![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 318 to 342 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2005, at 20:15:03
In reply to Re: I'll raise you one » gardenergirl, posted by AuntieMel on February 8, 2005, at 10:58:12
> The great thing about the 2000 board is that the people that can post there all have a long history together.
>
> But that's not something that can be recreated, as nice as that might sound.
>
> Even then, there was not a finite number of people that could join. It was just the way things developed that it started small and then grew.That would be a difference, yes, but still each of them could start small and then grow...
> First-come-first-served is (to me) the same as saying that my house is only so large, so my kids can visit but the grandkids or their kids can't come over. Even if one of my kids is temporarily out of town - because they will come back.
OK, your house is in fact only so large, right?
We could have going out of town open up a spot... And you could go out if you wanted to have a larger get-together?
> But to the coziness question? How can anyone feel cozy if there is someone that wants to join but they just-don't-fit-so-tough-luck-even-though-everyone-likes-you?
It's not just tough luck, they could join another cozy room.
Is there anxiety is that some smaller boards would be "better" than others? That one might miss out? Or feel guilty if it their board were one of them?
> I wouldn't want to get cozy with anyone that could.
Sorry, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.
> How about a separate (expandable) room for those that think there should be no walls.
How would that be different from Social?
Bob
Posted by partlycloudy on February 9, 2005, at 6:46:17
In reply to Re: my house is only so large, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2005, at 20:15:03
Dr Bob, why do you feel we need more and smaller (read restrictive, though I dislike the concept for the reasons others have voiced) boards, again? Is it because the ones we have are getting so large (lots of threads, and long ones)?
pc
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2005, at 12:37:51
In reply to Re: my house is only so large, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2005, at 20:15:03
First start with :
> > I wouldn't want to get cozy with anyone that could.
>
> Sorry, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.By "get cozy" I mean "be in a cozy room with." All I said was I wouldn't want to share that cozy room with someone that didn't mind that others couldn't come in. I still stand by that.
BUT!!!!! That doesn't mean that I think that this person would be a bad person or that I wouldn't respect their feelings. And I would happily socialize with them outside the room. But I don't see anything insensitive about saying - in essence - "I wouldn't want to {be in a 'cozy' room with}
anyone that could {feel cozy with not allowing someone in.} I'm talking about how I feel, not anyone else.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > Even then, there was not a finite number of people that could join. It was just the way things developed that it started small and then grew.
>
> That would be a difference, yes, but still each of them could start small and then grow...
>Well, actually they can't keep growing, can they? Isn't that the point?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > First-come-first-served is (to me) the same as saying that my house is only so large, so my kids can visit but the grandkids or their kids can't come over. Even if one of my kids is temporarily out of town - because they will come back.
>
> OK, your house is in fact only so large, right?
>
> We could have going out of town open up a spot... And you could go out if you wanted to have a larger get-together?
>An out-of-town opening would only be temporary, right? So that person would get kicked out when the first person comes back? That sounds (to me) a lot like "gee, nice seeing ya, but you were only a visitor, so don't let the door hit ya..."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > But to the coziness question? How can anyone feel cozy if there is someone that wants to join but they just-don't-fit-so-tough-luck-even-though-everyone-likes-you?
>
> It's not just tough luck, they could join another cozy room.
>
> Is there anxiety is that some smaller boards would be "better" than others? That one might miss out? Or feel guilty if it their board were one of them?
>Well, actually, as one who was shoved into a "small town" environment {I was in third grade and had experienced better} where only third generation townies were accepted {this applied to the kids, too} I know only too well what it feels like to be on the outside looking in.
I swore that I wouldn't do that to others, or pre-judge anyone. So - for me ------ It's the principle!!!!! ------
But now that you mention it... crudely borrowing from Orwell, I *do* envision "All cozy rooms are created equal. But some cozy rooms are more equal than others."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > How about a separate (expandable) room for those that think there should be no walls.
>
> How would that be different from Social?
>What's wrong with social?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And about the house - sure it's finite in size. But you wouldn't know it - I can always squeeze in more. One time, BD, I had a backyard BBQ and hubby comes home and says 'I hope you don't mind but I invited about 20-30 people and their spouses.' My answer? 'I guess I can't fuss at you 'cause I just did the same thing.'
Most of them showed up.
