![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 3 to 27 of 33. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on October 29, 2009, at 19:40:02
In reply to 'Owner' no less!!! Yikes, posted by Kath on October 29, 2009, at 18:48:57
> Good heavens - I just went onto that site & looked at the members & saw that I'm not a moderator....I'm the 'owner' (whatever the heck that means!)
>
> Kath
Your so sweet LOL!
I just wonder about privacy issues and stuff.
I don't know how one is able to run a 'site'. Who controls said site? Who has all the files? On what computer? If its members only, then how safe ACTUALLY is what you say? Where are the archives held?
And ya....sigh...people will be people, and there is likely to be issues...
I guess one thing I really DID like about babble, was that we were able to be helping others with our posts, and this would not be so on a members only site. That would deter me alot. Also, I myself have huge issues with anything even slightly resembling intimacy. Hence my dislike of bablemail.
I like it all in the open.
I am thinking that it may not be quite as easy as we might wish.
i am thinking that if anyone knows and established open site that has asst forums, and they know its a good site, then possibly we could attempt to keep in touch there...
I also have a problem w/Bobs neverending archives.....Kath, your so sweet, and I admire your being proactive, but I guess I been burned and am nervous now.
Maybe there are some good sites others have discovered?
I have a site I like, but its a bit slow...
Anyhow, I will watch and see if there are some ideas...
Take care,
M
Posted by henrietta on October 29, 2009, at 20:10:29
In reply to Why not create what we need/this was done in 2000, posted by Kath on October 29, 2009, at 18:34:54
A word of warning---tongue in cheekly. Another old rebel on ancient PB started a Yahoo group for those who had problems with Dr. Bob. Like-minded people just wanting a place to talk freely, a place to get to know one another better. Actually it didn't really have much to do with Bob at all. This was years ago. Guess who joined? I couldn't believe it! Yep, Dr B himself signed up for the group. After that the group, naturally, pretty much dissolved. I couldn't help but marvel at his insecurity and his will to control.
Posted by Kath on October 29, 2009, at 20:34:26
In reply to Re: Why not create what we need/this was done in 2 » Kath, posted by henrietta on October 29, 2009, at 20:10:29
lol oh jeez!
thx for that :-)
The ones on ours weren't rebels. We just wanted a place that was 'safe'.
K
Posted by Kath on October 29, 2009, at 20:35:11
In reply to Ummm, not so easy???, posted by muffled on October 29, 2009, at 19:40:02
I'll answer your post later or tomorrow M.
Gotta run rite now.
xo Kath
Posted by psych chat on October 29, 2009, at 20:55:56
In reply to Why not create what we need/this was done in 2000, posted by Kath on October 29, 2009, at 18:34:54
I've used forums created from this app before.
There is a note about security on that page. I also think ANY site where the administrator doesn't tweet everyone's conversations will be safer.
These are the only 2 I know to trust...But there are a ton more where those came from..I think Jay knows a lot about IT security architecture-if anyone knows how to contact him, maybe he can provide advice on which forums are safest?
Thanks Kath.
Posted by muffled on October 29, 2009, at 22:34:08
In reply to Forums, posted by psych chat on October 29, 2009, at 20:55:56
LOL, when in doubt , ask phillipa, she proly knows how to find him.
M
Posted by Tabitha on October 30, 2009, at 1:53:57
In reply to Why not create what we need/this was done in 2000, posted by Kath on October 29, 2009, at 18:34:54
It's really easy to start a yahoo group. Google hosts groups, too. I'd be interested in joining the discussion if you open one. I've never felt entirely comfortable with the public-ness of this site.
Posted by Kath on October 30, 2009, at 8:59:49
In reply to Re: Why not create what we need/this was done in 2, posted by Tabitha on October 30, 2009, at 1:53:57
I'm in a hurry right now so can't comment on posts.
I think the Yahoo Groups would be easy to set up. But I don't know answer to Muffy's question as to Where the Archives actually Are & who has access.
I know that the 2000 group wasn't public. And new people had to be 'approved'.
Am open to talking more. I know 1 person still who was 'owner' of the Yahoo group & could probably help set one up if we decided to.
I really doubt it's hard.
:-) love, Kath
PS - I think it's important for us to not feel helpless & deprived of a support that no longer feels safe. I truly think we aren't helpless.
