![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 370 to 394 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Phillipa on April 25, 2005, at 18:35:25
In reply to Re: my vote » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 18:31:13
What? I don't usually go to Social, but that sounds a lot like being Bocked to me. You know you can read but not post. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 19:52:47
In reply to Re: my vote » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 18:31:13
> > If you think that people really are happy at the idea of getting to play behind a glass wall where all their friends can watch and listen, but only some of their friends are welcome to join in, and are afraid to say so for fear of negative input from posters like me, then this poster like me will remove herself from the equation.
>
> No Dinah, I'm not happy at that idea. But I don't see small boards in that way. If I saw them in that way then I would be opposed to them as well.I don't understand how they can be seen any other way. Assuming that a poster posts on both glassed off and open boards:
1) You are having conversations, playful or meaningful, which can be read by your friends from all boards.
2) Some of those conversations can not be joined by friends unless they are members of a limited size, and thus restricted, board.
3) It logically follows from 1 & 2 that you are engaging in " play behind a glass wall where all their friends can watch and listen, but only some of their friends are welcome to join in"Can all friends watch and listen? Yes. Are all friends welcome to join in? No. Only some are welcome to join in those conversations.
What other possible way can 1 & 2 be joined?
The other alternative is that people participate in only restricted boards in which case
1) People who they do not consider friends can watch and listen.
2) People who they do not consider friends are not welcome to join in.
That is at least internally consistent to me, but not really in keeping with what the boards mean to me.
The first scenario, where people considered friends are not allowed to join in conversations they are allowed to watch and see, is totally beyond my conception.
> In fact some people are quiet about what they think and some people are opposed to them because they can see how much this is upsetting you.
>
> That shows just how much people do care about you and your hurt. So please don't go. I'm sorry I didn't think to Babblemail what I had to say.
>
Alexandra, do you really think that's what I want? Do you know me so little that you think that I would find that a good thing? Do you think I want this to be about me? Do you really think I'm like that?I don't want people to side with me because they don't want to hurt me. I don't want people to shut up about their opinions because they don't want to hurt me.
I sort of would like that people wouldn't want to hurt anyone on this site by having conversations openly and then overtly or covertly (through restricted boards) asking others not to join. How would I feel if you and Damos were having a bantering conversation on Social and when I tried to banter with you, you told me it was a private conversation and I wasn't welcome. How is a publicly read board where I wasn't allowed to post any different? And I don't just mean me. I wouldn't even read a board I can't post on. Because I would know I wasn't welcome there. But how would people who didn't realize they weren't welcome feel about it?
I don't want people to not post their opinions because of me. I don't want people to oppose the idea because of me. That idea is REPUGNANT to me. It is contrary to everything I believe in. It's contrary to the very thing I am trying to say in this argument.
Which is that EVERYONE is important. And that EVERYONE should feel welcome. And that feeling like your nose is pressed to a glass wall and there are people laughing and joking or crying and commiserating behind it and YOU AREN'T WELCOME is not a very Babble-like idea. Not the Babble that I love anyway.
And I keep coming smack into the realization that I don't want to be a part of a Babble where that's the way things are.
I'm going back to self imposed block. Dr. Bob can make it official if he likes. Or he can make me step out of the white robes of PBC virginity if he likes.
I can't sell my ideals for virginity.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 25, 2005, at 20:09:48
In reply to Re: my vote, posted by Phillipa on April 25, 2005, at 18:35:25
> What? I don't usually go to Social, but that sounds a lot like being Bocked to me. You know you can read but not post. Fondly, Phillipa
How very succinctly put Phillipa, thanks.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 20:10:24
In reply to Re: my vote, posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 19:52:47
> I don't understand how they can be seen any other way. Assuming that a poster posts on both glassed off and open boards:
> 1) You are having conversations, playful or meaningful, which can be read by your friends from all boards.
> 2) Some of those conversations can not be joined by friends unless they are members of a limited size, and thus restricted, board.
> 3) It logically follows from 1 & 2 that you are engaging in " play behind a glass wall where all their friends can watch and listen, but only some of their friends are welcome to join in"
> Can all friends watch and listen? Yes. Are all friends welcome to join in? No. Only some are welcome to join in those conversations.
