![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 222 to 246 of 255. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 17:45:22
In reply to Please do not post to me (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on June 10, 2005, at 16:55:10
if that looked like a copy cat idea. It definitely wasn't.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 17:57:44
In reply to Re: relevant difference » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 9, 2005, at 23:27:44
Maybe no-one cares, but I'm feeling some thoughts rising up...
OK. First, I wasn't hurt that there was a get-together in Chicago, or that I couldn't or didn't get to go. Second, as I've said before, I don't have a strong preference one way or the other about whether or not there should be small boards (as long as they're not by invitation only). Or even if they should be publicly viewable. (Though in general I wish all of Psycho-Babble wasn't so public.)
I think if there'd been a PB get-together and only select people were invited, that would have been exclusion. (But in reality, the only thing keeping people from attending was desire, and/or time and money.) I think if there are small boards on PB and only select people are invited, that will be exclusion. (But in reality, if I understand the suggestions so far, the only thing keeping people out will be desire and/or space.)
I don't think the intention of the PB get-together organizers was exclusion. And I don't think the intention of those who'd like small-boards is exclusion. And if intention makes the former OK, then the latter is too, IMO.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think?, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 17:57:44
I think if there are small boards on PB and only select people are invited, that will be exclusion. (But in reality, if I understand the suggestions so far, the only thing keeping people out will be desire and/or space.)
Well, the intention of the small boards, or the purpose of them, is to keep them small, to limit the amount of people, to me that is purposeful exclusion. It's not a lack of space by accident, it's a purposeful limitation, to keep those who've joined seperate from the rest of Babble.
Whereas if everyone could have come to the party, everyone would have been welcome, that to me is the difference.
If I had a party, and invited people, and it was open to everyone I invited, (obviously) but someone halfway across the world could not come, I would not consider it exclusion. However, if I had a small area roped off, that had people in it, and someone wanted to sit there, and I said "I'm sorry, you cannot" I would consider that to be intentional exclusion. And to me, the intent is the key.And that's all I have to say about that. : )
Hi Minnie.
>
> I don't think the intention of the PB get-together organizers was exclusion. And I don't think the intention of those who'd like small-boards is exclusion. And if intention makes the former OK, then the latter is too, IMO.
>
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 20:11:34
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
Isn't it funny how so many of us keep saying we're not gonna post about this anymore... and then we post more? :-) (I've done it too... I think. I'm just trying to keep it light.)
> Well, the intention of the small boards, or the purpose of them, is to keep them small, to limit the amount of people, to me that is purposeful exclusion. It's not a lack of space by accident, it's a purposeful limitation, to keep those who've joined seperate from the rest of Babble ... And to me, the intent is the key.
Yes, if the small-group members' intentions were simply to accept certain individuals and exclude others, that would be bad. But that is not the intention that I've heard expressed. Those who are pro-small-boards say they feel uncomfortable on the larger boards, and that smaller boards would be a way for them to feel safe *and* included. That is their stated intention. To assume it is anything else would be uncharitable. (I assume it would be uncharitable, because when I brought up the subject of intention in a previous thread, and suggested that another's intention cannot be known, I was advised that it was charitable to assume their intentions *are* good -- or at least *not* bad.)
Are there some mind-readers out there who we can employ to help us judge others' intentions?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 21:16:45
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 10, 2005, at 20:11:34
> Isn't it funny how so many of us keep saying we're not gonna post about this anymore... and then we post more? :-) (I've done it too... I think. I'm just trying to keep it light.)
Oh, It wasn't the topic itself that I wasn't going to post on, it was the surrounding comments of "logic" "inconsistancy" and other.. stuff.
The actual topic, and straight up differing viewpoints are not a sensitive topic at all.
Posted by henrietta on June 10, 2005, at 21:24:43
In reply to Re: relevant difference » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 17:39:06
A couple weeks ago you asked me to accept your apology for something you'd said to me. You may have noticed I did not respond. That was not an oversight on my part. Here's what I wanted to say, but didn't:
"I suppose I'm meant to feel flattered that you find "some of my posts" interesting,
but I feel under no obligation to explain those you find baffling. I am unable at this time to accept your apology in good faith."
I am still unable to accept your apology, and I think it may be worthwhile for you to examine the possibility that the practice of active condescension falls comfortably within your repertoire.
