Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 300134

Shown: posts 71 to 95 of 124. Go back in thread:

 

Re: poster-initiated boards

Posted by Penny on February 8, 2004, at 17:37:42

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards » jane d, posted by gabbix2 on February 8, 2004, at 15:32:02

I usually avoid admin discussions, but in this case, I feel I must second (or third, or whatever the case may be) the feelings of the majority who have posted above regarding this - it seems as though setting up boards by invite only might turn things into a popularity contest of sorts, which, to me, is contradictory to what babble is supposed to be.

But, then again, I didn't create babble, so maybe I'm not clear on its intention. But I, for one, if I were not invited or 'sponsored' to be a part of a board I was interested in, would feel hurt and rejected - and how is it civil to make others feel that way? And I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable initiating a board that didn't allow anyone who needed support to be a part of it...

P

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by DaisyM on February 8, 2004, at 17:47:59

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18

I've never posted over here either...

I'd like to add to the argument: given the time it takes to follow your "favorite" board, why create even more to bounce around on? There is already a "feel" for each subgroup and you can get comfortable there. I feel like I've lost a mentor with Dinah leaving...

Is there really a core group who wants or needs this? HOW did this get started?

In relating it to what I do, it is like saying if you don't have a specific kind of disability, you can't access this great support group, even if you think it would help you. Because we're going to decide for you what that support you need looks like. Because if we're not all the same, we can't help each other. Rubbish!

I'm so sad...

 

100% with Daisy and Penny on this. (nm)

Posted by gardenergirl on February 8, 2004, at 19:05:44

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by DaisyM on February 8, 2004, at 17:47:59

 

Re: small town boards , big city broad

Posted by Slinky on February 8, 2004, at 19:51:29

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2004, at 18:13:17

Small towns , invitation only?
No
Members would feel hurt . Wow , it would sure make me paranoid with my fear of rejection problem..this is a MENTAL health board right?
Groups naturally develop by an invitation to email.
Bob you knowz I luv you but this tastes like
ice cream with fish .
Ok , give me my board 2001 back and I'll invite everyone - I'd still be the only one using it...
cause me's an oddity from a dodgy dimension.

 

Re: poster-initiated boards

Posted by pegasus on February 8, 2004, at 21:26:09

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by Penny on February 8, 2004, at 17:37:42

Plus, as a newcomer, I have to say that I like having interaction with people who have been around here for a while. I hate the idea of a newcomer only board. I would be afraid that the turnover would be very high, and it would be hard to make friends, like a lot of PB folks have.

And, I don't really like the idea of having fewer people posting on the main boards here anyway. I love following the diversity of threads, and reading posts from folks who have known each other for a long time. I hope that doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. It's just that that's what made PB appealing to me in the first place. All the relationships that people have with each other. If those folks were all posting somewhere that I didn't have access to, I probably wouldn't bother to be here.

-p

 

Re: poster-initiated boards » pegasus

Posted by Penny on February 8, 2004, at 22:01:53

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by pegasus on February 8, 2004, at 21:26:09

> Plus, as a newcomer, I have to say that I like having interaction with people who have been around here for a while. I hate the idea of a newcomer only board. I would be afraid that the turnover would be very high, and it would be hard to make friends, like a lot of PB folks have.

Very true - because at what point would someone no longer be a 'newcomer'? Would folks have to leave after a certain period of time b/c they weren't new enough anymore? I dunno, but it doesn't make much sense to me.


> And, I don't really like the idea of having fewer people posting on the main boards here anyway. I love following the diversity of threads, and reading posts from folks who have known each other for a long time. I hope that doesn't make anyone uncomfortable. It's just that that's what made PB appealing to me in the first place. All the relationships that people have with each other. If those folks were all posting somewhere that I didn't have access to, I probably wouldn't bother to be here.

