Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 300134

Shown: posts 64 to 88 of 124. Go back in thread:

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 18:44:30

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

> > That would be it for me. The 2000 board nearly did it
>
> Why only nearly?
>
Oh, I forgot to answer this part in my distress over the other part. Honestly, the nearly probably had to do with my weakness at the time. I needed the board too much to hold to principle. But I've abandoned principle too many areas in my life from weakness, and I hope I'm strong enough not to do so again.

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 19:01:20

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

BTW, Dr. Bob. Why do you think that the individual boards have grown too big city? Psychological has a core group of dedicated posters but welcomes newcomers with enthusiasm as potential friends. Social seems the same. And while it's true that people with a lot in common often end up on the same threads, others are welcomed to participate. See the wedding thread on Social as a beautiful example.

Why mess up something so lovely with something that is so st. xxxxx.

 

Re: small town boards

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 8, 2004, at 7:32:18

In reply to Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2004, at 19:01:20

> Why do you think that the individual boards have grown too big city? Psychological has a core group of dedicated posters but welcomes newcomers with enthusiasm as potential friends. Social seems the same. And while it's true that people with a lot in common often end up on the same threads, others are welcomed to participate.

I certainly never meant to imply that anyone was being unwelcoming! I just thought one size might not fit all...

> Why mess up something so lovely with something that is so st. xxxxx.

Why not try to make it more lovely? Or lovely to more people?

In keeping with the small town analogy, what if I cleared space for a few new settlements, and people who were interested could pick one and "move in"? Without, of course, having to stop posting on the current boards... Maybe the limit could be 10-20 posters per new board?

Bob

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by Dinah on February 8, 2004, at 8:09:02

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

I see you're going to do this.

I'll have to think about things.

D*mn, Dr. Bob. I loved this place.

 

Re: small town boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by fallsfall on February 8, 2004, at 9:00:36

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

So, if I am understanding right, Dr. Bob, these small towns would be for posters who were "invited" by posters who were already members. But anyone could read these boards. It is just the select "members" could post. Why would that not invite members to discuss things that are unkind to nonmembers, with nonmembers not having the opportunity to respond? It is sort of like now, if someone is blocked, people can talk about them and they can't respond. But at least in that case you can justify that they can't respond because they did something "bad" to be blocked. In your small town case, the only thing "bad" they did was not be popular enough.

I have personal contacts with a number of people who I met on this board. We have connected through email and also communicate through IMs. These conversations are private between us, and I really like the opportunity to discuss some things that are too private to put on a public board. Sometimes we also get a little catty about some of the other posters - and sometimes we get concerned about other posters and try to come up with a way together to help them. I have not found it difficult at all to have conversations with smaller groups of people. But I have done it without excluding anyone, and I have done it discreetly.

I think that one of the best things about Babble is that everyone can participate - the loud and obnoxious, the shy. Those with lots of knowledge and those who are just starting to learn. Those with just one question, who need support right now, and those who need long threads of in depth study. And everyone is welcome.

I have read the 2000 board on occasion, and sometimes wanted to join in, but I couldn't. The 2000 people seemed elite, and some of them wouldn't post on the regular boards. That meant that I could meet and get to know people who I couldn't talk to. If that's not exclusion, I don't know what is.

I don't see the "problem" that you are trying to solve. Could you please explain to me how the smaller boards would be "better" than the boards WE have now? I honestly don't see the advantage, but I do see disadvantages. Granted, in the time that this was being debated I was not feeling well and, while I read the posts I might not have understood them well. But perhaps you could summarize for me what the advantages are.

Are those advantages worth the hard feelings, exclusion, and longtime posters leaving?

Falls

 

Re: poster-initiated boards » Dr. Bob

Posted by jane d on February 8, 2004, at 15:12:23

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards, posted by Dr. Bob on January 18, 2004, at 17:09:35

> Is it better if there are "teams" but they're just not made public?

Yes. But I'll get back to that later.

>
> 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".

> > It's too bad the PB year boards didn't take off for the 2001 group, because that's sort of a way to get people together who have something in common.
>
> 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. Perhaps you are right and we just hadn't been around long enough at that time to form into a distinct group but 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. We remembered being welcomed (well at least allowed in to play) by the original posters and felt a little queasy about slamming the door shut behind us.


>
> > And, I assume, if a PIB is created, there would be no reason newbies couldn't be added if they have a sponsor or the group votes 'yes.'

For me the question that jumps out at me is why do this under the auspices of babble at all. The truth is groups like this already exist and new ones can be created at will. I belong to one such unofficial group that formed years ago in the chat room of open and then migrated to IM. And I know that some of those people are in touch with other groups whose members are involved with still others and on and on. And if you read enough posts you do see that many people have off board contacts. These are private groups in a way. They aren't totally closed but as with groups of old friends in real life they aren't totally open either. I don't think they are meant to be a secret. In fact I remember that you were once invited to a virtual cup of coffee by one (which you never accepted so far as I know). But they aren't flaunted in anybody's face on babble. It's just not polite to hold conversations in front of other people when they aren't allowed to join in. Private conversations should be held privately. Otherwise it's like going to a party and refusing to speak to half the people there. When something is said at the party (ie babble) then everyone should be allowed to wander by and mingle in. And up to now they have been. It's a very nice party complete with some gracious senior hosts who show up in time to help the socially inept into the conversations until they can fend for themselves. Why wreck that?

Jane

 

Re: poster-initiated boards » jane d

Posted by gabbix2 on February 8, 2004, at 15:32:02

In reply to Re: poster-initiated boards » Dr. Bob, posted by jane d on February 8, 2004, at 15:12:23

> For me the question that jumps out at me is why do this under the auspices of babble at all.

That was exactly my question! Except I didn't use "auspices" (In my head I used the word "umbrella.")

The fact that it's being considered in a mental health support setting makes it even more repugnant to me. In my opinion it contradicts everything every block and every p.b.c supposedly stood for.


 

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


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.