Posted by Phillipa on October 30, 2009, at 13:21:05
In reply to Jay, posted by muffled on October 29, 2009, at 22:34:08
Muffled you know I love you always have your're the sweetest. Which Jay have two or three Jays on my e-mail list. Now they don't always answer as really dont e-mail that much anymore. Should I feel complimented or the opposite. I too want to feel safe and I feel that a form to sign stating something to the effect I promise not to share with anyone without permission would or might help. Muffled your're an inspiration to me I mean that. Love hugs kisses all more you Phillipa
Posted by Phillipa on October 30, 2009, at 13:25:09
In reply to Re: Why not create what we need/this was done in 2, posted by Tabitha on October 30, 2009, at 1:53:57
Tabitha it's easy? Seriously? I wouldn't have the foggiest. I'd like to see a site that we also see successes on and lots of positive feedback. About four years ago three members started a site I was on it but still liked babble better at the time as it felt safe warm and cuddly sort of. I'm open to ideas as well. Love Phillipa
Posted by Tabitha on October 31, 2009, at 0:07:43
In reply to Re: Why not create what we need/this was done in 2, posted by Kath on October 30, 2009, at 8:59:49
Well if you use a service like yahoo groups or google groups, ultimately the data is on servers owned by those companies. For all practical purposes, whoever starts the groups would control access. They can set the group to be public or private and approve join requests. It's really much more private than this type of site-- the posts aren't viewable through search engines. But that also means it's harder to get new members and keep the thing going.
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 10:28:35
In reply to Re: Why not create what we need/this was done in 2 » Kath, posted by Tabitha on October 31, 2009, at 0:07:43
> Well if you use a service like yahoo groups or google groups, ultimately the data is on servers owned by those companies.
~ ~ Thanks. It was a concern of Muffled's.
> For all practical purposes, whoever starts the groups would control access. They can set the group to be public or private and approve join requests. It's really much more private than this type of site-- the posts aren't viewable through search engines. But that also means it's harder to get new members and keep the thing going.
~ ~ Yes - the one I was on was private with approvals necessary & the public couldn't read posts. I'm not sure if it was like that at the very first - I suspect so. I joined a little ways in. It was people from Babble at that time in 2000.
It went until 2007.
Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 10:41:52
In reply to Ummm, not so easy???, posted by muffled on October 29, 2009, at 19:40:02
> I just wonder about privacy issues and stuff.
> I don't know how one is able to run a 'site'. Who controls said site?The one I was a member of was through YahooGroups.com Muffy.
I guess the person who started it could control it as to if the public can see anything. You can set them up in different ways as Tabitha has talked about above.
> Who has all the files? On what computer?
~ ~ As Tabitha, I guess the server at Yahoo is where they'd be. There are tons of Yahoo Groups that people set up.
>If its members only, then how safe ACTUALLY is what you say?
~ ~ Well, I guess at least as safe as it is here! I guess it's a 'safe' or comfortable as one feels about the other members! We had it set up at the end that only new people who were known to existing members could join & I believe we agreed that we would consult existing members & if there were any who did not want the new person to join, that's how it would be. At that point, the use was way down & it sort of petered out.
> Where are the archives held?
~ ~ The company server I guess.> And ya....sigh...people will be people, and there is likely to be issues...
~ ~ yup. From 2000 to 2007 I only remember 2 issues. One was during the VERY emotional period of 9/11. It was very brief, from what I remember. The other was when someone unknown to any of us was allowed to join & from that event, the agreement was made about how to decide if somebody could join.
> I guess one thing I really DID like about babble, was that we were able to be helping others with our posts, and this would not be so on a members only site.
~ ~ That's true.
Also, I myself have huge issues with anything even slightly resembling intimacy. Hence my dislike of bablemail.
~ ~ Then a private site probably wouldn't feel comfortable for you.
> I am thinking that it may not be quite as easy as we might wish.
~ ~ A private site would be pretty easy I think, but there'd be the issue of how to deal with it if someone WAS being mean or abusive!!??
> Kath, your so sweet, and I admire your being proactive, but I guess I been burned and am nervous now.
~ ~ Thx Muffled. I don't know if I have the emotional energy to be involved in a new site if there was one. I suspect I'd try it, but would probably be pretty darned freaked out if some nastiness happened!!!!
> Maybe there are some good sites others have discovered?
> I have a site I like, but its a bit slow...
> Anyhow, I will watch and see if there are some ideas...
