![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 129. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2001, at 3:30:18
> Maybe the old timers need not accept the responsibility of answering repetitive posts--and if a newby receives no reply, someone can simply direct them to the archives or the individual folders.
I think that's definitely true -- and helps protect against burnout.
> What is your expectation (or hope) of how long someone participates on this board? Especially someone who is no longer depressed. For me it seems a good thing for those who are getting less depressed to spend less time on this site, and move on to other aspects of their life. There is only so much time in a day.
I agree, there's more to life than Psycho-Babble. No one should feel *obligated* to participate, and I try not to pressure anyone to do so. But some may choose to, and I think that's fine, too, and if they do, it would be nice to be able to reward them somehow.
> I guess what I am really saying is that I don't want to either be rewarded or penalized for the amount of time I spend on this board.
No one would be penalized -- or forced to accept any reward. :-)
--------
> Enough boards here, already.
> I must say you are a brave soul to even consider a board for old-timers, given the s**t storms that have erupted over "cliques" and people feeling left out in the past--and feeling this in reaction to threads they could have participated in.
Brave or foolish...
> I, personally, don't feel a need for an oldtimer's board.
> Definitely a BAD idea. It appears that some of the problem here is that some of the newer members feel shunned or left out by some of the older members and a board targeted for just the old-timers would only serve to validate those feelings.
Well, my hope would be that newer members would continue to be supported by some combination of other newer members and non-burned-out older members...
> I'm not sure that the risks don't outweigh the benefits. And I think we have quite a few boards already -- I have trouble sometimes keeping them all straight...
>
> Maybe this subject justs needs more thought and conversation.Thanks for putting that in such a civil way. OK, I get the message, consider the idea shelved. :-)
--------
> Howabout this? ... lets provide something really new. Howabout a "guest expert" every so often
Experts tend to be busy, but this is an interesting idea. Last year, I set up a mailing list on which our Grand Rounds speakers could respond to questions, but that never took off. What if I asked them to interact in some way here? Would those topics be of interest? It would be nice to connect these two projects in some way...
http://psychiatry.uchicago.edu/grounds
Or I suppose you all could request particular experts and I could approach them. Hmm, or maybe I could try to assemble a panel that would take turns...
Bob
Posted by allisonm on February 10, 2001, at 9:47:38
In reply to Board for oldtimers -- and other carrots, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2001, at 3:30:18
> > What if I asked them to interact in some way here? Would those topics be of interest? It would be nice to connect these two projects in some way...
> Or I suppose you all could request particular experts and I could approach them. Hmm, or maybe I could try to assemble a panel that would take turns...< <
I think you and Adam are onto something. I think it's a great idea, either bringing in experts or incorporating grand rounds somehow.
For that I wouldn't mind having yet another board. Maybe you could introduce an expert who would agree to stop by on this board every day for a week and try to answer particular questions directed at him/her.
This might be a stupid idea, but perhaps it could be a two-way thing. Maybe there's a way we could give back information somehow.
Posted by pat123 on February 11, 2001, at 1:10:30
In reply to Board for oldtimers -- and other carrots, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2001, at 3:30:18
I think an advanced board is a good idea. Do not call it a reward or old timers board, just a place where advanced issues can be discussed.
I think most of what goes on this new board would be of little intrest to most babblers (too long posts and really big words), so feelings would not be hurt.It is also possible this advanced board might attract some new people you might lend their thoughts on the other boards. Maybe luck up and
get another Cam; perhaps a researcher or post doc.
I don't see it taking anything away from the present boards but adding a new facet. If it helps with burn out, thats good, too.I am drawing a blank on a name but something to indicate advanced topics are discussed here is
what I am thingking of.Pat
Posted by Adam on February 11, 2001, at 14:19:21
In reply to Board for oldtimers -- and other carrots, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2001, at 3:30:18
Yes, experts are busy. Where I was in college, one of the nicest little traditions we had (and perhaps this goes on in many other places) were student-teacher "fireside chats". Basically, a teacher had a particular subject of interest (like the Vietnam War, illicit drugs (the facts and the fiction), genetics, poetry, you name it), everyone gathered in a lounge (plus or minus the fire, depending on where it was), and we just talked. There was no lecture. We discussed. These were busy people and busy students, spending some quality time. I think the professors who set aside time for these chats found themselves feeling as rewarded or more rewarded than the students, judging by the looks on their faces, and how animated they appeared compared to, say, their typical lecturing demeanor.