> What other possible way can 1 & 2 be joined?
> The other alternative is that people participate in only restricted boards in which case
> 1) People who they do not consider friends can watch and listen.
> 2) People who they do not consider friends are not welcome to join in.
> That is at least internally consistent to me, but not really in keeping with what the boards mean to me.
> The first scenario, where people considered friends are not allowed to join in conversations they are allowed to watch and see, is totally beyond my conception.Hmm. I think... I think...
I finally see what you mean.
Dare I say
(Dare I say)
When you put it like that...
I change my mind.
I don't like the idea either.
> Alexandra, do you really think that's what I want? Do you know me so little that you think that I would find that a good thing? Do you think I want this to be about me? Do you really think I'm like that?No Dinah. I didn't think you would want or like that. But I do think that that is what has happened nevertheless.
> I don't want people to side with me because they don't want to hurt me. I don't want people to shut up about their opinions because they don't want to hurt me.I know you wouldn't want that.
But I do think...
I do think...
That when people see you get so very upset about this
Then that is what happens.
I'm just stating the fact.
I don't think you would like that
I don't think you would want that
And I'm not trying to hurt you
But I do think that happens.
I'm not trying to silence you
But I do think that when people see you getting so very upset then that is what happens.
I liked your last post.
I liked it very much.
You said how you saw it.
And when you explain it like that...
Well...
I can see what you mean.
And I think I do.
And I agree.> I'm going back to self imposed block. Dr. Bob can make it official if he likes. Or he can make me step out of the white robes of PBC virginity if he likes.
> I can't sell my ideals for virginity.
Good for you :-)
But...
Please don't go.
Come back.
I don't think that warranted a blocking Dinah.
Maybe (maybe) a PBC (if that).Don't go.
Please.
Think of the consequence of that...
Posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 20:30:58
In reply to Re: my vote » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 20:10:24
Thank you for that, Alexandra. For saying that you know that I don't want people's opinions to be influenced by me. Well, maybe by the brilliance of my persuasive arguments, but not by me. I never like that idea.
I'm sorry if I overreact. I run smack dab into two opposing forces that are very important to me. My love of Babble, which is fierce, and my ideals of community, which is equally strong. It distresses me a great deal when something like that happens.
I didn't say I'd leave Babble forever. I actually made the decision to stay at Babble regardless. But whenever this topic comes up, it so disorders my world and the natural order of things that I need to step away for a while. Especially when the new Babble regulations about this board inexplicably (to me) seem to require that I remain silent.
I do wish Dr. Bob would have a community expert weigh in on the idea. My therapist happens to be a community expert...
Posted by gardenergirl on April 25, 2005, at 20:36:59
In reply to Re: my vote » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 20:30:58
Perhaps I'm naive, but I just figured if Dr Bob actually ever set them up, not too many folks would even use them. Kind of a if you build it, they won't come? I don't know. But then I still get tripped up when I assume folks think like I do. :)
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 20:54:10
In reply to Re: my vote, posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 19:52:47
I have been thinking... And thinking...
And it is hard.
Because I know that some people don't join in over on social because they feel overwhelmed by the number of posters and posts.
Some people leave Babble because they don't feel like they fit in.
I remember how hard it was for me when I first arrived.
How long it took me before I felt like I did fit in here.
How long it took me before I did feel like a part of this place.
How long it took me before I started registering that different posting names really meant WHO posted that post
And the different posting names were different PEOPLE
And that you can get to know different PEOPLE and different PERSONALITIES over here.
It took me so very long to get that.
Because the number of posts was so very overwhelming.
And I just read each post individually
And didn't even register WHO had written it because the posting names meant nothing to me.
And different posters responded to my posts all the time so it took me a long while to get any notion of continuity and the PEOPLE behind the posting names. But it is the PEOPLE that make Babble so very special. And it is the PEOPLE who are so very theraputic to me.And I do see...
I do see that if there was a board with a smaller number of posters then all that would happen so very much faster and people who leave Babble may well not leave. They may hang around. And get the confidence from feeling accepted in a smaller group to venture out over to social.But then I also see what Dinah is saying... I do.