Exactly, p. Mutual support and education - that's supposed to be the point, is it not? Of course, as I said in my message above, perhaps I am wrong, as I did not create Babble, so I can't know the intent for sure. But reading threads from others, even if you don't participate, is what lets us get to know each other, and is what helps us know we're not alone in mental illness and tough life issues.

argh...
P


 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 9:45:39

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18

Perhaps I read this incorrectly. I read it as a done deal. Something you now had firm plans to do. Am I incorrect?

I do want to clarify that I mean no ultimatum by my words. This is your board and I have always respected that fact. I know I have no powers to make ultimatums. :) It's just a statement of position.

It would help if I had more clarity as to "why" it is important to you to have these boards. It's my understanding that at any given time, the active posters on Social aren't much more than you are stating. And I can't imagine why anyone would want a small town board for medication questions or any other questions involving fact, as surely the greater the pool of knowledge, the more likely a helpful answer will be given.

The only thing I can imagine would be a board given to complex medication questions such as Cam and St. James had expressed an interest in. I can see where perhaps some test might need to be passed in order to enter a board like that, and I wouldn't consider that discrimatory.

My understanding is that you are no longer considering making these boards invitation only, but luck of the draw first ten to twenty who apply. But still, isn't it akin to having a private party in front of those not invited? Who can only press their nose to the very public window? I consider that less uncivil than an invitation only board, but still uncivil.

If you wish to have poster initiated boards, may I make a counter suggestion?

How about allowing the formation of new boards with the poster who formed it having your powers for that board and having the power to block people from that board for incivility violations, subject to your veto (a la not enforcing do not posts with no provocation)? But having no initial restriction as to invitation or size. Anyone can post at any point, just as now. And you turn over moderating control to the extent you find comfortable (although I hope you wouldn't let flagrant incivility towards other posters happen).

I suppose you could even have someone start a liberal board that bashes conservatives, since any conservative who went there would know they wouldn't be welcome, and would be asking for what they got.

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by henrietta on February 9, 2004, at 11:55:51

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 9:45:39

I, too, wish you'd explain your thinking on this, Bob. I don't understand what problem these new boards are meant to solve, or what new service they are meant to provide. The potential for damage seems so obvious that I need help in understanding what potential for good you envision. Thanks.

 

Perhaps a poll? » Dr. Bob

Posted by judy1 on February 9, 2004, at 12:41:08

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18

Since this is such an emotionally charged issue for a lot of people, perhaps it would help to have a poll to get an accurate idea on whether the majority of of posters support/not support PIBs?
Thanks, judy

 

Re: small town boards » henrietta

Posted by Karen_kay on February 9, 2004, at 13:11:37

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by henrietta on February 9, 2004, at 11:55:51

Exactly, what is the reasoning behind this? To start cliques? To make posters feel excluded? To have other posters feel as though they are popular and elite? Is this board's purpose for support or a popularity contest? I really don't understand what the purose of the smaller boards would be. Honestly. If I were not invited to one, my feelings would be hurt, as I suspect would be the case for many other posters as well. Even though I really doubt I would join a smaller board. It's not that I'm oppossed to change. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. It's the fact that these smaller boards would take away from the sense of community that we have right now. The mere thought of having smaller boards makes my stomach curl.

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 17:17:13

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18

I suppose I don't need to leave since you dropped the invitation part of the idea. I think that would have been so unbelievably uncivil that I just can't express my depth of disgust for that idea.

But I continue to protest the idea of small groups where you can read but not post as being unnecessarily divisive, not to mention plain bad manners by every rule of politeness I've ever been taught. I seriously hope you reconsider. If you're going to make exclusive clubs, shouldn't the internet not be able to read them either? Though I still say that Yahoo is perfect for that purpose.

Do you have the statistics for the active number of posters on Social at any given time? I can't imagine it's much more than 20 anyway.