Please do not post to me, or (if it's within the guidelines here) refer indirectly to any of my posts.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 10, 2005, at 23:53:15
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
>
> And that's all I have to say about that. : )Ha ha! ;)
gg
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 0:02:57
In reply to No wonder I like you, Gabbi » Gabbi-x-2, posted by gardenergirl on June 10, 2005, at 23:53:15
> >
> > And that's all I have to say about that. : )
>
> Ha ha! ;)
>
> ggWell *sniff* if that's the only reason *sniff*
.......oh well, I guess it's as good as any..
Pretty soon you won't have Gabbi to kick around anymore..
Don't worry about me though, I'll be fine *squeak*
: )
Posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 0:10:30
In reply to Re: No wonder I like you, GG » gardenergirl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 0:02:57
I'm sorry. What I really meant is that it's just another piece of data in the why I like Gabbi collection.
But your humor takes up a big section in the collection. :)
And I can't kick you. My foot hurts from kicking my husband's *ss. Oh wait. That was my words, not my foot. I get that confused. Foot in mouth and all. (Oh the visual image I just gave myself....)
I know...keep it administrative.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 11:06:13
In reply to Re: relevant difference » Gabbi-x-2, posted by henrietta on June 10, 2005, at 21:24:43
> the possibility that the practice of active condescension falls comfortably within your repertoire.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 11:17:14
In reply to Re: But what does Minnie think? » Minnie-Haha, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 10, 2005, at 18:15:30
> If I had a party, and invited people, and it was open to everyone I invited, (obviously) but someone halfway across the world could not come, I would not consider it exclusion. However, if I had a small area roped off, that had people in it, and someone wanted to sit there, and I said "I'm sorry, you cannot" I would consider that to be intentional exclusion. And to me, the intent is the key.
Is a bigger party always better?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 11:20:09
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 11:17:14
I'm sure you would agree, Dr. Bob, that a bigger Babble party where you would get a chance to meet every single Babbler who wishes to attend, would be a truly wondrous event.
And if you don't, do you think maybe that's something that's best kept behind your lips in your brain?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 11:36:19
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 11:17:14
>
> Is a bigger party always better?
>
> BobNo Dr. Bob, but if it were a "club party" or a neighborhood party or anything I can think of that might be analagous to Babble, I would certainly make sure everyone who was a part of it was invited and no one kept in a seperate space.
And ditto Dinah's response for me.
And I can't answer any more questions from you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:45:04
In reply to Re: parties » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 11:36:19
> > Is a bigger party always better?
>
> NoAnd boards might be like that, too. Sometimes better when bigger, but not always...
Bob
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 12:50:24
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:45:04
You didn't respond to the main point, again.
It is very frustrating to try to converse that way.
I know you can do it, Dr. Bob. I know you can. :)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 13:18:37
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:45:04
> > > Is a bigger party always better?
> >
> > No
>
> And boards might be like that, too. Sometimes better when bigger, but not always...
>
> BobDr. Bob
That was *not* the point. It never has been the point. Not mine anyway. I've had enough life experience to know the value of small intimate groups vs larger ones.
Now, I'm going to put on my hair shirt just so I don't miss this type of conversation and go do dishes..
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 17:39:39
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:45:04
> And boards might be like that, too. Sometimes better when bigger, but not always...
>
> BobSince "sessions" data from Jan. 05 until now is not gathered using the same methods as "visits" data from before Jan. 05, and...
...since we know there were fewer "sessions" during the past two weeks than during any period since the new protocol was implemented in late Jan. 05, averaging only 86% as many "sessions" this week (3,626) as the weekly average since Jan. 05 (5,596)....
... can you tell us with any certainty whether current "session" averages are more or less than "visits" averages during the four years previous to Jan. 05?
While changed data-collection protocols make accurate measurement difficult, examination of trends before and after the change of protocol suggests a smaller "party" now than before. The monthly average of daily "visits" decreased by an average of 2.66% a month from Dec. 03 through Dec. 04, and since that time, the monthly average of daily "sessions" decreased by an average of 5.58% during the three most recent complete month-long periods under the new data-collection protocol.
The average monthly decrease in "sessions" or "visits" seems to have accelerated in recent months, suggesting the party is continuing to get smaller. Even allowing for uncertainty introduced by the Jan. 05 change in data-collection protocols, only a dramatic increase in page "visits" or "sessions" during the month of Jan. 05 (such as the 38% increase from Jul. 04 - Aug. 04) would tend to support a conclusion that the "party" is now larger, on average, than it was last year. The reported 7.6% decrease from Dec. 04 to Jan. 05 (based on uncertain old-protocol data during the change-over month of Jan.) might be more consistent with the recent decreasing trend than with Dec. to Jan. increases of 14.8%, 17.1% and 3.7% at the beginnings of 2002, 2003 and 2004.