On "carrots": This term can have a somewhat negative connotation, sort of a "bribe" or a "treat" meant only to exert influence on another to get what you want. As does allisonm, I like carrots too. They're tasty and they're very good for you. I don't think anything negatively about carrots, and never meant to give that impression, if that was what was taken.If the idea isn't too much work for you, Dr. Bob, I think it would be cooler than cool. Yeah, a separate board, maybe "Psycho-Babble Fireside Chat" (to be thoroughly unoriginal), one that's open to members for posting during certain periods of time.
I think perhaps volume could be a concern. Maybe questions could be submitted to an online form, like this window, where the questioner's online identity could be displayed but no other info. revealed except to you, the host, as per the usual. From these questions, some could be selected (to keep things relevant, appropriate, and avoid repetition), the expert would answer them, and the questions and answers would be posted on the board. Then maybe there could be a period of "open" discussion, where the board acted more-or-less just like this one.
Then it would shut off. The previous threads would be closed, and we would await the next volunteer. When he/she "arrives", the process would begin again.
I dearly hope you have somone who can help you with such tasks. A volunteer student or something. Otherwise what I'm describing would probably be a very tall order, and I don't mean to sound too demanding. I'm just tossing out ideas, and, of course, I know some may or may not be good ones.
Thanks, again, for all your efforts on psycho-babble, and for your receptiveness to this particular idea! It means a lot to me.
Adam.
>
> Experts tend to be busy, but this is an interesting idea. Last year, I set up a mailing list on which our Grand Rounds speakers could respond to questions, but that never took off. What if I asked them to interact in some way here? Would those topics be of interest? It would be nice to connect these two projects in some way...
>
> http://psychiatry.uchicago.edu/grounds
>
> Or I suppose you all could request particular experts and I could approach them. Hmm, or maybe I could try to assemble a panel that would take turns...
>
> Bob
Posted by allisonm on February 11, 2001, at 17:53:41
In reply to I like carrots, posted by allisonm on February 10, 2001, at 9:47:38
Posted by willow on February 11, 2001, at 18:40:20
In reply to Board for oldtimers -- and other carrots, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2001, at 3:30:18
"Or I suppose you all could request particular experts and I could approach them. Hmm, or maybe I could try to assemble a panel that would take turns..."
I would be interested in reading transcripts from such panels. I'm curious about how the spectrum of illnesses are related, genetics, and how the we percieve things affects our outcomes. (eg Ways we may benefit our children when these illnesses run in the family.)
In my opinion Adam's suggestion is a brilliant one. It would be interesting to read the threads.
Posted by Neal on February 14, 2001, at 1:09:38
In reply to Re: -- and other carrots, posted by willow on February 11, 2001, at 18:40:20
> In my opinion Adam's suggestion is a brilliant one.I think it's brilliant too, all the more so, because I said the same thing 10 posts earlier.
Posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 1:54:59
In reply to Board for oldtimers -- and other carrots, posted by Dr. Bob on February 10, 2001, at 3:30:18
> > Howabout this? ... lets provide something really new. Howabout a "guest expert" every so often
>
> Experts tend to be busy, but this is an interesting idea. Last year, I set up a mailing list on which our Grand Rounds speakers could respond to questions, but that never took off. What if I asked them to interact in some way here? Would those topics be of interest? It would be nice to connect these two projects in some way...> Or I suppose you all could request particular experts and I could approach them. Hmm, or maybe I could try to assemble a panel that would take turns...
I too would love to see experts participating on the boards. Although, I feel that the experts should not hamper the exchanges on Psycho-SOCIAL-babble because that board is special. On the other hand, I think that expert participation on Psycho-Babble (Medical) or Psycho-Babble for Children would significantly enrich the "atmosphere" there.
Perhaps the experts can participate only once (sort of like guest speakers). They can log in and zoom the board, and contribute to any posts that they feel like. It probably would take them an hour or so to pick and choose topics that they want to respond to. I think this format would be especially helpful on the Psycho-Babble (Medical) board.
