![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 131 to 155 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 15:17:17
In reply to Re: my two cents » AuntieMel, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 31, 2005, at 14:42:46
Good morning Gabbi!
How are you today???
Sorry. I just dragged myself out of bed...
Must have coffee...
But wanted to say hello:-)
I wish I could think of a joke..
Posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 15:18:36
In reply to Re: my two cents » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 31, 2005, at 14:47:15
Oh.
I liked your explanation of the mexican prison analogy..
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 31, 2005, at 15:36:40
In reply to Re: my two cents » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 15:17:17
Morning Alex.
Trying to post before you have coffee is a bit of a joke isn't it? I can't even *make* my coffee before I have coffee and that's a conundrum.
Thanks
Posted by AuntieMel on May 31, 2005, at 16:00:08
In reply to Re: my two cents » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 15:11:47
I'm really quite weak about a lot of things. Acceptance is one of them.
The opposite of acceptance is rejection. I could keep trying because while I didn't feel noticed, I also didn't feel rejected.
To me there's a big difference.
Posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 16:20:40
In reply to Re: my two cents » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on May 31, 2005, at 15:36:40
> Trying to post before you have coffee is a bit of a joke isn't it?
Yes. It sort of is... But the coffee shop is just a short hike across campus so I have given up making that first cup myself. I like to check Babble before that so I can contemplate whats happened overnight over coffee before posting properly from my office.
:-)
Oops.
Now the true nature of my addictions is out.
Don't tell anyone ok???>I can't even *make* my coffee before I have coffee and that's a conundrum.
:-)
Yeah.
Thats why I hit upon that solution..
>
Posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 16:28:49
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 31, 2005, at 16:00:08
> I'm really quite weak about a lot of things.
Take a compliment AuntieMel...
;-)
You strike me as a fighter.> I could keep trying because while I didn't feel noticed, I also didn't feel rejected.
> To me there's a big difference.And that is strong in itself.
I would guess that a fair few people would feel rejected or intentionally ignored if they didn't get much in the way of a response.I have to say...
I joined up to BPD.net.nz a couple weeks before I joined up to Babble.
BPD.net was a small group. Maybe 10-12 regular posters. Maybe 20-30 sort of regular occasionals.
EVERYONE said hello to me as soon as I arrived. And asked me about myself and shared their story etc.
I posted here a bit. Got a couple of responses. But not much. After a while I got fed up. I did feel ignored. I thought there were clicky (I don't know how to spell that) little groups. I didn't feel welcome here and I didn't feel like anybody noticed or cared when I stopped posting (which I did).
Why did I come back???
BPD.net folded.
The moderator (who did an excellent job) encountered personal crisis and the whole site disappeared overnight.I figured that this one had been here for a while, and with a p-doc as a moderator it was unlikely to fold due to 'personal crisis'.
At the time I didn't know that there were any other boards out there that weren't consumer run.
So I braved things again...
But it took me a good 3 or 6 months after I started posting again to feel properly welcome and cared about here.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 7:08:00
In reply to Re: my two cents » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 15:15:50
I didn't see the women's group as having anything to do with small boards. As far as I could tell you invited everyone.
Different thing altogether.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 7:14:43
In reply to Re: not that strong » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on May 31, 2005, at 16:28:49
> I have to say...
>
> I joined up to BPD.net.nz a couple weeks before I joined up to Babble.
>
> BPD.net was a small group. Maybe 10-12 regular posters. Maybe 20-30 sort of regular occasionals.
>
> EVERYONE said hello to me as soon as I arrived. And asked me about myself and shared their story etc.And how would you have felt if you tried to post and couldn't. And were told that group was full, but you could join this other one over here if you liked.
Instead of being warmly welcomed by all.
It baffles me that everyone doesn't get that. But I figure we just have different values and there's no point talking about it with people who have different values, because there's no common point of reference.
It's ok, I have different values on many issues with many Babblers. I just don't generally talk about those issues. Maybe that's best.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 18:43:17
In reply to Re: my two cents - Minnie Ha Ha, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 7:08:00
> I didn't see the women's group as having anything to do with small boards. As far as I could tell you invited everyone.