And so it is a hard one.Some of the boards do have a smaller feel already. Writing. Writing has a smaller number of regular posters. Relationships. Some of the boards are like that already. Social may be daunting - but there are some boards here with a smaller feel already.
I don't think 2000 should be dissolved. Some people post over there - and we would lose them altogether if it wasn't for that board. But it is sad that we can't talk to them. I do feel sad that they don't want to talk to me or get to know me. I was thinking that the other day. And I do feel funny about reading over there. I was reading the thread about whether the 2000 board should go. And I wanted to post to it - to say 'No! Don't feel bad peoples'. But then I realised that I couldn't post to it. I could probably post a reply to it on another board. But the people from 2000 probably wouldn't read my reply even if they knew there was one. And they didn't care what I had to say about it anyway because, well, because that is partly why they post over there I suppose. Because they don't want responses from people they don't know. I don't know. But thats what I was thinking. And I do feel sad about that.
But please don't go Dinah. To leave over this - well, it really is cutting off ones nose to spite ones face. There are restricted boards here already. 2000 and newbies and students used to be. And I know you don't like that - but you are still here. And to leave as a matter of principle is to cut off ones nose. To stay here and to say what you think is the way to be true to yourself IMO. You don't have to leave over it. And it isn't just cutting off your nose - it is cutting off other posters noses too. Because we miss out on you. And your support. And you are a huge part of the psych board Dinah (and other boards too) - but especially the psych board.
But people do feel left out...
Newbies do get ignored a fair bit.
I have noticed that.
I try to welcome them over on the newbies board, but then I suppose that most often I repost their posts over on another board - because I feel like they will get more responses there. But maybe that is to defeat the purpose of the newbies board. Maybe the idea of the newbies board is mroe to strike up a conversation with them. And be a bit of a 'buddy' to them. And try and be their first friend on Babble. I notice quite often that Newbies get welcomed on the newbies board - but then after that they sort of do look like they are being ignored a bit over on the other boards. Or a little bit later, a little bit later after people have stopped welcoming them. I don't think it is intentional - but it does happen. It does. And I feel sad about that - but sometimes I don't have the time and energy to go around being shepard. I just can't do it.Babble could so easily be a full time job. I think of that a lot. I am quite fond of thinking up research projects that one could do that are Babble related. Even experiments or whatever for the empirically inclined. It would be a way to justify spending most of ones time here ;-) But then I feel a bit funny about that because I don't think Dr Bob likes the idea of OTHER people doing research here, and I am aware that most Babblers don't even like the idea of Dr Bob doing research here.
That is a shame... There was actually one thread that I really wanted to use part of in my thesis. Really. I think I could have gotten a good chapter around it. I even checked out the 'fair use' regulations and everything. But then I thought about it and worried about it and realised that the poster would not like it. I mean they really would not like it especially if they knew what my thesis was about. Even though I wouldn't have been mocking them or making fun of them or anything like that - merely using it to illustrate something that I had to say (about difficulties with CBT). Anyway... I decided not to do it... But I don't know... If I really do get stuck on things to say then I may have to ;-)
I don't know...
I am rambelling.
Please don't get paranoid peoples.
I'm sorry :-(
Posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 21:01:57
In reply to Re: my vote » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 20:30:58
Dinah
(((Dinah)))
We are crossing posts...> Thank you for that, Alexandra. For saying that you know that I don't want people's opinions to be influenced by me. Well, maybe by the brilliance of my persuasive arguments, but not by me. I never like that idea.
Oh Dinah I KNEW that. I mean really and truely. I knew you would be appalled at my pointing it out. But I really did think that that was what was happening. I was worried about how you might take my saying that. I worried a bit that you would see it as a further reason to remove yourself. But I hoped, I really hoped that you would see it as a reason to take a deep breath before posting and to post what you thought more than how appalled you were at the idea. Not that they are mutually exclusive. I just mean that the sheer force with which you write about how very offended you are at the very idea is what brings out that reaction in people (IMO) - and I guess I figured that you didn't consciously realise that. Because I knew you would find the very idea of that repugnant.
