![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 348. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2010, at 13:05:54
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by ron1953 on October 15, 2010, at 9:50:45
> Open your eyes, folks. There are a LOT of people who have no desire to put up with:
>
> - Oversensitive, trigger-happy users of the "report" button
>
> - Demeaning PBCs
>
> - Blocks
>
> And the capriciousness of all of it.
>
> It's an interesting ironyWhere do you find irony?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 15, 2010, at 13:27:07
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by ron1953 on October 15, 2010, at 9:50:45
> It's an interesting irony that I got blocked for using the term "kiddie pool" as a characterization of PB.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html"I think it may be best for me to end my visit to the kiddie pool and head back to deeper waters."
I thought you were suggesting that PB posters were kiddies and that PB was a kiddie pool. If not, then what did you mean by leaving PB members in the kiddie pool as you were to head back to deeper waters? In what ways were these waters deeper? I believe that when most people declare an adult community to be a kiddie pool, it is pejorative. I am not a kiddie. Are you?
> When people are treated like children, they either play along and react childishly or they refuse to participate.
Here, you suggest that both you and I react childishly. When you reach the point of refusing to participate further, I will know that you are no longer reacting childishly.
I am not a kiddie. Are you?
- Scott
Posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 19:25:11
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » ron1953, posted by SLS on October 15, 2010, at 13:27:07
>I think it may be best for me to end my visit to the kiddie pool and head back to deeper waters
A passage is selected and I do understand that the passage is meant to be evaluated out of context but it is obvious that more than that comes into play when someone is blocked.
I don't suppose it is fair to say people are blocked for their attitude, is it?
Posted by SLS on October 16, 2010, at 6:12:27
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 19:25:11
> >I think it may be best for me to end my visit to the kiddie pool and head back to deeper waters
>
> A passage is selected and I do understand that the passage is meant to be evaluated out of context> but it is obvious that more than that comes into play when someone is blocked.
> I don't suppose it is fair to say people are blocked for their attitude, is it?I do not know the contents of the mind of Dr. Robert Hsiung, MD.
Perhaps you might take a moment to read the context within which the kiddie pool comment was offered:
"That is an excellent piece of philosophy, which I'm afraid too few can understand or embrace, as evidenced by the single-mindedness so common in PB"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html
There we are. Context.
I feel put down by this statement. Why? Is "single-mindedness" a term of endearment or, rather, a pejorative use of words? This is probably a less civil comment than the "kiddie pool" statement.
- Scott
Posted by Willful on October 16, 2010, at 18:08:55
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by sigismund on October 15, 2010, at 19:25:11
Yet I do find it strange that someone is blocked for a phrase like "kiddie pool," directed really at no one and not a very terrible epithet.
Yes, maybe it's a negative comment--more, as I read it, on the expectations of people at babble, than on the people themselves-- but still, hardly really hurtful, most especially to anyone in particular.
As I recall the thread, ron was expressing frustration with the rules-- not with people. And he was referring to the kiddie pool as an area where adults are are infantilized, by being expected to act rather overly -politely, and not given full respect. So to analyze it as suggesting that we were kiddies is truly not to understand what it means.
Moreover, I do think it's a bit questionable to feel that this is harmful, even if people are momentarily offended by what they think is implied. That some people are momentarily not happy with someone's comment, just seems to me not enough to warrant a block.
I do wonder what's happened here. From what I see, there's been a cyclical upping of the ante in terms of blocks. People are blocked for this or that which may seem a not terrible violation of civility, and then others become harsher and more demanding of etiquette for those of whom they are not fond-- then they complain-- over time ever milder comments are gradually pulled in the orbit of what is no longer civil.
For example, now generalization are not civil-- if they're negative. I just find this beyond my personal understanding. I don't necessarily consider it the reason people overall have left-- although certainly it explains why some have. But it do think it creates an atmosphere of backbiting and induces people subtly to be even more thinskinned than they were last time around.
Doesn't seem particularly helpful or strengthening to us, to me.
Willfulo
Posted by sigismund on October 16, 2010, at 23:09:18
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by SLS on October 16, 2010, at 6:12:27
>Perhaps you might take a moment to read the context within which the kiddie pool comment was offered:
>"That is an excellent piece of philosophy, which I'm afraid too few can understand or embrace, as evidenced by the single-mindedness so common in PB"
>http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html
>There we are. Context.
As you can see then I was involved in that thread (and naturally read it all) and the offending post was a reply to me.
Posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:33:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » SLS, posted by sigismund on October 16, 2010, at 23:09:18
> >Perhaps you might take a moment to read the context within which the kiddie pool comment was offered:
>
> >"That is an excellent piece of philosophy, which I'm afraid too few can understand or embrace, as evidenced by the single-mindedness so common in PB"
>
> >http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100716/msgs/956553.html
>
> >There we are. Context.
>
>
>
>
>
> As you can see then I was involved in that thread (and naturally read it all) and the offending post was a reply to me.And yes, the post was offending. Why does it matter that it was in reply to you and yet you not be offended? I was.
Perhaps you are just plagued with the same sort of single-mindedness that was alluded to by the poster in question as you focus your efforts to condone his behavior. Perhaps it is me who is being single-minded in my efforts to justify mine.
So, what do you think of the use of the term "single-minded"? You didn't address that in you last post.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:37:54
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:33:37
> And yes, the post was offending.