> Take care,
> M~ ~ Is the site you like slower than it is here these days?
luv ya Muffy,
Kath
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 11:38:54
In reply to Re: Ummm, not so easy??? » muffled, posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 10:41:52
I love lists!
So, what I would look for in a website:1.that reasonable efforts for security and privacy are in place
2. that it is a mostly 'open' forum, though there could be a private board included.
3.Membership requiered for posting
4.a basic set of civility rules
5. a group (say 3) of moderators
6. a chat function would be nice
7. that archives are fully deleted 1-2x/yr
8. that there is the option of deleting/editing posts w/in a set time period (after that its up to the moderators)
9. I prefer there not be a bmail type function, but people can exchange emails in chat if they wish.
10. ???My brain is in low gear, there are many things I was thinking of last night laying in bed! but I have forgotten.
I can't put a link to a forum that I like how it runs, cuz that would link me. But these above ideas are some of what I like. The traffic is a little slower there, and functionally its a little slow, but the people are nice.
By looking at other sites, we could come up w/ideas as to policy etc.
Just this would take time and I am quite busy ATM. I would have more time in Feb or so.
Any other thots?
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 13:10:28
In reply to Maybe a list?! What I want in a site...., posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 11:38:54
~ ~ I love lists too! Adore them.
> I love lists!
> So, what I would look for in a website:
>
> 1.that reasonable efforts for security and privacy are in place
> 2. that it is a mostly 'open' forum, though there could be a private board included.
> 3.Membership requiered for posting
> 4.a basic set of civility rules
> 5. a group (say 3) of moderators
> 6. a chat function would be nice
> 7. that archives are fully deleted 1-2x/yr
> 8. that there is the option of deleting/editing posts w/in a set time period (after that its up to the moderators)
> 9. I prefer there not be a bmail type function, but people can exchange emails in chat if they wish.
> 10. ???
>
> My brain is in low gear, there are many things I was thinking of last night laying in bed! but I have forgotten.
> I can't put a link to a forum that I like how it runs, cuz that would link me. But these above ideas are some of what I like. The traffic is a little slower there, and functionally its a little slow, but the people are nice.
> By looking at other sites, we could come up w/ideas as to policy etc.
> Just this would take time and I am quite busy ATM. I would have more time in Feb or so.
> Any other thots?~ ~ Muffled - I know you said that you don't like Babblemail. Did you know that you have your name set to accept bmails?
I think they sound like good ideas. I'm not sure about #7 though about deleting archives maybe 2x per year.
I think #8 is an excellent idea - that a poster can edit/delete a post within a certain time-frame. I think that is a very very good idea & I bet it might even eliminate some PBC's ! !
xo Kath
Muffled, I wanted to ask you something. Do I have your permission to babblemail you?
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 13:24:54
In reply to Re: Maybe a list?! What I want in a site.... » muffled, posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 13:10:28
LOL, as Bob says...reasonable people can disagree...LOL!
What time frame do you think might be good for deleting archives? At the site I go to, they warn you in advance so you can do searches and cut and paste anything you might want to save, and actually I am getting more in the habit of pasting into my journal anything I think might be important.
UGH, NO PBC's!!! Just reasonable people giving each other the heads up. It can and does work most of the time on the site I have been observing.
And Bob is aware of that site, I told him, gave him examples of how things were worked out w/o blocks etc.
Anyhow.
Babblemail does freak me cuz of the intimacy factor, and safety factor. I also dislike the 'crapola' that can go on behind the scenes. Reminds me of the stuff in HS and the talking behind backs and stuff. I never liked that. There are occasions when bmail can be useful, but if you have trusted friends, you could exchamge emails.
Yes you can bmail me, thats why my indicator is there. Like I said, sometimes bmail is useful, just I seen it hurt people too, and I hate seeing people hurt. I am a tad obsessive about safety and stuff IRL. I want to protect alla the kids in my childs school. I don't want ANYbody to be hurt. LOL, it think I am thot of as a tad eccentric, but not a bad egg ;-)
In the old days of babble, if you had something to say, it was best said in front of all, cuz we all knew each other.
But nowadays, that is lost.
So ROFL, thats a LONG winded way of saying g'head, b-mail me!
M
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 13:46:20
In reply to Re: Maybe a list?! What I want in a site...., posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 13:24:54
> LOL, as Bob says...reasonable people can disagree...LOL!
~ ~ (((you)))
> What time frame do you think might be good for deleting archives?
~ ~ I don't know as I hadn't really thought of it.