Mel
Posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2005, at 12:39:12
In reply to Re: unblocked » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2005, at 19:54:41
Posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 21:49:31
In reply to Re: unblocked - Thank you for that (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2005, at 12:39:12
Potential actions are evaluated as justified or not in terms of their costs and benefits, where these indicate values, positive or negative, that need not be measurable monetarily (that is they may be moral or aesthetic values, or some other for which the question of price may be inapplicable).
Expected value
Let O1, O2... be the possible outcomes of an action A; let V(O) be the value (cost or benefit) of each outcome O, and let P(O) be the probability of each outcome (given that action A was performed). Then the *expected value* of an action A is:
[ P(O1) X V(O1) ] + [ P(O2) X V(O2) ] + ...
Hmm. I guess thats ok as far as it goes
But as is typically the case it remains silent on what interests us the most
(ie how to comparatively weight the values of the outcomes...)
Posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 21:57:25
In reply to Re: cost / benefit analysis, posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 21:49:31
Above from "Critical Thinking: A concise guide"
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2005, at 22:09:05
In reply to Re: let's keep it administrative here, thanks (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2005, at 19:55:14
> let's keep it administrative here, thanks
Here's a link for other posts:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050205/msgs/455727.html
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2005, at 23:17:59
In reply to Re: my house - hang on a second » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on February 9, 2005, at 12:37:51
> Dr Bob, why do you feel we need more and smaller ... boards, again? Is it because the ones we have are getting so large (lots of threads, and long ones)?
>
> pcI haven't meant to imply that I think anyone in particular "needs" anything. But I do think some people might like cozier options. One size doesn't fit all?
----
> > > I wouldn't want to get cozy with anyone that could.
> >
> > Sorry, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't post anything that could lead them to feel accused or put down, thanks.
>
> I don't see anything insensitive about saying - in essence - "I wouldn't want to {be in a 'cozy' room with} anyone that could {feel cozy with not allowing someone in.} I'm talking about how I feel, not anyone else.It's fine for you to feel that way, but I'm afraid posting it could lead someone to feel accused or put down, so could you please not?
> ++++
>
> > > Even then, there was not a finite number of people that could join. It was just the way things developed that it started small and then grew.
> >
> > That would be a difference, yes, but still each of them could start small and then grow...
>
> Well, actually they can't keep growing, can they? Isn't that the point?They could keep growing to the size of 2000...
> ++++
>
> > We could have going out of town open up a spot...
>
> An out-of-town opening would only be temporary, right?We could have it be permanent...
> ++++
>
> Well, actually, as one who was shoved into a "small town" environment {I was in third grade and had experienced better} where only third generation townies were accepted {this applied to the kids, too} I know only too well what it feels like to be on the outside looking in.
>
> I swore that I wouldn't do that to others, or pre-judge anyone.Thanks for reflecting on experiences that may be playing a role in how you're reacting to this.
1. No one here would be shoved anywhere. Or pre-judged.
2. I think people here would be more accepting than the people there were.
3. If you don't want to do that to others, don't. Be supportive of everyone on your small town board. :-)
4. Was that town growing?
> But now that you mention it... crudely borrowing from Orwell, I *do* envision "All cozy rooms are created equal. But some cozy rooms are more equal than others."
And what would make some more equal?
> ++++
>
> > > How about a separate (expandable) room for those that think there should be no walls.
> >
> > How would that be different from Social?
>
> What's wrong with social?I didn't mean to imply anything was wrong with Social, I just meant we already have an expandable room...
> ++++
>
> And about the house - sure it's finite in size. But you wouldn't know it - I can always squeeze in more. One time, BD, I had a backyard BBQ and hubby comes home and says 'I hope you don't mind but I invited about 20-30 people and their spouses.' My answer? 'I guess I can't fuss at you 'cause I just did the same thing.'
>
> Most of them showed up.
>
> Mel1. Was it cozy?
2. What if it had been 200-300?
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2005, at 9:14:40
In reply to Re: my backyard, posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2005, at 23:17:59
>>> so could you please not?
Sure. It's not important enough to scrap over. And if anyone took offence I'm very sorry - it certainly wasn't my intention.
+++++++++++++++++++
>> An out-of-town opening would only be temporary, right?
>We could have it be permanent...
Hmmmmm.. and if another went oug of town, and the new permanent person went out of town, and so on and so on.
An end run around the finite size???
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> But now that you mention it... crudely borrowing from Orwell, I *do* envision "All cozy rooms are created equal. But some cozy rooms are more equal than others."
>And what would make some more equal?