> I'm sorry if I overreact. I run smack dab into two opposing forces that are very important to me. My love of Babble, which is fierce, and my ideals of community, which is equally strong. It distresses me a great deal when something like that happens.Its ok. I have been known to get VERY VERY wound up about things that are important to me as well. It really is very clear that it is because you care so very much. I'm sorry for your distress. Really. But (once again) I do think that the answer is to stay here and continue to post what you think (and I do believe it can be done even within the amended civility guidelines).
> I didn't say I'd leave Babble forever. I actually made the decision to stay at Babble regardless.YAY!! OH YAY!!!
>But whenever this topic comes up, it so disorders my world and the natural order of things that I need to step away for a while. Especially when the new Babble regulations about this board inexplicably (to me) seem to require that I remain silent.
Oh, no. I don't think that is the intention of them. It is just words like 'glass ceiling' and 'exclusionary' and that... Well, that is my understanding anyway. But if you clearly define what you mean by those terms... Or just remove those terms altogether... I think there is still scope to express ones opposition.
> I do wish Dr. Bob would have a community expert weigh in on the idea. My therapist happens to be a community expert...Heh heh. And he agrees with you already, no doubt ;-)
I actually wonder if he has been changing his mind on this given that he doesn't seem to have set one up yet...
Posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 21:03:12
In reply to Re: my vote, posted by gardenergirl on April 25, 2005, at 20:36:59
> Perhaps I'm naive, but I just figured if Dr Bob actually ever set them up, not too many folks would even use them. Kind of a if you build it, they won't come? I don't know. But then I still get tripped up when I assume folks think like I do. :)
Uh. I think enough would probably use it to keep them going... Newbies would probably be the most likely to join up... And maybe some people who feel anxious over on social. I actually decided to join up around about number 5. But I have changed my mind now...
Posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 21:08:23
In reply to Re: To Dinah (and all) but Dinah - please read, posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 20:54:10
Alexandra, I'm really not planning to leave for good. I'm not sure I could if I wanted to. I just get too upset and need to step back when this type of conversation is going on.
I understand the problem of those who are new, or those who don't get replies. I offered to brainstorm ideas with Dr. Bob, and was brushed off not too gently. I have no objections to small rooms where others can't read. Other people might but I don't. I have email conversations with other people right now, and I don't see that as any different. But Dr. Bob isn't interested in alternate solutions, just this one. And that's cool. It's his board. He can do what he wants.
But I get inordinately distressed... Oh, never mind. Maybe I just get inordinately distressed. Falls would say it was old pain. My mother would say it was old teaching and that I was a good girl. My therapist says... Hmmm... Better not say that either.
Posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 21:12:19
In reply to Re: my vote » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 21:01:57
Well, I don't get inordinately distressed to sway people's opinion.
But I'm not going to pretend I'm not inordinately distressed either. If I could do that I wouldn't be inordinately distressed. I'd be mildly distressed.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 21:14:04
In reply to Re: my vote » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 21:12:19
> Well, I don't get inordinately distressed to sway people's opinion.
>
> But I'm not going to pretend I'm not inordinately distressed either. If I could do that I wouldn't be inordinately distressed. I'd be mildly distressed.Heh heh. Yeah, I suppose.
I don't know, thats a hard one...
Posted by Phillipa on April 25, 2005, at 21:40:07
In reply to Re: my vote » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 21:14:04
Alexandra, I just wanted to comment on one of your posts further up this Thread. I have noticed how often you welcome a Newbie to the Board. That's great! And how often you redirect their Thread. Sometimes I see we welcome a Newbie to Pbabble but not all the time. We do need improvement. But I also have an idea. One of the reasons I don't Post on Social is that it seems to attract a "young" crowd in general with issues that older people don't seem to have as often. Would it be discriminatory to have a Social Board for those who wish to disclose their age bracket? That way we could discuss issues that are pertinent to our age group. An example would be the empty nest syndrome. Somehow it makes me feel old to hear about dating and young children. Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive. But I thought I'd ask. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
In reply to Re: To Dinah (and all) but Dinah - please read » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 21:08:23
> I'm for them too.
>
> Though, I don't like the idea that everyone can see, but only few can post.. If they're gonna happen, then only the people who can post on them should be able to read them in my opinion.
>
> I would like somewhere safer to post without the whole world seeing my posts..