Those are some of my own opinions.
- Rzip
Posted by Cam W. on February 14, 2001, at 6:50:59
In reply to Re: Board for oldtimers -- and other carrots, posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 1:54:59
Rzip - Unfortunately, most experts are incredibly busy (either doing research or, don't take this the wrong way - "empire building"). It seems no one does this stuff for free, unless they're nobodys (like me and others on this board who post advice). Even regular pdocs command rate of $500.00 per hour for speaking. The "Names" you know charge a lot more.
To get them to come to our little part of the world for free would not be easy. So then you have to get a sponsor (ie a major drug company). Then you have to convince the drug company to pay an expert to talk to a bunch of "patients" who really have no say over what their doctor writes. Drug companies figure they get more bang for their buck by presenting to your doctor, rather than you, as they write the prescriptions (ie prescriptions for their drugs).
Hell, I give lectures for drug companies now, but it took 4 years to convince them that I knew more about psych meds than most GPs. I still get a rate no where near what a "ordinary" pdoc does.
Part 2 to this equation is time. One needs to have time prepare for something like this. Many off-the-cuff answers have taken hours to research. Even general refamiliarizing and updating oneself with the topic is a couple hour job (if done properly), even if you deal with the topic every day.
I hate to be a pessimist, because I do like the idea. It's just that we have nothing to dangle in front any experts, to entice them to come.
- Cam
Posted by shellie on February 14, 2001, at 11:46:14
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Rzip, posted by Cam W. on February 14, 2001, at 6:50:59
Has anyone noticed the new feedback you get on google if you put in any subject that includes depression?
The first line back is now always
"Effective depression treatment with a low risk of sexual side effects" with a little "click here to learn more" under it. It looks just like every other site that is listed (same color, same type) and it turns out if you click it you get an ad for wellbutrin. I wonder how much they paid for that. It blows my mind. Every person that puts in depression (or even depression coupled with anything else) gets an ad for wellbutrin without it looking like an ad. I wonder how much that cost. Perhaps wellbutrin would like a thread-looking ad on psychobabble which would pay for the whole site and all the experts we want. Shellie
Posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:27:06
In reply to Re: -- and other carrots, posted by Neal on February 14, 2001, at 1:09:38
>
> > In my opinion Adam's suggestion is a brilliant one.
>
> I think it's brilliant too, all the more so, because I said the same thing 10 posts earlier.Sorry Neal I missed it!
Posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:33:57
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Cam W., posted by shellie on February 14, 2001, at 11:46:14
If advertisement could pay for guests which aren't related to the sponsoring companies perhaps it could be helpful?
Posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 16:45:41
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Rzip, posted by Cam W. on February 14, 2001, at 6:50:59
Cam,
> I hate to be a pessimist, because I do like the idea. It's just that we have nothing to dangle in front any experts, to entice them to come.
That is so sad. Perhaps Dr. Bob can still find a way. I hope so.I mean this is an informal site, so perhaps some of the lectuers could use the boards to bounce ideas off. Perhaps when they are preparing for their "official, paid" talks, they can just e-mail to this site for brainstorming sessions or something.
- Rzip
Posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 16:50:55
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:33:57
Advertisements would totally ruin the "uniqueness" of this site. IMO, I really do not think advertisements would be a good idea. I wish to see this site remain pure and supportive. Advertisers would be intrusive!!!
Sincerely,
Rzip
Posted by dj on February 14, 2001, at 18:24:54
In reply to Re: Guest Speakers » Rzip, posted by Cam W. on February 14, 2001, at 6:50:59
> Rzip - Unfortunately, most experts are incredibly busy (either doing research or, don't take this the wrong way - "empire building"). It seems no one does this stuff for free, unless they're nobodys ... >
> I hate to be a pessimist, because I do like the idea. It's just that we have nothing to dangle in >front any experts, to entice them to come.