> At the site I go to, they warn you in advance so you can do searches and cut and paste anything you might want to save, and actually I am getting more in the habit of pasting into my journal anything I think might be important.
~ ~ Actually that's a really good idea. I like the idea of Archives being deleted. I just didn't know the timeframe.
> UGH, NO PBC's!!! Just reasonable people giving each other the heads up. It can and does work most of the time on the site I have been observing.
~ ~ Yeah - it worked for 7 years on the site I mentioned.
LOL, it think I am thot of as a tad eccentric, but not a bad egg ;-)
~ ~ lol - Not a bad egg at all! A GOOD egg!!
> So ROFL, thats a LONG winded way of saying g'head, b-mail me!
> M~ ~ :-))) Thanks Muffy xoxo Kath
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 14:45:37
In reply to Re: Maybe a list?! What I want in a site...., posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 13:46:20
This is just how I feel!!!! :)
I know it can be hard when there is trouble on sites, but we are human and there WILL be trouble!
In a new site it can be part of the registration process. Stating what we are trying to achieve. And it could be stated that we are, as a site, learning what works. But basically, I would be alot more freer for blocking a person for just a few days(?) for example, if they seem to be acting out and not being able to listen. I think it would have to be discretionary choice amongst the people who run the site. I think it could be handled privately with that person and the moderators.
Cuz often, under the meanness/disruptiveness is hurt, and they are being defensive as a self protection measure.
I had seen a very very hurt person, on another site, cause alot of trouble. And OMG the people there were SO amazing in working things thru w/her, despite her anger. I think eventually she did get blocked, but it was w/o fanfare, she just hasn't been posting, so self block or blocked by admin, I don't know.
So, one of the things I really liked about babble, and I saw this over and over again, was that 'lurkers' would read for awhile, cuz they were nervous, but then, seeing how kind babblers were, they eventually joined in. Thats how I came to join!!!
And yes, you will get disruptive ones, but what some babblers were SO good at was Unconditional Acceptance. Agape love. THAT's where we could reach out and help others who were hurting and had been excluded so much in their lives.
SO often, the ones that cause trouble are just hurting, testing, wanting so bad to be accepted, to be heard.
Ultimately, the admin people of the site would have the option of banning a person if they were doing too much damage. But this even could be done with care. Take the time to explain WHY. And that if they can get a better stability, then we would love to see them back. Just have to explain why, not that they are 'Bad', but that they are hurting others too much at this time.
So, not being a site connected w/google, will proly go alot towards keeping it more private. Plus, if archives are occassionally deleted, there is safety in that. And as someone said, the real searchers who find it, well, we want them to join.
I think sites generally naturally have an ebb and flow of people posting, as posters lives change etc.
So new people is good, just not so many that it becomes unmanagable....
Like a cosy fireside chat, not a gymnasium full of people we don't know...
My thots
M
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 16:41:55
In reply to Regarding exclusivity on a site, posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 14:45:37
It seems like a lot of the small groups that splinter off Babble don't end up working out. I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer, I'm just pointing out what I've noticed over years of observation. I think whoever pointed out that it's harder than it looks is likely correct.
Which doesn't mean I'm not interested. Not at all. I don't want to lose touch with the people I've grown to care about. Count me in.
I suppose scope would be one of the main things to consider. Are we talking about starting a group of those of us former babblers who want to stay in touch? A semi private group? Or is the idea to expand membership and be more of a mental health support website? It seems to me that the former would be a more feasible idea and require less investment, but also more vulnerable to the drifting away that seems to occur naturally.
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 19:44:25
In reply to Re: Regarding exclusivity on a site, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 16:41:55
> I suppose scope would be one of the main things to consider. Are we talking about starting a group of those of us former babblers who want to stay in touch? A semi private group? Or is the idea to expand membership and be more of a mental health support website? It seems to me that the former would be a more feasible idea and require less investment, but also more vulnerable to the drifting away that seems to occur naturally.
*Yeah scope may be a sticky issue.
But what you said is true, in that people naturally drift away (and sometimes return!). So new influx is needed.
Plus I just hate to think I am missing out on special people.
Many people here I would have never met if babble was closed.
And I hate to say it, but I am w/Bob in that I like the thot of supporting others....just not on a wholesale level, but maybe on a more cosy level.Dinah, you a smart cookie!