I also hope that you give serious consideration to Judy's excellent idea of taking a poll, although we all realize this is not a democracy. (wry smile)

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2004, at 19:51:37

In reply to Perhaps a poll? » Dr. Bob, posted by judy1 on February 9, 2004, at 12:41:08

> So, if I am understanding right, Dr. Bob, these small towns would be for posters who were "invited" by posters who were already members.

That was my original idea, but it wasn't very popular, so now I'm thinking about limiting how many people could join, but letting people have their pick:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/310834.html

> Why would that not invite members to discuss things that are unkind to nonmembers, with nonmembers not having the opportunity to respond?
>
> Falls

Are people only civil because others might respond? Members would need to be civil regarding nonmembers, like people now need to be civil regarding those who are blocked.

----

> > Hmm, what about a board expressly for newcomers?
>
> What's wrong with someone saying "I'm new" on a thread on social and having a couple of other people come back with "I'm new too".

Nothing, but some people may not feel comfortable doing that, and even if they do, that may not be enough for them to feel really connected.

> > I'm not sure what happened with 2001. Maybe they didn't really feel like a cohort?
>
> Well there was enough group feeling to carry out an unofficial boycott of the board... I'd like to think it was because we potential members of the class of 2001 were not that far away from being newcomers ourselves.
>
> Jane

Well, people would be free to boycott these small town boards, too. But PB 2001 wasn't started until April 2002 and was open for more than a year, and I'm not sure I'd consider people newcomers after 1 to 2 years...

----

> Perhaps I read this incorrectly. I read it as a done deal. Something you now had firm plans to do. Am I incorrect?

Pretty firm. But I wouldn't call it a done deal. And sometimes it takes me time to get to things...

> It would help if I had more clarity as to "why" it is important to you to have these boards. It's my understanding that at any given time, the active posters on Social aren't much more than you are stating.
>
> Dinah

The idea is, the open boards are like big cities. The small town boards would be like, well, small towns. Some people prefer small towns to big cities. Those people might feel more comfortable on small town boards.

If Social is small, OK, think of it as more Socials?

----

> perhaps it would help to have a poll
>
> judy

The thing is, I think people who are here now are going to be relatively satisfied with the current system. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here now...

----

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Change is always hard here.

Some people seem to feel it would be elitist to join a small town board. But someone could do that and still visit the big city boards. And if they didn't feel comfortable in the big city, wouldn't it be nice for them to have an alternative? If they felt supported on a small board, they might even be more likely to try a large one...

People have already formed their own small groups. Is that elitist? I'm more inclined to see it as wanting to connect than wanting to exclude. But what about those who want to connect, but haven't been able to? Why not try something new to help them?

Also, I wouldn't see it as so exclusionary to let others listen in on what's being discussed...

Are people assuming that they'd be rejected? That a mass exodus from the current boards would leave them behind? There are lots of wonderful people here who *like* the current boards. Why would they leave?

Maybe no one would. That would be fine, too. I've certainly been wrong before...

Bob

 

Re: Perhaps a poll?

Posted by henrietta on February 9, 2004, at 19:57:32

In reply to Perhaps a poll? » Dr. Bob, posted by judy1 on February 9, 2004, at 12:41:08

I think a poll, whether or not it affects the the administrator's decision, would be empowering for all of us. I propose that after duly informing ourselves of the particulars, we do vote. (I believe many people have eloquently presented their cases in this thread, though Dr B has yet to convincingly present his case. Not sure how long we are meant to wait for that B -presentation, but we must proceed, apparently, without it.)
OK. Do you feel there is Greater Potential for Harm (GPH) or Greater Potential for Good
(GPG) in the proposal presented by DrB in the above thread?
I vote GPH.
hen

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 20:52:57

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2004, at 19:51:37

It's not a vision of Babble that I like. A bunch of gated private communities. But if that's what you want, you'll have it of course. I don't think it's the best way to build a community.

I register my ongoing disagreement with the concept, and hope that it doesn't lead to a lack of sense of community overall.

Couldn't you at least make them so the rest of us can't read them? There is something so .... about a public private party.

