere smaller. There are only so many chairs that fit in those rooms.
I have faith that lots of people would prefer the VLG atmosphere. But Babble continues to grow. Look at how often the boards archive to get some indication of just how fast it grows and at how growth speeds up over time. What if we envisage the boards with twice as many regular posters as there are now? This won't take long if growth continues like it has. It is ok for the people who are already here, we just see people added to the people we already know - but how many newbies would be likely to stick around then? How hard would it be for them to 'get to know' particular posters? Jeepers. It took me about 6 or 7 or 8 months before I could get my head around more than 3 or 4 'personalities'. But the 'personalities' are what makes Babble most theraputic for me. Sure I can go over to PsychCentral and start posting over there, but it is different responding to posts as it it to respond to personalitites. The danger is that as the VLG keeps increasing in size the majority of newbies may not be able to get their heads around it.
I have lots of posters here who I feel I have got to know quite well and I consider them my friends. We would't all end up in the same VSG. I would continue to post to the VLG to retain those ties - and to meet new people! Once people have gotten to know the people in the VSG they may have the background support they got from the VSG and it might be that that gives them the strength to venture out to the VLG.
Babble is changing. Whether we like it or not. It is getting bigger. Are we losing something as it grows as well as gaining something? Perhaps a move like that can help us gain the best of both worlds.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 28, 2005, at 21:04:43
In reply to Disclaimer: my 2 cents..., posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 19:55:25
Hmmm, well we have different feelings about trying this out, but I truly admire how you look at all the angles. Not that it's surprising, that's how are are. I still had to say it though, it's something I find impressive.
Now stop it! : )
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 21:20:04
In reply to Re: Disclaimer: my 2 cents... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on January 28, 2005, at 21:04:43
> I truly admire how you look at all the angles.
Oh, I was just trying to read your mind Gabbix ;-)
> Now stop it! : )
Ok. I'll try!
:-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 13:17:13
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 6:39:43
> Just so you know, by my rough count, there are well fewer than 50 regular posters on every board except the meds board and probably on social. I'm sure the psyche board is used by more than 50 people, but recently, it's really only been used by 30-35 I think.
>
> MairJust curious, how would you define "regular" poster? I just did some PBP statistics...
--
> You can't go back, you know. You can't recreate something that is past within something that has moved on. Maybe this isn't what you wanted Babble to be, but it's what it is.
It is what it is, but can't history repeat itself?
> > What if 45 others wanted to join a conversation? Or a game?
> >
> Then it would be a right jolly game.You can add 45 players to a team, but the number that plays is usually fixed. And the new players might prefer to play on a new team than to sit on the bench...
> Better would be removing restrictions from the table. Better would be creating so many little esoteric boards that you could accomplish your objective (if your objective is size) without rudeness. Don't list them all on the main set of links. Have one link leading to a submenu for "small discussion groups" or something. Let the posters choose the topic, if you wish. Don't monitor them for civility guidelines, if you wish. A poster could suggest whatever small discussion group they wanted, for people who love dogs, or people who live in Montana. It could be an area that charges fees, or an area with separate registration, or whatever would suit your purpose - without being rude and without excluding people.
If there aren't any restrictions, growth is unrestricted. Having lots of boards doesn't mean some won't keep growing. As we've already seen.
Fees wouldn't be exclusionary? If they increased with the size of the board, they could keep them small...
> Babble is not a park. It's a group of people who gather together for a common purpose. It's a school, or a church, or if you wish a very large therapy group. Imagine a church allowing Sunday School classes having socials where people could watch the party but not enter. Or a school having clubs that weren't open to all based on nothing more than whimsy, but whose meetings were on school grounds during recess.
Some purposes are easier to achieve in smaller groups. Should all socials and club meetings be open to all members of the church or school?
Or is the issue being visible? It would be less rude to require a password even to read the boards?
> Don't break the community into gated areas. Don't divide the community.
The big city wouldn't be divided into gated areas; it would be expanded to include gated suburbs.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 30, 2005, at 16:53:01
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 13:17:13
As I said, Dr. Bob. Do as you will. You will anyway.
I can't really discuss this any further without violating the civility guidelines spectacularly.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 30, 2005, at 17:12:17
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 13:17:13
> The big city wouldn't be divided into gated areas; it would be expanded to include gated suburbs.