Posted by Phillipa on October 31, 2009, at 20:44:25
In reply to Re: Regarding exclusivity on a site » Dinah, posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 19:44:25
I know a site now that is known by some here are they post both here and there. Approval first from moderator a former babbler. If a problem he kindly asks the person to behave or whatever. I get notifications of all the discussions in full. Was set up by a program computer anylist sp? Phillipa ps it's growing in leaps and bounds
Posted by moonshadow on October 31, 2009, at 22:07:46
In reply to Re: Regarding exclusivity on a site, posted by Phillipa on October 31, 2009, at 20:44:25
> I know a site now that is known by some here are they post both here and there. Approval first from moderator a former babbler. If a problem he kindly asks the person to behave or whatever. I get notifications of all the discussions in full. Was set up by a program computer anylist sp? Phillipa ps it's growing in leaps and bounds
I guess that's what I'm thinking - if it already exists, why try to reinvent it? My main problem with Babble is the sharing through FB and Twitter. When I post things to this site, that's fine, and whoever reads them, fine. But to reproduce my words w/o my consent? Not okay.To quote Bob on the copyright information link "How do copyrights work here?
My understanding is that when you write something, you (usually) get the copyright to it. It doesn't even have to include a copyright statement. There's a process by which you can registerthat copyright, but that's a somewhat separate issue. However, I want to be able to use these posts elsewhere. For example, on my Book Ideas page or in articles."
To be fair, that should now include Facebook and Twitter. Books, articles are one thing. Giving everyone access to reprint my words, totally different. Because it's not just Bob that's using it, it's everyone.
Off my soapbox now.
moonshadow
Posted by karen_kay on November 1, 2009, at 9:01:19
In reply to Why not create what we need/this was done in 2000, posted by Kath on October 29, 2009, at 18:34:54
i've always felt relatively safe here. when i post, it's frequent. hell, it's very frequent. i only stop posting because i get too busy :) but, i tend to be 'waaaaay too open' a gene given to me by my mother, who wouldn't hesitate to tell me and my sister to stop scratching our butts at walmart in front of complete strangers, then take us to the doctor to which she would swear time and again we had worms of some sort. yeah, it was a blast growing up.
usually, the only things i regret posting are out of embarrassment. and that only lasts a few days. or if i write something hurtful. that lasts a whole lot longer. i'm not a bit concerned i'm being used as some sort of sciece experiment. if that's the case, i could only hope someone learns something from all the daily b*llsh*t i go through because i sure don't. or at least gets rich from it and throws a few dollars my way. if not, at least i get a release from writing. and that's all i really want. and the company of some really great people.
i can, however, understand how others aren't nearly as open as i am. and i get that point of view. if i were savy enough to do more than just recently figure out how to start a photobucket account, i'd help out, but alas i'm not :)
good luck to you. i understand your point of view. completely. i'm jsut more the type to stand in line at walmart and scratch my butt without hesitation :)
Posted by Kath on November 1, 2009, at 14:43:42
In reply to Re: Regarding exclusivity on a site, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 16:41:55
> It seems like a lot of the small groups that splinter off Babble don't end up working out.
The one I was in was active from 2000 to 2007 - not too shabby a time-record methinks.
:-)>I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer, I'm just pointing out what I've noticed over years of observation. I think whoever pointed out that it's harder than it looks is likely correct.
>
> Which doesn't mean I'm not interested. Not at all. I don't want to lose touch with the people I've grown to care about. Count me in.After reading Muffled's comments about how to deal with problems, I'm feeling WAY more positive about the prospect.
> I suppose scope would be one of the main things to consider. Are we talking about starting a group of those of us former babblers who want to stay in touch? A semi private group? Or is the idea to expand membership and be more of a mental health support website? It seems to me that the former would be a more feasible idea and require less investment, but also more vulnerable to the drifting away that seems to occur naturally.I'm more interested in the former. What would a semi-private group be?
Kath
By the way, ((((((((((((((((you)))))))))))))))
Posted by Kath on November 1, 2009, at 14:47:28
In reply to Re: Regarding exclusivity on a site » Dinah, posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 19:44:25
At the other site, we came up with the idea that people could suggest someone they knew & felt good about.
This seems like a good idea to me, except I'm not sure where they'd know someone from? At that time, they'd probably have known someone from here!
One time a new unknown person was added & I'm not computer-savvy, but this person posted weird, somewhat upsetting posts & apparently flooded members' emails with junk-posts or something. It was pretty upsetting.
Kath
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | 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.