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by jane d on February 9, 2004, at 22:05:32

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2004, at 19:51:37

> , and I'm not sure I'd consider people newcomers after 1 to 2 years...

No. Definately not. But everyone except for the first class has taken their turn reading posts about how great things were back in the old days and realized that the old days meant pre-them. :)

> The idea is, the open boards are like big cities. The small town boards would be like, well, small towns. Some people prefer small towns to big cities. Those people might feel more comfortable on small town boards.

I'd count myself as a small towner by nature as a matter of fact. Even though we aren't talking about invitational only boards any more I find I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this version. I think the reason is that public boards are not small town by definition. And trying to make them feel cozy and "small town" is a form of subtle, possibly accidental, misrepresentation. I know this isn't a new argument but it seems to apply particularly well to this example.

>
> Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Change is always hard here.

You sound as though you feel that you are being attacked from all sides. That certainly wasnt my intention even if it looks like I keep changing my arguments with each post. I'm hoping they are evolving.

> Some people seem to feel it would be elitist to join a small town board. But someone could do that and still visit the big city boards. And if they didn't feel comfortable in the big city, wouldn't it be nice for them to have an alternative? If they felt supported on a small board, they might even be more likely to try a large one...

Put like that it sounds good but it's already hard for newcomers to negotiate the number of boards already here. It doesn't matter how friendly the group is when you arrive if you can't find the place. I think it's easy to forget how confusing this place already can be for a newcomer once you already know your way around. For example, this makes perfect sense to me http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/maps/submap.htm
but I bet it looks like gibberish to most people here. And I doubt that the list of babble boards looks much clearer to newcomers. And I think more boards would have to increase the administrative burden on you as well which could indirectly make things even more confusing.


> People have already formed their own small groups. Is that elitist? I'm more inclined to see it as wanting to connect than wanting to exclude. But what about those who want to connect, but haven't been able to? Why not try something new to help them?

I hope I didn't suggest that the groups I know of are elitist. The one I am most familiar with evolved from the chat room in Open and everyone was welcomed there. Over time some friendships developed there that went beyond the chat room but that chat room stayed open and welcoming. I wasn't that comfortable mentioning the unofficial groups in the first place and only did it because it's an option available to everyone and because I think that it informally serves all of the same functions that your proposed groups did. And that chat room is still there for anyone to use. (And it's unarchived).

> Also, I wouldn't see it as so exclusionary to let others listen in on what's being discussed...

Isn't the point to have people participate though? There are already more than enough places to just passively observe and i'm saying this as a passive observer myself.

Jane

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Elle2021 on February 9, 2004, at 23:38:38

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 17:17:13

Whats the problem with leaving "well enough" alone. I don't like the idea of poster initiated boards, it sounds exclusive.
Elle

 

Re: small town boards » Dinah

Posted by shar on February 10, 2004, at 0:43:09

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 9, 2004, at 17:17:13

> But I continue to protest the idea of small groups where you can read but not post as being unnecessarily divisive, *not to mention plain bad manners by every rule of politeness I've ever been taught.* [emphasis by Shar]

As a fan of manners myself, I am surprised that I haven't come across anything that leads me to believe that small groups by invitation are inherently rude. There are many situations in all sorts of settings, in everyday life, where that very thing occurs (groups we can listen to but not join in). I will list some upon request.

On another occasion, having such groups as PB 2000 was called elitist, a characterization with which I strenuously disagree (if the members are being called elitist, I find that in itself an example of bad manners).

Shar

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2004, at 0:58:10

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by jane d on February 9, 2004, at 22:05:32

> It's not a vision of Babble that I like. A bunch of gated private communities.
>
> Dinah

What's wrong with gated private communities? If everyone can join one if they want? People will only want to belong to clubs that won't have them as members?