>
> BobDr Bob that's just not true, it can't be expanded unless the cyber population of babble suddenly increased. As it is now, with only a very few of the "newbies" actually staying to join the babble population it is *not* expanding. You aren't buying land and adding gated communities, I don't believe that euphemistic analogy works, not that it would make gated communities more palatable to me if it did work. As it stands the big city *will* be divided into gated communities, and I find it insulting that you would say otherwise. But as Dinah said you will do what you will do, I wish though, that you wouldn't try to make it sound like it's anything other than a private club, somehow that makes it even harder to take.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Gabbix2 on January 30, 2005, at 17:12:17
> > The big city wouldn't be divided into gated areas; it would be expanded to include gated suburbs.
>
> Dr Bob that's just not true, it can't be expanded unless the cyber population of babble suddenly increased.
>
> You aren't buying land and adding gated communitiesHmm, maybe one difference is whether one thinks of the city as the place or the people...
I do in fact tend to think of adding boards as adding land. No posters are added, just boards. The current population uses them or doesn't.
More land might, however, facilitate an increase in population...
> As it is now, with only a very few of the "newbies" actually staying to join the babble population it is *not* expanding.
That's an interesting question, how many newbies stay. And whether that's changing. How would you define "stay"?
> you will do what you will do, I wish though, that you wouldn't try to make it sound like it's anything other than a private club, somehow that makes it even harder to take.
Sorry to keep beating this horse, I just wanted to address some specific points I hadn't before.
I'll do what I think makes sense, but I also want to explain my rationale and to ask for input. Since two heads are better than one. If we disagree, you might change my mind, and I might change yours, but not necessarily. We might still disagree.
Some people can see the glass as half-cozy, and others can see it as half-gated. The proof of the pudding is whether the poor horse drinks from it. :-)
Bob
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 30, 2005, at 19:41:45
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
WELLLLL... You aren't changing my mind, but that last post was rather disarmingly charming. :P
Posted by alexandra_k on January 30, 2005, at 20:11:54
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
Posted by littleone on January 30, 2005, at 20:57:23
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
Hi Dr Bob,
I'm not sure if I would find it easier to post in a large or small group. Any interaction is hard for me. But I do think I'd have a very difficult time joining a smaller group if it meant that someone more worthy would miss out on a place.
In my head I know I'm just as worthy, but the rest of me hasn't caught on to that yet.
I'd also have trouble staying there as a fairly quiet poster if a more active poster was wanting to join in. Like I'm hogging their spot.
Just things from my point of view.
Posted by Dinah on January 30, 2005, at 21:53:03
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
I really shouldn't discuss this further.
I think those that find the idea distasteful have been clear on why. Babble is hardly a high crime neighborhood, the place isn't full of undesirables, and it's rather rude to assume that there is appeal in keeping the rabble out. It is rude to have private conversations in a public setting. The whole idea is immensely rude on so many levels that my total distaste knows no bounds. It is the epitome of unwelcoming. It is the very opposite of welcoming. It is unwarm, uncharitable, and un-everything I admire.
And it's not what I would have expected from a mental health provider in general, and you in particular, Dr. Bob. I guess another lowering of expectations is in order. Are you really one of those people who find value added in a club by the fact that not everyone is able to participate? To find value added in an address if not just anyone can walk down the street? If not, (and if research is not the goal), why is it so necessary to you that restrictions be part of the solution? Why restrictions of all things?
Do you live in a gated community, Dr. Bob? Do you wish you did? What is so appealing to you about the idea of keeping people out? What do you suppose others might find unappealing about the idea of keeping people out? What assumptions are inbedded in the idea that restrictive boards are attractive? What assumptions are inbedded in the idea that they are repulsive?
Why not leave restrictions off the table and open your mind and heart to other solutions? What is so dear to you about restrictions?
Do you feel intruded upon often in your life?
If you do do it, please do make it private and not public. In fact, please even make the membership rosters private. If something is to be private, it should be completely private. Just allocate some server space and have the whole darn thing a private affair.
It would be immensely less rude.
Posted by Dinah on January 30, 2005, at 22:01:16
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
I don't know why I bother.
I just as well be speaking portuguese. You don't even begin to understand what I'm saying. And I don't even begin to understand how you can feel the way you do.
This is a complete and total waste of my time and emotional energy. And your time.
I'll step away from the computer for a while until I can view the whole thing with the detachment I need.