The nature of the beast. Especially if it's some semi-random group of people. In some houses you would have the Cleavers. In others you'd end up with the Osbornes. What if poor June ends up sharing a house with the Osbornes?
Or if you know you're a Cleaver but the only house with space is the Osbornes? The Osbornes might be perfectly happy the way things are, but to a Cleaver it might look "less equal."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> And about the house - sure it's finite in size. But you wouldn't know it - I can always squeeze in more. One time, BD, I had a backyard BBQ and hubby comes home and says 'I hope you don't mind but I invited about 20-30 people and their spouses.' My answer? 'I guess I can't fuss at you 'cause I just did the same thing.'
>>
>> Most of them showed up.>1. Was it cozy?
------------- It was very cozy. And there was a bit of rain so for a while everyone was inside.
>2. What if it had been 200-300?
------------- First I'd make sure all the neighbors knew they could come over, too (so they wouldn't complain.) Then I'd have gone out for another keg or two - and ordered pizza if I ran out of food. But I wouldn't have turned them away, if that's what you're asking. I was taught that it would be rude. "Southern hospitality" you know.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2005, at 13:34:16
In reply to Re: my backyard, posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2005, at 23:17:59
It seems you really want to give it a shot. Some folks here are for it and some are against and most probably don't even look at admin and don't know about it.
There is only one way to find out how it will go, right? So, how 'bout you just go ahead - and we'll see how it works out? It has to bet better than the going back and forth about it for the last month has been.
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 10, 2005, at 21:20:19
In reply to Re: blocked for week ALEX....please read., posted by Mark H. on February 8, 2005, at 19:44:53
Hi Mark H.
I don't see you posting much on babble.
are you mostly reading?
the few times I have read what you posted...
I really liked what you had to say.
Ja*
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 22:45:10
In reply to Re: blocked for week ALEX....please read., posted by Jai Narayan on February 10, 2005, at 21:20:19
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 11, 2005, at 16:09:40
In reply to Re: eep! Can we avoid that subject header??? :-) (nm) » Jai Narayan, posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 22:45:10
sorry about that other subject line....
is there anything I can so to stop it?At PC you can delete anything....I think.
there was a poster on PC who first deleted her poem, then she deleted her name and became anonymous then all of it just disappeared.
haunting.
Ja*
Posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 16:18:52
In reply to Alex is the most wonderful person....:), posted by Jai Narayan on February 11, 2005, at 16:09:40
> sorry about that other subject line....
> is there anything I can so to stop it?Thats okay. I just didn't want it continued indefinately...
> At PC you can delete anything....I think.Within a certain amount of time.
> there was a poster on PC who first deleted her poem, then she deleted her name and became anonymous then all of it just disappeared.Yes. That would be a downside.
> haunting.
:-)
Have a wonderful day
> Ja*
:-)
ps - lets keep it admin in here ;-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 12, 2005, at 1:33:59
In reply to Re: back to the boards » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on February 10, 2005, at 13:34:16
> > > An out-of-town opening would only be temporary, right?
>
> > We could have it be permanent...
>
> Hmmmmm.. and if another went oug of town, and the new permanent person went out of town, and so on and so on.
>
> An end run around the finite size???If they all came back, yes, no system is perfect...
> ++++
>
> In some houses you would have the Cleavers. In others you'd end up with the Osbornes. What if poor June ends up sharing a house with the Osbornes?She could move?
> Or if you know you're a Cleaver but the only house with space is the Osbornes?
You could start a new house of Cleavers?
> ++++
>
> > 1. Was it cozy?
>
> It was very cozy.OK. :-)
> > 2. What if it had been 200-300?
>
> First I'd make sure all the neighbors knew they could come over, too (so they wouldn't complain.) Then I'd have gone out for another keg or two - and ordered pizza if I ran out of food. But I wouldn't have turned them away, if that's what you're asking. I was taught that it would be rude. "Southern hospitality" you know.OK. I guess that would've been even cozier. :-)
++++
> There is only one way to find out how it will go, right? So, how 'bout you just go ahead - and we'll see how it works out?
I think I probably will. When I have some time to set it up. Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Mark H. on February 16, 2005, at 22:17:45
In reply to Re: blocked for week ALEX....please read., posted by Jai Narayan on February 10, 2005, at 21:20:19
Dear Jai,
I almost missed your message!
Yes, I'm mostly reading these days, weighing in once in awhile when I have a question or concern.
I always enjoy your posts and the gentle support you offer to everyone here -- you fill me with light!
With kind regards,
Mark H.