Based on the part of the data we can assume to be internally consistent, do you now think the 60% smaller "party" of Dec. 04 (avg. 7,557 daily visits) was "better" than the largest recorded "party" of Oct. 03 (avg. 18,752 daily visits)? If the "party" now is even smaller, do you think that is even better?
When the "party" was at it's apparent peak in Oct. 03, did you think at that time the larger group presented a better or worse gathering than during previous months? Did you, at that time, consider the increasing number of "visits" evidence of success toward your mission at this forum?
Sources:
http://www.dr-bob.org/stats/2000-05.html
http://www.dr-bob.org:9876/report.cgi?profile=dr-bob.org
Posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 17:47:31
In reply to Smaller PB of 6/05: bigger or smaller than '04? » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 17:39:39
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 18:19:12
In reply to The wheels on the bus go round and round... (nm), posted by gardenergirl on June 11, 2005, at 17:47:31
Really! Get them open, get it the &^*$@ overwith, it's not like it's not going to happen anyway.. And to paraphrase Minnie.. it couldn't be any more divisive than this spirogoraph of a "discussion" (?)
It's like a visit to Wonderland.. complete with Red Queen..
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 11, 2005, at 19:39:05
In reply to No wonder I like you, Gabbi » Gabbi-x-2, posted by gardenergirl on June 10, 2005, at 23:53:15
> >
> > And that's all I have to say about that. : )
>
> Ha ha! ;)I'm confused gg. You and I have had good relations, as far as I know. Even Gabbi and I have too. Can you tell me why you posted this? I tried not to let the original "And that's all..." upset me as possibly being dismissive, because it's followed by the smiley emoticon. But when I read the exchange now, I feel embarassed. Maybe it's just me. I think we're all trying to talk about something here that some people have strong feelings about, but we don't have to "ha ha" about each other. Or am I missing something? (Sometimes I'm kinda dense that way.)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 19:44:05
In reply to Re: No wonder I like you, Gabbi » gardenergirl, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 11, 2005, at 19:39:05
> > >
> > > And that's all I have to say about that. : )
> >
> > Ha ha! ;)
>
I'm answering because GG might not get here fast enough, and I don't want you to feel hurt one minute longer than necessary. GG only said that because she'd used the same quote I did, in the same day! "That's what I have to say about that"
It had nothing to do with you at all, nothing!
I'm so glad you asked rather than just thinking it was directed at you. GG wouldn't do that to you, and you know like you so even if she had, you know me, I would have said something!
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 19:55:18
In reply to Oh Minnie NO!, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 19:44:05
My smiley's are always sincere, always, and I put that there specifically cause I didn't want you to think I was being snippy, I was sort of talking to myself actually.. cause I'd spent so much time on that thread I was starting to feel really silly. I *very much* respect the thought you put into your viewpoints and the way you present them.
I didn't say anything after you posted how you felt because, well though I feel differently, it's a "feeling" thing, (gosh I'm articulate) and you make perfect sense to me, what can I disagree with? It's like telling someone not to like certain music..
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:22:10
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 11, 2005, at 12:45:04
In a big party...
You might only get to say a quick 'hi' to someone who you really wanted to talk to.
You would also have to take that into account when planning activities etc.
It would be a lot more daunting for people with social anxiety.
There would be more little groups forming as people try to find their place in a large group.
Though technically anyone could just bowl up to a little group and chat away
Lots of people wouldn't
They would consider that to be impolite
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 22:18:26
In reply to Smaller PB of 6/05: bigger or smaller than '04? » Dr. Bob, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 17:39:39
I was reviewing the math in the previous post and noticed an error.
I wrote:
...we know there were fewer "sessions" during the past two weeks than during any period since the new protocol was implemented in late Jan. 05, averaging only 86% as many "sessions" this week (3,626) as the weekly average since Jan. 05 (5,596)....I already deleted my worksheet, so I'm not sure where I got the 86% figure (maybe it is one day compared to a recent weekly average) but I know I incorrectly used one day's data (3,626) instead of the weekly average (4337).
Correctly, the most recent weekly average of daily sessions (4337) is about 77% of the daily sessions average so far this year (5,596).
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 11:48:23
In reply to P.S Minnie, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 19:55:18
> My smiley's are always sincere, always...
That's why I decided not to take it the wrong way at first, but gg's response confused me -- especially the ha-ha. I just wasn't aware there was an inside joke there. Sorry.
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.