>
> Nikki> That's a crucial difference though, and it's not happening. We did suggest that they either be *private* or not exist at all.
>
> I'm really dissappointed.
>
> Gabbi-x-2Sorry I wasn't more open before to discussing making them totally private. I can see that would feel safer, not having the whole world watching. But if other posters couldn't see, either, wouldn't they worry about what was being said about them?
--
> I do wish Dr. Bob would have a community expert weigh in on the idea. My therapist happens to be a community expert...
Would he be interested in weighing in? As a visiting expert?
> Maybe I just get inordinately distressed.
>
> DinahMore than just ordinately?
--
> With respect to civility...
> There was some concern about people saying that small boards were exclusive and stuff like that. The concern was that posters might not feel comfortable joining up to the small boards (if they ever get underway) because posters might think that other posters think they are being exclusionary in joining.
>
> That was what that was about.
> You can say you don't like them [the new boards] etc.
> But I think you aren't really supposed to call them [posters who join them] 'names'.
>
> alexandra_kThanks for summarizing the previous discussion! I just added a little emphasis above...
Bob
Posted by NikkiT2 on April 26, 2005, at 3:16:48
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
" But if other posters couldn't see, either, wouldn't they worry about what was being said about them?"
I discussed this with someone via babble mail yesterday actually.
a) is that any different from babble mail? if people don't worry whats being said to them via babble mail (maybe they do though.. I don't know!), how does this differ?
and b) I presume the same civility standards would ave to be adhered to, which wouldn't allow anyone to say anything negative about anyone, whether they can see that board or not.
Plus, an addition of a rule not to discuss anyone that couldn't see / post on that board would completely remove any worry.Nikki
Posted by alexandra_k on April 26, 2005, at 6:16:40
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by NikkiT2 on April 26, 2005, at 3:16:48
> " But if other posters couldn't see, either, wouldn't they worry about what was being said about them?"
Yeah. I agree with Nikki. In fact, I would think it would feel 'safer' than Babblemail because of the civility restrictions on the boards which don't come into play with respect to Babblemail unless someone complains.
But not discussing particular posters who can't post to the board sounds like a good idea too.
Posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 7:34:47
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
>
> Sorry I wasn't more open before to discussing making them totally private. I can see that would feel safer, not having the whole world watching. But if other posters couldn't see, either, wouldn't they worry about what was being said about them?
>
I'm not as worried about safety as other considerations which I do not feel free to name. But on the point of other considerations, private private boards are so infinitely superior that it would outweigh for me that worry altogether. Besides, as others have said, it wouldn't be unlike babblemail. I have reason to believe from things said to me over the years that my name is not unknown in private conversations. It doesn't bother me overmuch. And a rule not to discuss those not able to post would be extra extra civil. I trust you, Dr. Bob. And actually, I thank you for being more open this time to making private boards private.> --
>
> > I do wish Dr. Bob would have a community expert weigh in on the idea. My therapist happens to be a community expert...
>
> Would he be interested in weighing in? As a visiting expert?
>
I'll ask him. He does have training in the field of community building and that's his second job, or one of them. I'd be happy to help him forward his credentials to you if he's interested. But I'm not sure he would be. Although he completely agrees with me on this issue, he may feel that it is a conflict of interest. And also he doesn't much like the internet. I hope you understand how much both Babble and this issue mean to me in that I'm willing to sacrifice my privacy for it.
> > Maybe I just get inordinately distressed.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> More than just ordinately?
>
I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. Doesn't inordinately mean more than just ordinately? Am I missing a smile? Or are you trying to hint at something?Am I still entitled to wear white? I really don't understand the new rules, you know. Even with Alexandra's elucidation.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 26, 2005, at 8:30:44
In reply to Re: my vote » alexandra_k, posted by Phillipa on April 25, 2005, at 21:40:07
Thanks for calling me a youngster. I guess 50 is pretty young these days.
Posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 9:02:04
In reply to Re: youngsters?? » Phillipa, posted by AuntieMel on April 26, 2005, at 8:30:44
At 43 and with a falling apart body, I'm flattered as well.
