![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 231 to 255 of 255. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 11:59:07
In reply to Re: parties, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:22:10
> In a big party...
> You might only get to say a quick 'hi' to someone who you really wanted to talk to.And even at a big party, there are people who tend to congregate in groups, and others who mingle and enjoy talking with everybody and anybody. I am in the former group... I am very uncomfortable mingling. It's not that I don't like the other people (oh sure, there might be one or two), but that when I have to start trying to make small talk with others, especially quite a few others I don't know, my heart starts racing, I feel tense. It's tough. My husband is a manager in his company, so I see it as my duty to go the the company holiday party and be "sociable." It's so stressful for me.
As for wanting a separate space to meet in (once again, where there is no-one at the door saying "You -- OK. You? No way," but of course where the fire marshal has posted a max-occupation notice), I see it as the same sort of thing, just a comfort zone. And when some exit, others are welcome to enter. (For instance, my son has sensory issues -- especially to noise and touch. Large, noisy, touchy gatherings really scare the crap out of him. But if you put him in a small room with a few people, he does much better.)
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2005, at 23:29:27
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 11:59:07
> You didn't respond to the main point, again.
>
> DinahSorry, could you repeat that point?
--
> I've had enough life experience to know the value of small intimate groups vs larger ones.
>
> Gabbi-x-2> And even at a big party, there are people who tend to congregate in groups, and others who mingle and enjoy talking with everybody and anybody.
That's what I've been thinking, some people may prefer small intimate groups. But the only way to keep them small is to exclude others. :-(
> a separate space to meet in ... where the fire marshal has posted a max-occupation notice
>
> Minnie-HahaThat's a nice way to frame it. Lots of people can make a place feel unsafe (in some ways to some people).
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2005, at 9:31:22
In reply to Re: Smaller PB of 6/05: math correction, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 22:18:26
Could it also point to people staying on, rather than leaving and coming back?
Posted by so on June 14, 2005, at 11:14:56
In reply to Re: Smaller PB of 6/05: arithmetic correction » so, posted by AuntieMel on June 14, 2005, at 9:31:22
> Could it also point to people staying on, rather than leaving and coming back?
Four years of data show a strong correlation between pages served and "visits".
Posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 1:18:23
In reply to Oh Minnie NO!, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on June 11, 2005, at 19:44:05
Sorry for the confusion. Gabbi explained it exactly right. Thanks for that, Gab.
(((minni)))
gg
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 15, 2005, at 13:22:03
In reply to Gabbi is right, posted by gardenergirl on June 15, 2005, at 1:18:23
> Sorry for the confusion. Gabbi explained it exactly right. Thanks for that, Gab.
>
> (((minni)))
>
> ggThanks, darlin', and back at ya (((gg)))
Posted by AuntieMel on June 16, 2005, at 13:34:59
In reply to Re: parties, posted by Dr. Bob on June 13, 2005, at 23:29:27
A good party is one that tries to ensure that the attendees are as happy as possible.
It's not one where the host keeps trying really hard to get others to show up.
I think we have a wonderful group - and already have wonderful people joining us too quick to welcome properly. Is it good to actively recruit more?
And didn't you say that was one of the goals of small boards?
Any good therapist will say you (the queen's you) can't be all things to all people all the time.
Posted by KaraS on June 16, 2005, at 17:32:46
In reply to Re: where I come from » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on June 16, 2005, at 13:34:59
> I think we have a wonderful group - and already have wonderful people joining us too quick to welcome properly. Is it good to actively recruit more?
I agree with you. Also, maybe we should put more energy into trying not to lose the good people we already have instead? I am amazed at the amount of who continue to leave this site for administrative reasons.
(I know this my comment is a little off of your topic here but I felt I had to say this.)
k
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 17, 2005, at 23:10:04
In reply to Re: where I come from » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on June 16, 2005, at 13:34:59
> A good party is one that tries to ensure that the attendees are as happy as possible.
>
> I think we have a wonderful group - and already have wonderful people joining us too quick to welcome properly. Is it good to actively recruit more?Small boards would be a way to try to make more attendees happy, not a way to recruit more attendees.
Welcoming people is important, but so is what the party is like. You could be welcomed properly, but the party could be a dud, or not welcomed at all, and the party could be a blast.
> Any good therapist will say you (the queen's you) can't be all things to all people all the time.
I learned that a long time ago. :-) Still, Babble might be able to be more things to more people more of the time...
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.