----

> everyone except for the first class has taken their turn reading posts about how great things were back in the old days and realized that the old days meant pre-them. :)

Well, that's taking it kind of personally... :-)

> I find I'm still a bit uncomfortable with this version. I think the reason is that public boards are not small town by definition.

Sorry, how do you mean, not small town by definition?

> > Some people seem to feel it would be elitist to join a small town board. But someone could do that and still visit the big city boards. And if they didn't feel comfortable in the big city, wouldn't it be nice for them to have an alternative? If they felt supported on a small board, they might even be more likely to try a large one...
>
> Put like that it sounds good

Great, so I can count on your vote? :-)

> I think it's easy to forget how confusing this place already can be for a newcomer ... For example, this makes perfect sense to me http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/maps/submap.htm
> but I bet it looks like gibberish to most people here.

Exactly, this is like a big city now!

> The one [unofficial group] I am most familiar with evolved from the chat room in Open and everyone was welcomed there. Over time some friendships developed there that went beyond the chat room but that chat room stayed open and welcoming.

Exactly, a friendship could develop on a large board and then move beyond it to a smaller board. While the large board stayed open and welcoming.

> I wasn't that comfortable mentioning the unofficial groups in the first place and only did it because it's an option available to everyone

The unofficial groups are available to everyone?

> > Also, I wouldn't see it as so exclusionary to let others listen in on what's being discussed...
>
> Isn't the point to have people participate though?
>
> jane d

Right, that's what the people being observed would be doing...

Bob

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2004, at 3:59:52

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2004, at 0:58:10

Ok, never mind. I can't stay where not only is such an offensive topic considered ok, but such an offensive answer is given to genuine concerns.

I *do* feel invalidated, not an uncommon feeling with you.

Please remove me as deputy.

Bye. I've enjoyed meeting so many friends. I will be sorry to have missed the friends I have yet to meet.

 

Re: small town boards » shar

Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2004, at 4:01:47

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dinah, posted by shar on February 10, 2004, at 0:43:09

I have never ever made my feelings about PB2000 less than unclear.

In doing so I'm not criticizing the posters, I'm criticizing the idea.

But the question is moot.

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2004, at 4:32:05

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2004, at 0:58:10

You know, Dr. Bob. I was going to stay even though I think this is a divisive bad idea.

All you had to do was be relatively sensitive to the concerns of those who said so.

Surely they taught you these things in psychiatry school? My therapist knows a bunch of them.

"I can see that you're upset and I'm sorry." "I know you feel that way about xxxx, but I see it more as yyyy. I recognize your concerns, but I'm going to give yyyy a try."

Not:

> "What's wrong with gated private communities?"
> "Well, that's taking it kind of personally... :-)"
>
> "Great, so I can count on your vote? :-)"
> "Right, that's what the people being observed would be doing..."
>


 

Re: Of course that should have read...

Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2004, at 7:11:20

In reply to Re: small town boards » shar, posted by Dinah on February 10, 2004, at 4:01:47

> I have never ever made my feelings about PB2000 less than clear.
>
> In doing so I'm not criticizing the posters, I'm criticizing the idea.
>
> But the question is moot.

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2004, at 8:36:19

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 10, 2004, at 3:59:52

> I *do* feel invalidated, not an uncommon feeling with you.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to invalidate, just to understand.

> Please remove me as deputy.

OK, but let me know if you change your mind, it's been great to have you here, and it would be great to have you back. Best wishes,

Bob

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by fallsfall on February 10, 2004, at 9:56:08

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2004, at 8:36:19

> I *do* feel invalidated, not an uncommon feeling with you.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to invalidate, just to understand.


Dr. Bob.

I feel like I am an expert these days on invalidation. I have felt invalidated in my therapy and on this board.

I think that it is not too hard to be validating, even if you disagree with someone. To be validating, one needs to let the other know that they understand the other's point of view and that they recognize that it is reasonable for the other person to have this point of view. In no way does this require the two people to agree - it simply requires the validator to express that the other's point of view IS understood and accepted as the other's point of view.