However, I do think that would be a legitimate extra board. So would PB teens or something like that.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 26, 2005, at 9:28:54
In reply to Re: youngsters?? » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 9:02:04
You are right, but with a pb teens there would need to be extra hooks. Just the word 'teen' would bring some creeps out of the woods.
And the one for those of us who are 'more mature?' Possible names:
PB-aarp
PB-OldF*rt
PB-GeezerThis could be fun. The criteria for getting in? Maybe that you didn't notice the "sexual side-effects" of your anti-depressant?
I could go on ....
Posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 10:42:26
In reply to Re: youngsters?? » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on April 26, 2005, at 9:28:54
Posted by Dinah on April 26, 2005, at 17:57:21
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
> Would he be interested in weighing in? As a visiting expert?
Sorry if you didn't mean that seriously, Dr. Bob. You should know better than to not be literal with me.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 26, 2005, at 18:55:23
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
I wouldn't be concerned about what other posters were saying about me because I'd expect the civility rules would still apply. As far as gossip goes, it would be more likely to happen with babblemail and just as likely to happen with Yahoo Groups.
> > That was what that was about.
> > You can say you don't like them [the new boards] etc.
> > But I think you aren't really supposed to call them [posters who join them] 'names'.
> >
> > alexandra_k
>
> Thanks for summarizing the previous discussion! I just added a little emphasis above...
>
Dr. Bob saying you don't like something is rather limiting, without being able to say why.
What was offensive wasn't that you didn't permit us to negatively characterize the people who would join such a group, you did not allow us to say how we felt about the idea of smaller groups.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 26, 2005, at 18:55:23
> > if other posters couldn't see, either, wouldn't they worry about what was being said about them?
>
> a) is that any different from babble mail?
> b) I presume the same civility standards would ave to be adhered toHmm, you have a point there... I think people are more "flammable" interacting as a group than as individuals, but I hadn't taken the civility standards into account...
If people couldn't see what was going on in these groups, why would they want to join? How would they choose? Thanks for thinking this through with me...
> Plus, an addition of a rule not to discuss anyone that couldn't see / post on that board would completely remove any worry.
>
> NikkiBelieve it or not, I'd rather not add any new rules unless it were really necessary...
> > --
> >
> > > I do wish Dr. Bob would have a community expert weigh in on the idea. My therapist happens to be a community expert...
> >
> > Would he be interested in weighing in? As a visiting expert?
> >
> I'll ask him. He does have training in the field of community building and that's his second job, or one of them. I'd be happy to help him forward his credentials to you if he's interested. But I'm not sure he would be. Although he completely agrees with me on this issue, he may feel that it is a conflict of interest. And also he doesn't much like the internet. I hope you understand how much both Babble and this issue mean to me in that I'm willing to sacrifice my privacy for it.Great, let's see what he says. If there are too many issues with involving him, maybe he could recommend someone else?
> > > Maybe I just get inordinately distressed.
> >
> > More than just ordinately?
> >
> I'm sorry, I'm afraid I don't understand. Doesn't inordinately mean more than just ordinately? Am I missing a smile? Or are you trying to hint at something?Sorry about that. What I had in mind was the possibility of your own issues possibly playing a role in your reaction, but you had already acknowledged that yourself when you said Falls would say there was old pain...
> Am I still entitled to wear white?
>
> DinahAnyone who would like to wear white may do so. :-)
--
> you didn't permit us to negatively characterize the people who would join such a group, you did not allow us to say how we felt about the idea of smaller groups.
>
> Gabbi-x-2Sorry, did I get carried away? It's fine to say how you feel about the idea of smaller groups as long as the people who would join them aren't negatively characterized.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 1:12:52
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
> If people couldn't see what was going on in these groups, why would they want to join? How would they choose? Thanks for thinking this through with me...
I guess people would have to sign up to have a look. Lots of stuff is done that way on the internet.
I joined up to another site where you could see the board but you had to join to read the threads. That might be another option.
> > you didn't permit us to negatively characterize the people who would join such a group, you did not allow us to say how we felt about the idea of smaller groups.
> Sorry, did I get carried away? It's fine to say how you feel about the idea of smaller groups as long as the people who would join them aren't negatively characterized.
Thanks for clarifying. I think it was a bit confusing. I wasn't sure whether you were making that distinction or not.
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.