Oh. Restrictive boards. How... interesting.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 30, 2005, at 22:54:03
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 30, 2005, at 21:53:03
But what about my idea? If everyone gets to participate in a VSG then how is it rude? I don't know what you mean about undesirables and rabble because everyone can join up to a VSG if they want.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 30, 2005, at 23:16:29
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 30, 2005, at 22:54:03
Alex many of us do not like the idea....Sometimes you have to just agree to disagree,,,,VSG's can get filled up...we can go on and on but some are leaving now and for breaks because they do not like this idea and NEVER will. IF we made it into the BEST small town community Bob came up with ...we would still find the whole issue repugnant based on the *principle* of what we have been posting. I think Dinah was very clear on what she said. I hate to see her go on a break due to so many debates :( Just as I would hate to see you take a leave for the same reason. Sometimes when I post on issues I am posting what I feel and not to get into a debate..
Maybe Bob will have a debate room.
> But what about my idea? If everyone gets to participate in a VSG then how is it rude? I don't know what you mean about undesirables and rabble because everyone can join up to a VSG if they want.
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on January 31, 2005, at 0:06:53
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 30, 2005, at 23:16:29
It isn't about my not accepting peoples thoughts on this.
I will be happy to agree to disagree.
I don't like to see people hurting.
That was what this was about.
By the way, this bit of your post struck me:
>IF we made it into the BEST small town community Bob came up with ...we would still find the whole issue repugnant based on the *principle* of what we have been posting.
I find the idea that there may be a 'best' board to be repugnant.
>some are leaving now and for breaks
Yeah. Breaks can be good but I don't understand why people are thinking of leaving over this.
>...because they do not like this idea and NEVER will.
Such determination, fallen.
Some people have made up their mind and have deafened their ears.
I am just trying to help.
But I'll probably just end up hurting.
I don't know what is to be done.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 31, 2005, at 0:29:16
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities » Fallen4MyT, posted by alexandra_k on January 31, 2005, at 0:06:53
It's rude to have private conversations in front of other people. It is. It doesn't matter if everyone has the opportunity to join a smaller group, in the end the dynamic will be the same. This is not about a picnic in a park, or a cozy room. At a picnic someone could walk by and join in the conversation, in a cozy room if someone walked in, started to speak and was told "sorry you cannot speak to us" it would be considered appalling bad manners. This is nothing more than non verbal bad manners.
I was always taught that when at a party it's insensitive to stay within in a small group,if you're going to stay with a clique you may as well invite your friends to your house. Even in *that* situation though someone could, if confident enough include themselves.
This idea sickens me. I can't think of a Babble issue that has made me this livid. I don't think the boards will thrive even if they are implemented, but I am dissappointed that Dr. Bob would encourage it, trying make it kinder than it is. He's said himself he likes to keep the communication lines between posters open. This seems to contradict that philosophy.
If you want a private cozy room set up a yahoo group.
Those of us who travel the psych circuit have been shut out from enough rooms, enough private conversations, and have been whispered about too much.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 31, 2005, at 0:53:45
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities » Fallen4MyT, posted by alexandra_k on January 31, 2005, at 0:06:53
I cut some of this as it was because I want to refrain from going in circles. Yes I have a belief as you do and we differ on them. You are pro that too is as you say.."such determination".....I do not like the fact the blacks were seperated from the whites...that was not be seen as *turning a deaf ear* when many people spoke out about it and could not be turned from their belief...Please I hope you did not mean to insult me with that *TURNING A DEAF EAR* I know you do not mean to but it FEELS like an attack because I will not share your view. I respect yours but do not agree...Dinah doesn't either as you can read in her posts. I do not think all the posts are addressed to YOU personally, many are to Dr Bob. As much as you may want to YOU cannot fix or help a difference of opinion.
Yes in our opinion as I see in Gabs there will be better areas and rooms. That will be the one you/or someone else wishes you/they could get in and are told "no you cannot join." I too am very concerned about Dinah but I respect her beliefs enough to allow her to post and not debate her pro or con as I do not do with you.The point of my post was to point out we all can agree to disagree and post our views without all this fixing of each others viewpoint.
What can be done is whatever Dr. Bob decides. Please do not stress on this either of you as you have no control on this all you can do is state YOUR view and hug a friend who doesnt agree and move on.
>
> >...because they do not like this idea and NEVER will.
>
> Such determination, fallen.
>
> Some people have made up their mind and have deafened their ears.
>
> I am just trying to help.
> But I'll probably just end up hurting.
> I don't know what is to be done.
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2005, at 4:06:46
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities, posted by Gabbix2 on January 31, 2005, at 0:29:16
The reason why Dr. Bob and those of us who find the idea abhorrent will never even understand each other.
I was on to something in an earlier post.