Some truth and some fallacy to your posting Cam as there are no absolutes (other than this one ; ). Busy people are sometime the most willing to plug in some time (or money) for something they believe in or have been personally touched by... which is some of the basis for professional (ie. - multi-million dollar) fundraising and politics amongst other things.Most people have been touched by depression at one time. For instance Michael Wilson, the former federal Minister of Finance in Canada and current head of Dominion RBC Securities, has put time effort and resources into helping raise public and CEO consciousness about the impact and nature of depression. He was touched by this dis-ease, and forced to evalutate his views about it, by his son Cameron's struggles with it, which eventually led to his suicide as he discussed in this speech: http://www.camh.net/CLARKEPages/clarke_news/michael_wilson_speech.html and touched on in other words and deeds some of which will come up when you combine "his name" and the word depression in the google search engine.
One in twenty or so folk dealt with depression and so most folks have been touched by it indirectly if not directly. The right plea, focused in a way that might work for them, at the right time may just score. Off the top I suspect Richard O'Connor, the author of "Undoing Depression" and the recently released "Active Treatment of Depression" might be willing to engage in some dialogue on-line in the appropriate space at the appropriate time as might Everett Koop, the former surgeon general who has a website with various discussion threads on that and other issues.
Al Gore's wife Tipper arranged a big public white house backed discussion of depression as she had dealt with it herself. Dr. O'Connor attended that as noted in an article on his website (http://www.undoingdepression.com) as I believe did Dan Rather, etc...
Here in British Columbia, talkshowhost and former provincial Cabinet Minster, Rafe Mair has dealt with the issue, in public, and his battle with it, as the search engine will also show you.
So there are folks out there who are approachable and very possibly open to some sort of arrangement. The challenge is having someone who has the time, energy, committment, persistance, creativity and resources to follow up and develop and organize such. That is the core challenge.
sante!
dj
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by willow on February 14, 2001, at 15:33:57
> If advertisement could pay for guests which aren't related to the sponsoring companies perhaps it could be helpful?
> Advertisements would totally ruin the "uniqueness" of this site. IMO, I really do not think advertisements would be a good idea. I wish to see this site remain pure and supportive. Advertisers would be intrusive!!!
I've also liked being ad-free, plus drug companies have resisted being associated with the promotion of "off-label" uses, plus it just never seemed that ads would bring in very much, but now that I'm paying to be hosted, and the site gets lots of hits, and advertising direct to the public has become more accepted, who knows...
Bob
Posted by shar on February 14, 2001, at 23:17:09
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
Maybe you could get sponsors like for shampoo or shoes or clothing or something that doesn't really hint at supporting a particular drug, or any vested interest on your part. Or, a music site.
I would be fine with a discrete banner, but remember, we might go nuts if we get stimulus overload.....8-)
Shar
Posted by ms. b. on February 15, 2001, at 0:46:18
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
Please, Dr. Bob, no drug company ads! It's too much to hit on people who might not be in a position to assess their own needs. Is it a good idea to encourage people in pain to rush to their doctors and demand a scrip for Wellbutrin, or Neurontin, or whatever? Also, your review board at Univ. of Chicago might not appreciate it, either. I'd suggest going over the idea with them before you do anything rash (or anything that might *cause* a rash!)...
Banner ads, though, to other non-drug related sites, such as search engines, for example, like google, might be cool. Would organizations like NAMI pay you something to link to their site? Also, ever do any grant-writing? There a lots of foundations out there with lots of money to spend. That in itself could be a research project for someone so inclined. (maybe me?)
Also, I actually don't like the idea of an old-timers board, being something of a new-timer myself. Isn't it possible for people to ignore the postings on P-Babble (meds) that you don't want to read, and do a search every so often on the meds you are concerned about? Also, if some old-timers suffer from burnout, that may be part of the group-therapy dynamic we get on this web site -- learning from the interaction of the group when and how to say no, or when to simply ignore, in order to save oneself from doing too much. Perhaps a lesson that needs learning?
However, I really do like the idea of "chat with the expert" or, "submit your questions, and an expert will answer a few" type of addition to the site. I think Dr. Bob has enough contacts who would do a little pro-bono work to keep it interesting, and give the old-timers something new to participate in, because the "experts" could be encouraged by Dr. Bob to answer the esoteric or more highly informed questions. For newbies with basic "Will Celexa cause me to gain weight?" questions, the moderator can simply refer them to the "search" function on P-Babble. Right?