Women and not men.
Men weren't invited.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 18:55:16
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 7:14:43
> And how would you have felt if you tried to post and couldn't.
I couldn't join the journals board. Not for a long while. People posted over there, I couldn't read the posts. People would refer to stuff on the journals board on the regular board. I knew I was missing something. It didn't worry me to much because I chose to focus on what I did have.
> It baffles me that everyone doesn't get that. But I figure we just have different values and there's no point talking about it with people who have different values, because there's no common point of reference.
I thought the values were the same...
Everyone seems to value people feeling included.
The argument seems to be over the best way to achieve that...I thought you wanted to persuade Dr Bob to make viewing restricted to membership. I never intended to bring up all the should there even be small boards stuff.
But people wanted to bring that back up...
WHich, IMO just clouds and obscures the issue of whether people should be able to view them who can't post to them.
Maybe they could be viewable while there are places available, and when there aren't places available then they can't be publicly viewed anymore. That would make sense to me too.
I have been thinking...
A bit of a tangent now...
You were saying that at your sons school it was considered impolite to discuss an event at school where everyone was not invited.
I was wondering what you (and other people) would think about the politeness factor of discussing an event at school where everyone was invited but not everyone was able to attend.??
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 19:10:16
In reply to Re: not that strong » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 18:55:16
I've worried about that as well, as you'll see from my post on Social. I don't think it's the same, although I regret that not anyone could make it, or that anyone felt left out.
If people would prefer it, I'd be perfectly happy to keep what happened there private. I just wanted everyone to feel included as much as I possibly could.
Completely different motivation than discussing things that people didn't want to include others on, wouldn't you think?
The intent being to include others to the greatest extent I possibly can, instead of to exclude people.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 19:13:23
In reply to Re: my two cents - Minnie Ha Ha » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 18:43:17
I didn't consider that the same thing as the small boards. More like students.
But maybe other people did.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 19:39:27
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 19:10:16
> I've worried about that as well,
Yes, I know you did.
>I don't think it's the same,
ok.
I think it was worth having the Babble party. It helped people feel included. But there is going to be a cost for people who couldn't go. Just like there is a cost for people who can't sign up to a small board...
> If people would prefer it, I'd be perfectly happy to keep what happened there private. I just wanted everyone to feel included as much as I possibly could.
:-)
I know.
It is nice hearing peoples impressions etc.
It is nice to feel included in it vicariously in that way.
Not so nice when one feels like one is missing out because they don't get a joke or comment.
And people who have met have another layer of connection now.
Things change.
Thats life I suppose...> Completely different motivation than discussing things that people didn't want to include others on, wouldn't you think?
Yes. I don't think small boards are like that either. It idea isn't to keep particular people out. Rather it is to help people feel included who are in.
> The intent being to include others to the greatest extent I possibly can, instead of to exclude people.
Absolutely.
Please don't think I question your motivation Dinah. I know you are very well intentioned and also very sensitive to other peoples feelings.But I do think... That more people will feel included if small boards are implemented.
I also think that people feeling excluded can be reduced by doing such things as making the board only viewable to members etc.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 20:05:32
In reply to Re: not that strong » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 19:39:27
> And people who have met have another layer of connection now.
But Alexandra, that's what I've been trying to say. It was like meeting people we already knew. We didn't have an added layer of connection so much as we confirmed the connection we already had. I already knew Falls and GG and All Done and the rest to greater or lesser extents. Meeting them confirmed that. But I already knew them. Which means that cyberfriends can be real friends.
> Yes. I don't think small boards are like that either. It idea isn't to keep particular people out.
But that's the reality. And it's purposeful if not intentional. I can't really talk about it with you because we don't share a common background on the topic. It's like we're coming from two different cultural backgrounds trying to discuss something that is so fundamental to each of us that it doesn't even need explanation. It's impossible between nations, and I think it's probably impossible between people.
> But I do think... That more people will feel included if small boards are implemented.
A wider range of types of people, perhaps.