Dr. Bob sees this as an accomodation. A parcel of land, a restaurant, a hotel. A server space. It isn't rude in a restaurant to offer rooms for private parties, even if it's in view to the other patrons, or to a hotel to offer private meeting rooms, even if they can be seen by other guests. A parcel of land I'd still have to disagree about since I find gated suburban communities to also be offensive.
While we see this as a community, a group of people, comprised of the posters themselves. We see Babble as Gabbi and Dinah and gg and SLS and Lar and the unfortunate departed from the community but still missed like Cam and Zen.
As long as Dr. Bob sees Gabbi and Dinah and Fallen as users of Babble, and Gabbi and Dinah and Fallen see themselves as parts of the many who make up Babble (like a coral community) and Dr. Bob as someone who provides space for Babble, it will be impossible to understand.
Unfortunately I could never see Babble as an accomodation. If Babble were an accomodation I'd have left long ago when I didn't like the service or the menu change. I love Babble as a community, even though the individuals who make up the community change more than I would wish.
I really wish Dr. Bob could see Babble as a community, not a restaurant, not an accomodation. It seems sad that the creator and administrator of Babble misses out on so much.
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2005, at 4:21:49
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on January 30, 2005, at 22:54:03
Hmmm... Perhaps you don't, in your part of the world, have our historical and cultural perspective on separate but equal.
The fact that everyone can join *a* small group matters no more than that everyone could go to *a* school, or drink at *a* drinking fountain, or sit in *a* seat in a bus. What difference does it make, as long as education, fluid, and transportation is offered, right? It *does* make a difference in a community. It really does.
The fact is that it would probably make less difference to me than anyone. I don't read where I'm not welcome to post. I don't read student board or newbie board. But to newcomers or those who read the restricted boards, it would make a difference. I might see a group of people who seem funny or warm, or who are carrying on a really fun conversations about mangoes. But when I went to try to join in, I'd be hit with an invisible wall that said "Sorry, these people won't let you in, but you're welcome to join this other group over here." How on earth is that equal? Or inviting? How does it make Babble seem like a nice place?
If Dr. Bob lets friends pick their own group, the offensiveness and cliquiness of the idea must be apparent. But even if Dr. Bob assigns groups, how can you ever think that there won't be people in some groups that wish they could be parts of another. Groups of people are not generic.
I'm not carrying on this battle for myself. I wouldn't want to be part of a group that feels the need to exclude others. I wouldn't read such a group because it would be rude to read a private conversation. If they wanted me to be a part of it, they'd not have closed themselves off.
Or to use the cozy room idea. Were I to come across a group of people having a lively conversation in a party, and be told that my participation wasn't welcome, I think I'd suggest that they close the d*mn door if they were having a private conversation so that they weren't having a public private conversation at a community function.
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2005, at 6:45:41
In reply to Re: half-cozy, half-gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
If you made what *is* private, private.
Make the exclusionary communities a separate areas, which can only be entered by those who agree to be part of an exclusionary community. The ticket to entry would be the agreement to join. A separate admin board. No public announcements of who specifically chooses to join. No ability to read boards by those who aren't agreeable to joining a gated community.
What you do within those boundaries, whether you let those who belong to one group read all boards, is of absolutely no interest to me.
Posted by Dinah on January 31, 2005, at 10:17:34
In reply to Eureka! I think I have it! » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on January 31, 2005, at 4:06:46
> While we see this as a community, a group of people, comprised of the posters themselves. We see Babble as Gabbi and Dinah and gg and SLS and Lar and the unfortunate departed from the community but still missed like Cam and Zen.
I of course didn't mean that Cam and Zen and the others who left here are unfortunate. I mean that their leavign was unfortunate for us. I mean that those who leave and those who stay are are part of this living growing community, just like in a coral community. That the posters both present and not present make Babble what it is today.
Unfortunately my therapist dislikes my restaurant analogy. He reminded me that private parties at restaurants are not public the same way these gated communities would be. It is not typical for the other restaurant patrons to gather at the doors of the private party and listen to the conversations. It's a bit validating though that he finds even less room for understanding this than I do. :)
Posted by AuntieMel on January 31, 2005, at 11:59:25
In reply to Oops. A technical correction., posted by Dinah on January 31, 2005, at 10:17:34
I see the point you are making.
A gated community is ostentatious in its restrictiveness. It is built, not just to keep people out, but to let people see just enough of what is behind the gate to show off.
Living in a building with a doorman technically accomplishes the same thing, but the intent is safety and privacy. Those on the outside don't see what they are missing and it doesn't purposely try to invoke envy.
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.