Just my thoughts, here, I don't mean to offend anybody. Thanks for listening...
B.
Posted by shellie on February 15, 2001, at 12:32:57
In reply to NO ADVERTISEMENTS PLEASE !, posted by Rzip on February 14, 2001, at 16:50:55
> Advertisements would totally ruin the "uniqueness" of this site. IMO, I really do not think advertisements would be a good idea. I wish to see this site remain pure and supportive. Advertisers would be intrusive!!!
>
> Sincerely,
> RzipActually I was being facetious when I mentioned google's ad. I really don't like that google has put placed an ad under the guise of it being part the list of sites. I feel like my search is compromised when I put in "depression narcotics" and come up with a first option that has nothing to do with what I was looking for AND is an ad. So far just one; but where will it stop. Suppose the first ten are ads that look like sites.
Shellie
Posted by allisonm on February 15, 2001, at 18:19:18
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 14, 2001, at 20:38:20
I'm not wild about ads. Besides, most of them blink or change or move and they drive me to distraction (pun intended). Is there a way to have ads that aren't like that?
How much does it cost to have this site hosted?
You've talked now and again about charging a small fee for joining and met with resistance. From time to time, there also have been suggestions that people make donations. Maybe there's a way to be more upfront about the costs and that donations are very welcome? I wonder how many people don't realize that this site isn't on a university server anymore...
I think the grantwriting is interesting, but I recall we've talked about this before too. You don't have time, right? So you'd need someone who with experience who could do it.
We all seem to keep touching on the same solutions, none of which are agreeable to a majority... wish I could think of a good one.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
In reply to Re: Advertisement » Dr. Bob, posted by allisonm on February 15, 2001, at 18:19:18
> I'm not wild about ads. Besides, most of them blink or change or move and they drive me to distraction (pun intended). Is there a way to have ads that aren't like that?
Ideally, it would be an acknowledgement of support rather than an ad. And if it has to be an ad, it will be as tasteful as possible.
> How much does it cost to have this site hosted?
For 650 MB, it's $275/month.
> I think the grantwriting is interesting, but I recall we've talked about this before too. You don't have time, right? So you'd need someone who with experience who could do it.
Right...
Bob
Posted by Rzip on February 17, 2001, at 9:14:31
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
> Ideally, it would be an acknowledgement of support rather than an ad. And if it has to be an ad, it will be as tasteful as possible.
> For 650 MB, it's $275/month.Wow! That is a significant amount of money, in sum per year. And I assume you are paying out of pocket?
Why couldn't you use the University server anymore?
- Rzip
Posted by allisonm on February 17, 2001, at 10:15:42
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
> > Ideally, it would be an acknowledgement of support rather than an ad. And if it has to be an ad, it will be as tasteful as possible.
>
> > How much does it cost to have this site hosted?
>
> For 650 MB, it's $275/month.
>
Wow. Well then, maybe advertisements will have to be the way to go if people don't make donations and no one steps forward to try to get a grant...I think charging should be the last option. And I wonder if you did start charging, whether you could block folks as easily. I suppose everyone joining would have to agree to certain terms upon paying that if they were uncivil, they'd forfeit the fee and that would be it. Ick. I don't like the idea. Too much potential hassle.
Posted by Noa on February 17, 2001, at 14:21:23
In reply to Re: Advertisement, posted by Dr. Bob on February 17, 2001, at 2:49:06
I could see sponsorship, ala NPR, but not ads. This is one of the few places where we are not bombarded by overstimulating ads.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 18, 2001, at 0:31:43
In reply to Cost to have this site hosted. » Dr. Bob, posted by Rzip on February 17, 2001, at 9:14:31
> Why couldn't you use the University server anymore?
It died. And no adequate replacement server was available. And it would be easier to have ads and to charge a fee here -- if in fact I do try anything like that.
> I think charging should be the last option. And I wonder if you did start charging, whether you could block folks as easily.In fact, I've been thinking for a long time that a fee would make it *easier* to block people -- because it's harder to get a new credit card number than to get a new email address.
Bob
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.