>
> I also think that people feeling excluded can be reduced by doing such things as making the board only viewable to members etc.
>
>
Agreed.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 20:50:33
In reply to Re: not that strong, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 20:05:32
> > And people who have met have another layer of connection now.
> It was like meeting people we already knew. We didn't have an added layer of connection so much as we confirmed the connection we already had.And that confirming of connection is just what I meant by another layer of connection.
> > Yes. I don't think small boards are like that either. It idea isn't to keep particular people out.
> But that's the reality. And it's purposeful if not intentional.And the reality of the Babble party is that some people can't go who would like to. Its the reality even if not intentional.
I don't think it is that our values are different, Dinah. I think it is that you are weighting things differently.
So...
Pro of small boards: some people will feel included who wouldn't if small boards weren't implemented.
Con of small boards: some people will feel excluded who wouldn't if small boards weren't implemented.Pro of Babble party: some people will get the extra layer of having their friendships confirmed IRL (which I think is kind of like feeling included).
Con of Babble party: some people will not get the extra layer of having their friendships confirmed IRL (which is kind of like feeling excluded).In the small board eg you think the cons are weighted more heavily than the pros.
But with respect to the Babble party you think it is weighted the other way around.Does this make sense???
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 20:56:01
In reply to Re: not that strong » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 19:39:27
>> But I do think... That more people will feel included if small boards are implemented.
> A wider range of types of people, perhaps.
Actually I don't have enough information to make that determination. The people who share the same values I do on this topic would feel less likely to want to stick around Babble because they wouldn't identify very well with the site as it would be. The people who share the same values I do on this topic who are already here are probably too attached to the site to leave.
The people who share different values on this topic than I have would feel more included.
I have no way of knowing how many people are in each group.
It's not unlike religion or politics, I guess. Those with traditional Christian beliefs may feel uncomfortable with this site because of the Faith board rules. Which numbers are bigger I'm not sure. (And I'm don't have traditional Christian beliefs.)
People with Conservative values probably don't feel as comfortable on this site as people with Liberal values. I know that from experience. We're in the distinct minority. How many people leave because of that? I don't know. Which group has a larger number? I don't know.
I think in the latter two cases, Dr. Bob doesn't care much about sheer numbers. He has the site uphold certain values despite the numbers. They may or may not be values I share, but he sticks to them.
And he's making the same choice here. He's choosing to have the site represent the set of values he respects. And for all I know there are more people in the world who visit this site who share those values than that share mine. So the numbers may indeed go up.
So it's just another thing like Liberal/Conservative. I care enough about this site to stay, even if this place isn't always representative of my values. And I try to respect other people's values.
I'm having trouble with this one mainly because I don't understand what the other values are. But I've decided I really don't need to, so that's my conclusion.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 21:03:38
In reply to Re: not that strong » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 20:50:33
No, I don't see it as the same. Sorry.
Everyone was invited. We would have welcomed whoever was able to attend.
The difference was in who joined in, not in who was invited.
It's like I might not be able to post on Politics because I don't have the stomach for it. But I don't think the people on Politics are excluding me. For whatever reasons, many beyond my control, I can't participate. But they wouldn't tell me to leave if I was able to.
The result may be the same, but the route is different. The route may not matter to you, but it does to me. If we had asked you not to come, or if we had said that only twentyfive people could come, and then no more invites would be extended it would be the same. But that wasn't the case.
You may feel the same. But the route wasn't the same.
In your value system that may not matter. In mine intentions do matter.
But I can talk to you about this till I'm blue in the face and it won't make a difference, so I withdraw from future comparisons.
You are free to believe as you wish, as am I.
Posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 21:07:52
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 21:03:38
> But I can talk to you about this till I'm blue in the face and it won't make a difference, so I withdraw from future comparisons.
>
> You are free to believe as you wish, as am I.By that I mean let's agree to differ. I'm not saying that talking to you specifically won't be of any use. I'm saying that discussions like this rarely end in someone smacking their heads and saying "Of course. I was wrong, you were right." And so I prefer not to engage further in a conversation that is unlikely to lead to resolution, by its very nature.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 23:01:38
In reply to I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 21:07:52
My point was...
