![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by twinleaf on October 13, 2010, at 17:48:13
In reply to Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 13, 2010, at 12:21:18
Am I alone in feeling that unresolved strains from the Facebook/Twitter issue. plus the current blocking of a number of active posters have contributed to the decline? As to new posters, they need an active community to come *to*.
Posted by SLS on October 13, 2010, at 18:00:41
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » SLS, posted by twinleaf on October 13, 2010, at 17:48:13
> Am I alone in feeling that unresolved strains from the Facebook/Twitter issue. plus the current blocking of a number of active posters have contributed to the decline? As to new posters, they need an active community to come *to*.
I imagine it is much more difficult to develop a following than it is to dissolve one.
- Scott
Posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2010, at 0:01:47
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » twinleaf, posted by SLS on October 13, 2010, at 18:00:41
Well from some of the e-mails I get from old posters they have voiced a lot of dissention on here with good threads turning into somewhat battles, too many redirects is a definite as the posts die thereafter. Quite a few that left are now on facebook as they feel they can control who they accept as friends and you can delete your own post if you write some and then have posters regret. It's kind of happier too lots of joking and positives. No blocks either. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2010, at 6:06:48
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2010, at 0:01:47
I assume these aren't the same persons who left over the Facebook/Twitter buttons?
Or at least that they don't use Facebook for the same purpose as Babble?
Because otherwise I find it hard to understand.
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2010, at 6:09:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dinah, posted by SLS on October 13, 2010, at 15:56:08
I wish you luck!
I hope this time it lasts longer than a start up effect. You deserve to feel well for longer than three days.
Posted by sigismund on October 14, 2010, at 18:44:00
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » SLS, posted by twinleaf on October 13, 2010, at 17:48:13
>Am I alone in feeling that unresolved strains from the Facebook/Twitter issue. plus the current blocking of a number of active posters have contributed to the decline? As to new posters, they need an active community to come *to*.
Deja vu
Posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2010, at 21:58:54
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2010, at 6:06:48
No most just didn't like what they referred to as cliques and "fighting" for lack of better words not mine, and they just didn't like the atmosphere. Quite a few were fairly new posters. Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on October 14, 2010, at 22:32:51
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dinah, posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2010, at 21:58:54
Oh, so it was nothing about the structure of Babble or anything Dr. Bob did?
They just didn't like *us*?
Hard for Dr. Bob to do anything about that.
Posted by Phillipa on October 14, 2010, at 23:33:23
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2010, at 22:32:51
Only the redirects. Now Dinah you know "us" is kind of a generalization. Maybe some would fit better. Phillipa ps they saw what was happening to others with long blocks. Some were good others some felt silly the blocks that is
Posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 1:19:28
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Phillipa, posted by Dinah on October 14, 2010, at 22:32:51
>They just didn't like *us*?
>Hard for Dr. Bob to do anything about that.
Maybe they liked the ones who were kicked out and are not so keen on those who are left?
Posted by Dinah on October 15, 2010, at 1:21:28
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dinah, posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 1:19:28
Could be. That would certainly explain not posting here.
Posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 1:33:04
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by Dinah on October 15, 2010, at 1:21:28
You're up and about!
Posted by ron1953 on October 15, 2010, at 9:50:45
In reply to Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 13, 2010, at 12:21:18
Open your eyes, folks. There are a LOT of people who have no desire to put up with:
- Oversensitive, trigger-happy users of the "report" button
- Demeaning PBCs
- Blocks
And the capriciousness of all of it.
It's an interesting irony that I got blocked for using the term "kiddie pool" as a characterization of PB. When people are treated like children, they either play along and react childishly or they refuse to participate.
Posted by twinleaf on October 15, 2010, at 12:57:24
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by ron1953 on October 15, 2010, at 9:50:45
I remember your being blocked for saying "kiddie pool"! That was so outlandish as to be funny, though the block that followed wasn't of course. Glad you're back - I like your posts a lot.
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2010, at 13:05:54
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by ron1953 on October 15, 2010, at 9:50:45
> Open your eyes, folks. There are a LOT of people who have no desire to put up with:
>
> - Oversensitive, trigger-happy users of the "report" button
>
> - Demeaning PBCs
>
> - Blocks
>
> And the capriciousness of all of it.
>
> It's an interesting ironyWhere do you find irony?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2010, at 13:27:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by ron1953 on October 15, 2010, at 9:50:45
> It's an interesting irony that I got blocked for using the term "kiddie pool" as a characterization of PB.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html"I think it may be best for me to end my visit to the kiddie pool and head back to deeper waters."
I thought you were suggesting that PB posters were kiddies and that PB was a kiddie pool. If not, then what did you mean by leaving PB members in the kiddie pool as you were to head back to deeper waters? In what ways were these waters deeper? I believe that when most people declare an adult community to be a kiddie pool, it is pejorative. I am not a kiddie. Are you?
> When people are treated like children, they either play along and react childishly or they refuse to participate.
