![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 382 to 406 of 536. Go back in thread:
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.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 6:22:40
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
Choose? I thought you had dropped the entire idea of choosing because of the potential for it to be incredibly hurtful to be chosen or not chosen. Less enlightened schools than my sons have at least dropped choosies.
I can't believe I got that wrong.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
Hmmm...
I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in, thus risking public rejection and humiliation. Do the people who wish to join have to go, hat in hand, and sit anxiously while their fate is decided? Oh well, I suppose they would also realize and accept the possibility of rejection and humiliation.
Who *are* you, Dr. Bob? Don't you think of these things?
Posted by AuntieMel on April 27, 2005, at 15:31:08
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
If I remember it right anyone could choose to join a group until it reached 'some' number. First come, first serve.
I don't think you had to be voted in, like a country club.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 27, 2005, at 16:50:22
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
> > Gabbi-x-2
>
> Sorry, did I get carried away?All the way to Greece..
Thanks for the apology.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 18:16:20
In reply to Re: choosing » Dinah, posted by AuntieMel on April 27, 2005, at 15:31:08
I was thinking about the other side too. But I can't worry about the world. As I said, they would know what they were getting into.
I just have trouble figuring out Dr. Bob's mind sometimes. I'd love to have a peek inside for a minute or two.
Posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 21:21:31
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 23:11:39
BTW, he's thinking. If he says no, I'll ask if he has any colleagues who might be willing.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:29:47
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
> I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in
Hmm. I guess I wouldn't see it as a popularity thing whether other people joined me or not. I would think they were deciding on whether they wanted to join a small board or not rather than deciding whether they wanted to join me in particular or not.
>thus risking public rejection and humiliation.
So I guess I wouldn't feel rejected or humiliated if other people didn't join in.
Posted by alexandra_k on April 28, 2005, at 0:35:27
In reply to Re: smaller groups, posted by Dr. Bob on April 26, 2005, at 2:28:44
> I can see that would feel safer, not having the whole world watching.
Okay, that has been worrying me and I have to say
EEP! DON'T SAY THAT!
The current boards aren't like that.
no
NO
I much prefer the 'illusion' of privacy :-(
Posted by Dinah on April 28, 2005, at 5:18:20
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 27, 2005, at 21:29:47
I understood from what Dr. Bob said that there would be more than one small group and that people would choose which one to join. Unless the groups had themes or something, that choice would presumably be based on who was already in it, or how fun they seemed or something. Perhaps I misunderstood. Perhaps it would just be one group at a time until it filled.
At any rate, as I said, I'm not going to worry about it.
The divider of glass aspect is of more interest to me, as it affects the Babble community as a whole.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
In reply to Re: smaller groups » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on April 27, 2005, at 9:29:11
> > If people couldn't see what was going on in these groups, why would they want to join? How would they choose?
>
> I guess people would have to sign up to have a look. Lots of stuff is done that way on the internet.
>
> alexandra_kI guess. But I think there would need to be a limit on how frequently someone could switch groups.
> I suppose those who *started* a small group would realize they would sit there very publicly and have their popularity voted upon by who might join in, thus risking public rejection and humiliation.
>
> DinahI suppose. But posting (especially starting a new thread) is already like that, you never know if anyone's going to reply...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on April 29, 2005, at 11:48:04
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
> I guess. But I think there would need to be a limit on how frequently someone could switch groups.
You could make it that you can only sign up to ONE small board. If you don't post for x amount of time then you lose your place. Then you would be free to sign up to another.
Posted by Dinah on April 29, 2005, at 12:16:17
In reply to Re: How would they choose?, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2005, at 3:10:30
Are you actually open to the idea of making the private boards non-public? Or am I just setting myself up for a lot of anger if I even think it's possible.
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.