That it isn't that the values are different.
It is just that you are weighting the value differently.
Everyone seems to value inclusion and think that exclusion is a bad thing.
So it is about weighting the inclusion versus the exclusion and making a decision.With respect to small boards...
Everyone is welcome to join.
But the constraint is joining before x number of people have joined.With respect to the Babble party...
Everyone is welcome to go.
But the constraint is having the means available to get there and having the spare time.In both cases the intention isn't to exclude people.
The intention is to make people feel more included.But the reality in both cases is that people can't join / go who would like to.
Sorry if you don't like the comparison, but I have to say that it strikes me...
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 7, 2005, at 0:40:15
In reply to Re: not that strong » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 6, 2005, at 20:56:01
> I care enough about this site to stay, even if this place isn't always representative of my values.
I hope it stays representative enough! Thanks for being open to giving it a try...
Bob
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 1:38:06
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by alexandra_k on June 6, 2005, at 23:01:38
> My point was...
> That it isn't that the values are different.
> It is just that you are weighting the value differently.
> Everyone seems to value inclusion and think that exclusion is a bad thing.
> So it is about weighting the inclusion versus the exclusion and making a decision.
>
> With respect to small boards...
>
> Everyone is welcome to join.
> But the constraint is joining before x number of people have joined.
>
> With respect to the Babble party...
>
> Everyone is welcome to go.
> But the constraint is having the means available to get there and having the spare time.
>
> In both cases the intention isn't to exclude people.
> The intention is to make people feel more included.
>
> But the reality in both cases is that people can't join / go who would like to.
>
> Sorry if you don't like the comparison, but I have to say that it strikes me...
Sorry if you don't like this comparison but...Boards: Everyone is welcome to join.
> But the constraint is joining before x number of people have joined.There are other options, people don't need to be openly excluded. Of course everyone can join! "This is a group of three, oh sorry too late!"
It is a self negating concept to say it's open
to everyone but only a select number can join.
With respect to the Babble party...
>
> Everyone is welcome to go.
> But the constraint is having the means available to get there and having the spare time.
I do not think they are comparable.I can't concieve of anyone thinking they are comparable. Life isn't math.
Everyone was invited, if everyone had showed up it would have been great. Life placed the constraints on who could go or not, NOT Babble and NOT those who attended the party.
I remember you saying to me, when I was saying that I felt left out, but was trying to explain that I didn't think there was anything wrong with the party, that you did't want the people who attended the party to feel bad about going. Don't you think this might have that effect?
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:03:07
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 1:38:06
> I remember you saying to me, when I was saying that I felt left out, but was trying to explain that I didn't think there was anything wrong with the party, that you did't want the people who attended the party to feel bad about going. Don't you think this might have that effect?
I didn't want people not to go because of how other people might feel. It was a wonderful oportunity for people. I'm not trying to make people feel bad about going. I'm just trying to point out that for every benefit for some there is a cost for others and that is life.
That is life.
And there it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:05:44
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize. » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:03:07
And that the people who are against small boards, who worry about people feeling excluded, well they are typically the people who feel most included the way things are at present.
They don't see that people feel excluded the way things are currently. But some people do feel excluded.
And small boards aren't so much for the benefit of people who feel included already as they are for the people who presently feel excluded.
And for every benefit there is a cost
And that is life.And sometimes people will feel excluded.
And there it is.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:17:30
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:05:44
Don't worry about it
Forget about it
It doesn't matter.
I won't bring it up again.
I think I get a little too involved in the boards sometimes
Good to be reminded of that
Time to find the real world
Time to find the real world
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 7, 2005, at 5:47:37
In reply to Re: I worded that poorly. I apologize., posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2005, at 4:05:44
Yes, I don't think I want to post anymore on this subject. I was feeling bad for Dinah, actually who'd asked for a reprieve and didn't seem to get it.
> And that is life.
>
> And sometimes people will feel excluded.
> And there it is.It's not that cut and dried to me.
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.