Here, you suggest that both you and I react childishly. When you reach the point of refusing to participate further, I will know that you are no longer reacting childishly.
I am not a kiddie. Are you?
- Scott
Posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 19:25:11
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » ron1953, posted by SLS on October 15, 2010, at 13:27:07
>I think it may be best for me to end my visit to the kiddie pool and head back to deeper waters
A passage is selected and I do understand that the passage is meant to be evaluated out of context but it is obvious that more than that comes into play when someone is blocked.
I don't suppose it is fair to say people are blocked for their attitude, is it?
Posted by SLS on October 16, 2010, at 6:12:27
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 19:25:11
> >I think it may be best for me to end my visit to the kiddie pool and head back to deeper waters
>
> A passage is selected and I do understand that the passage is meant to be evaluated out of context> but it is obvious that more than that comes into play when someone is blocked.
> I don't suppose it is fair to say people are blocked for their attitude, is it?I do not know the contents of the mind of Dr. Robert Hsiung, MD.
Perhaps you might take a moment to read the context within which the kiddie pool comment was offered:
"That is an excellent piece of philosophy, which I'm afraid too few can understand or embrace, as evidenced by the single-mindedness so common in PB"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html
There we are. Context.
I feel put down by this statement. Why? Is "single-mindedness" a term of endearment or, rather, a pejorative use of words? This is probably a less civil comment than the "kiddie pool" statement.
- Scott
Posted by Willful on October 16, 2010, at 18:08:55
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 19:25:11
Yet I do find it strange that someone is blocked for a phrase like "kiddie pool," directed really at no one and not a very terrible epithet.
Yes, maybe it's a negative comment--more, as I read it, on the expectations of people at babble, than on the people themselves-- but still, hardly really hurtful, most especially to anyone in particular.
As I recall the thread, ron was expressing frustration with the rules-- not with people. And he was referring to the kiddie pool as an area where adults are are infantilized, by being expected to act rather overly -politely, and not given full respect. So to analyze it as suggesting that we were kiddies is truly not to understand what it means.
Moreover, I do think it's a bit questionable to feel that this is harmful, even if people are momentarily offended by what they think is implied. That some people are momentarily not happy with someone's comment, just seems to me not enough to warrant a block.
I do wonder what's happened here. From what I see, there's been a cyclical upping of the ante in terms of blocks. People are blocked for this or that which may seem a not terrible violation of civility, and then others become harsher and more demanding of etiquette for those of whom they are not fond-- then they complain-- over time ever milder comments are gradually pulled in the orbit of what is no longer civil.
For example, now generalization are not civil-- if they're negative. I just find this beyond my personal understanding. I don't necessarily consider it the reason people overall have left-- although certainly it explains why some have. But it do think it creates an atmosphere of backbiting and induces people subtly to be even more thinskinned than they were last time around.
Doesn't seem particularly helpful or strengthening to us, to me.
Willfulo
Posted by sigismund on October 16, 2010, at 23:09:18
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by SLS on October 16, 2010, at 6:12:27
>Perhaps you might take a moment to read the context within which the kiddie pool comment was offered:
>"That is an excellent piece of philosophy, which I'm afraid too few can understand or embrace, as evidenced by the single-mindedness so common in PB"
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html
>There we are. Context.
As you can see then I was involved in that thread (and naturally read it all) and the offending post was a reply to me.
Posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:33:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » SLS, posted by sigismund on October 16, 2010, at 23:09:18
> >Perhaps you might take a moment to read the context within which the kiddie pool comment was offered:
>
> >"That is an excellent piece of philosophy, which I'm afraid too few can understand or embrace, as evidenced by the single-mindedness so common in PB"
>
> >http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html
>
> >There we are. Context.
>
>
>
>
>
> As you can see then I was involved in that thread (and naturally read it all) and the offending post was a reply to me.And yes, the post was offending. Why does it matter that it was in reply to you and yet you not be offended? I was.
Perhaps you are just plagued with the same sort of single-mindedness that was alluded to by the poster in question as you focus your efforts to condone his behavior. Perhaps it is me who is being single-minded in my efforts to justify mine.
So, what do you think of the use of the term "single-minded"? You didn't address that in you last post.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:37:54
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:33:37
> And yes, the post was offending.
Let me redact this phrase as I believe it is too much of a generalization. Obviously, not everyone was offended.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 6:49:21
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:37:54
I feel that I have spent enough time exploring kiddie pools, single mindedness, and absurdity. Let us just say that I am overly sensitive such that things are dumbed down for me to an absurd point.
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on October 17, 2010, at 9:45:13
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 6:49:21
I'm very sorry. I wouldn't have said that it was funny if I had known someone was hurt by that phrase. I didn't pay sufficient attention to what was happening in the thread.
Posted by sigismund on October 17, 2010, at 13:54:30
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:33:37
>Why does it matter that it was in reply to you and yet you not be offended?
It doesn't.
You seemed to be implying that I was not aware of the context.
For the record, I was slightly stung by Ron's post, but not nearly as much as the tone of this thread.
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.