I find your responses often making me feel incomplete. When you answer a question with a question I feel very no validation at all, because I often feel that you are not understanding the point that the poster is trying to make. I would feel more validation if you used more words, and showed that you did understand the point that the other was trying to make. It feel that by simply answering with a question that you are avoiding the discussion - trying to diffuse the discussion by spreading out more ideas without tying anything back together. I guess I feel like I hear a lot of the possibilities that must be going on in your head, but I do not have a sense of how you see them tying together. This is frustrating for me, because I can't understand by what criteria you are making your decisions, so it is hard for me to figure out how to enter into a discussion with you to make my thoughts known.

I recognize that you have the *right* to make completely arbitrary decisions on any topic that you choose in relation to this board. However, I would be very surprised if that were your goal. If that is NOT your goal, and you are trying to make informed and understandable decisions, then I guess that, at least for me, they aren't coming across that way.

There are many intelligent, thoughtful people on this board. Many of these people would welcome the opportunity to help clarify what this board does to help them, and to hurt them - so that the board may improve and be more helpful and less hurtful. You have one conception of what this board is - from your viewpoint as its creator. Our viewpoints are different - because we have different roles here. I would expect that the best result would be obtained by combining information from both viewpoints. Perhaps you do, but that is not apparent to me, because I don't see the dialog that lets me know that you are understanding what we are trying to say. I don't see the validation.

I also find it hard to validate what you are saying because your ideas appear to me as discrete points of information without connection.

I want to ask some questions, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how to word them in such a way that you would be induced to provide a satisfactory answer (i.e. more than one word, and not a question). I'll see if I can come up with some questions.

I truly hope that you can find my feedback here helpful in understanding how you come across to at least this one poster. I sincerely hope that you wish to communicate more effectively than what I see.

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by Penny on February 10, 2004, at 10:44:30

In reply to Re: small town boards, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2004, at 8:36:19

Doc,

I feel that you are emotionally removed from this board and its posters. Perhaps that is your intent, but it leads me to question the board's purpose. While babble has been a wonderful support system for me in the time I've been posting, I have often bit my tongue and kept my reactions to your postings to myself, as I avoid controversy as much as possible.

Not to say that you should be overly emotionally involved with the posters on this board - perhaps 'involved' isn't the right word at all. But I've seen you post that you 'care' about the people on this board, yet I wonder if that is really the case, or if the idea of 'small town boards' is just one more example of how you view the board more as a means of research than anything else.

I understand the importance of research. I *think*/I *hope* that you really believe that the idea of 'small town boards' will be beneficial to the well being of many present and future posters to the board. That said, if you do, in fact, believe this, and to the extent that you are willing to alienate some of the most helpful, supportive and knowledgable posters on the board, then perhaps you need to post something a bit more detailed about how this is supposed to work. Not that you *need* to justify any decision you make, but out of courtesy for the people who have allowed you to use bits of their lives in your research...

I must say that I, too, find it annoying when you respond to a question with a question and when you respond with an extremely brief answer that leaves many other questions and possible interpretations. That is a communication problem. I know you are a physician. I know this is only one of many many things you do with your time - but if the only response you have time to give is an inadequate one, at least say that you realize it is inadequate and try to elaborate more when you have more time.

As much as I love babble, this whole scenario is really bothering me. I apologize if this comes across in an unclear way - I'm not sure I'm being all too logical right now, so please ask me to clarify if I'm not making sense.

As has been pointed out - this isn't a democracy. I'm not asking for you to take a poll, unless you want to. You don't owe me any explanations - this is your kingdom, your creation of sorts, to do with as you wish. I have participated with the understanding that that is the case. However, I do think you have a good thing going here, something that many people have found comfort, support and knowledge in, and I'd hate to see that fall apart. Perhaps it won't fall apart - perhaps it will just change. But for the better? I guess only time will tell.

P


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.