Posted by Jai Narayan on February 17, 2005, at 7:19:27
In reply to Re: The Wonders of Alexandra and Jai » Jai Narayan, posted by Mark H. on February 16, 2005, at 22:17:45
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2005, at 20:00:26
In reply to Re: The Wonders of Alexandra and Jai » Jai Narayan, posted by Mark H. on February 16, 2005, at 22:17:45
Posted by alesta on April 23, 2005, at 22:28:28
by any chance could anyone paste the thread that thoroughly explains how bob would work this small group thing pretty please? or could someone explain his plan real quick..it can be short and sweet..if no one wants to look it up i understand, lol...
if it involves splitting us up, that will suck hard. i vote nay dr. b. i'm just expressing *my* *personal* feelings on this, not asking for a debate from bob or anyone else as to whether or not i SHOULD feel this way..i don't want any trouble.. just the site please..tankyou.
amy;)
Posted by 10derHeart on April 23, 2005, at 23:36:51
In reply to smaller groups--need thread explaining, posted by alesta on April 23, 2005, at 22:28:28
Hi alesta,
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/441970.html
This is pretty much where it starts back in Jan. Goes on for over three weeks....I couldn't explain it "short and sweet" if my life depended on it... lol. But, I'll bet Alex or Dinah or numerous other posters who are more talented at being concise than I am could do that.
I tend to go round in circles. And the thread eventually got so deep, I just had to stop reading....good luck making your way through it...
Hope this helped :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on April 23, 2005, at 23:46:55
In reply to smaller groups--need thread explaining, posted by alesta on April 23, 2005, at 22:28:28
Oh dear.
The topic is a minefield... An absolute minefield.
The idea is that some people find it hard to feel accepted over on social because there are an awful lot of posters over there.
So Dr Bob had an idea that there could be smaller boards that had a restriction on the number of people who could sign up to the board.
Then the discussion went into gated communities and exclusion etc etc. Some people are vehemently opposed to the notion.
I hope that was a fair explanation.
And that other people will jump on in if they have anything to add or clarify...
Posted by alesta on April 24, 2005, at 0:17:28
In reply to Re: smaller groups--need thread explaining » alesta, posted by alexandra_k on April 23, 2005, at 23:46:55
ohhhh boy. thanks 10derheart and alex very much! i will say no more, lol..amy :)
Posted by alesta on April 24, 2005, at 0:45:31
In reply to Re: smaller groups--need thread explaining, posted by alesta on April 24, 2005, at 0:17:28
>
> ohhhh boy. thanks 10derheart and alex very much! i will say no more, lol..
>
> amy :)
>
>
dam# it, i have to at least say how i feel about it,..hehe..(if only to possibly prevent this from happening.) i hate this idea..many of us have been here for many, many months, and know many ppl here..to just cut us off from each other, no longer seeing various ppl popping in and out and cutting us off from our friends will hurt..a LOT. sorry, but this feels really unfair..so there are a few ppl who feel left out..i'm sorry for them, but this method of dealing with it is way too high a price to pay..besides, i see a lot of support and inclusion of just about everybody on social right now..and if one or two ppl feel left out, oh well. you can't make the boards perfect, ya know..leave the boards be! just my opinion..this will be a sad day for most of us if this happens..i never expected my friendships of this site would just be cut off..that stinks. all right, i'm outta this place..
amy
Posted by alesta on April 24, 2005, at 1:04:40
In reply to my vote, posted by alesta on April 24, 2005, at 0:45:31
< all right, i'm outta this place..
oops. by 'this place' i meant admin, not the whole site..:) bye bye
Posted by alexandra_k on April 24, 2005, at 4:02:52
In reply to my vote, posted by alesta on April 24, 2005, at 0:45:31
> dam# it, i have to at least say how i feel about it,..hehe..
:-)
I hope you don't mind my responding...> i hate this idea..many of us have been here for many, many months, and know many ppl here..to just cut us off from each other, no longer seeing various ppl popping in and out and cutting us off from our friends will hurt..a LOT.
But all the boards that are currently running will keep running just as they are. They won't change. The idea is that some people don't participate on social because they feel overwhelmed by the number of posters / posts there and they might feel more at home on a board where there is a limit on the number of posters who can participate on that board only.
>i never expected my friendships of this site would just be cut off..that stinks. all right, i'm outta this place..
But they wouldn't be cut off. They could continue as usual. But the people who do feel overwhelmed on social would have a place for them as well.
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.