Let me redact this phrase as I believe it is too much of a generalization. Obviously, not everyone was offended.
- Scott
Posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 6:49:21
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:37:54
I feel that I have spent enough time exploring kiddie pools, single mindedness, and absurdity. Let us just say that I am overly sensitive such that things are dumbed down for me to an absurd point.
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on October 17, 2010, at 9:45:13
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 6:49:21
I'm very sorry. I wouldn't have said that it was funny if I had known someone was hurt by that phrase. I didn't pay sufficient attention to what was happening in the thread.
Posted by sigismund on October 17, 2010, at 13:54:30
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:33:37
>Why does it matter that it was in reply to you and yet you not be offended?
It doesn't.
You seemed to be implying that I was not aware of the context.
For the record, I was slightly stung by Ron's post, but not nearly as much as the tone of this thread.
Posted by sigismund on October 17, 2010, at 13:58:31
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » sigismund, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:33:37
>So, what do you think of the use of the term "single-minded"? You didn't address that in you last post.
I probably don't understand it.
The Chuang Tsu quote ended with something about 'pursuing both courses at once' so I suppose Ron was just making a quip about how Babble was different.
Posted by Maxime on October 17, 2010, at 20:58:46
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Dinah on October 13, 2010, at 14:06:15
I usually stay out of the admin board, but sometimes I peek in to what is going on. It's always bedlam! Always the same people posting the same thing over and over and over again and no doing anything about it. If people are leaving PB I would have to say that it is because "beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
and furthermore beepppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
in sum I think beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeptoo scared to post my thoughts because I would surely get blocked.
Posted by SLS on October 18, 2010, at 5:18:03
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Dinah, posted by Maxime on October 17, 2010, at 20:58:46
> If people are leaving PB I would have to say that it is because "beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep
> and furthermore beepppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp
> in sum I think beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeepI happen to agree with this.
My translation of your elegant choice of words include a description of the detrimental effects on the community of frequent and lengthy blocks, the introduction of Facebook, and a seemingly unyielding taciturnity in the development and implementation of policy. Perhaps my translation is not at all reflective of your sentiments. Perhaps they are mine.
I know it is frustrating. However, I still profit from being at this website. I therefore tend to be protective of it.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on October 18, 2010, at 11:14:29
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 17, 2010, at 3:37:54
> > And yes, the post was offending.
>
> Let me redact this phrase as I believe it is too much of a generalization. Obviously, not everyone was offended.
>
>
> - ScottAnd that's my point. Your reactions are your reactions, and are not universal.
I fully support everybody's right to have and state their thoughts and feelings. However, I don't support censorship, threats, bans, etc..
There's a lot I see here that I disagree with, but never would I think to suppress anybody's thoughts.
Scott, I may initially feel some hurt when you disagree with my posts (which pretty much is all the time), but I refuse to let the hurt overwhelm my emotions. I remind myself that disagreement is inevitable, necessary and healthy.
Posted by SLS on October 18, 2010, at 13:55:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » SLS, posted by ron1953 on October 18, 2010, at 11:14:29
Hi Ron.
I almost forgot about you. I have been spending so much time dissecting word usage as per the paradigm adopted by the management of Psycho-Babble, that the words became the focus rather than the person using them. Perhaps this is how it should be. Understanding the structure of the proscriptions that limit communication also speaks to the goal of objectivity in their application. Whatever are my opinions of you personally (I don't really know you, so my conclusions are quite preliminary), it was more important to me that civility as it is practiced on this website be examined. I know that you are incredulous of much of the operation of this website. I am incredulous that your choice of words be defended by so many others. Perhaps they were attempting to defend you personally at the expense of examining objectively the words that were used. I think that this is a common mistake. If you and I have agendas related to the operation and community participation of this website, there is obviously a lack of accord between them.
- Scott
Posted by ron1953 on October 18, 2010, at 14:30:01
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » ron1953, posted by SLS on October 18, 2010, at 13:55:37
That makes communication sound more like an academic exercise than anything else.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE word games - just not the kind of word games that are some sort of verbal one-upsmanship.
Posted by SLS on October 18, 2010, at 15:49:37
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by ron1953 on October 18, 2010, at 14:30:01
> That makes communication sound more like an academic exercise than anything else.
Much understanding comes through academic exercises. Here, it is an exercise in perception rather than in diction.
> Don't get me wrong, I LOVE word games - just not the kind of word games that are some sort of verbal one-upsmanship.
This hasn't been a game as far as I am concerned.
- Scott
Posted by twinleaf on October 18, 2010, at 21:57:27
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » ron1953, posted by SLS on October 18, 2010, at 15:49:37
There have been lots of posts about why the rate of posting has slowed so drastically - and I have probably made more than my share. But we almost never hear anything from Bob. Does he share our regrets over the loss of Babble as it was a few years ago? Would he, also, like to see it return to its former level of vitality? If so, does he have ideas about what would help? It seems unusual, to say the least, that he has almost never acknowledged anyone's suggestions. My experience of persons in positions of leadership is that they are always careful to acknowledge suggestions respectfully, while, of course, declining to commit themselves to any given position until they have decided what they want to do. The situation that we have here is enough of an anomaly to cause repeated stress and disappointment in those who have looked to Bob for leadership.
Posted by ed_uk2010 on October 22, 2010, at 14:17:11
In reply to Reduced rate of posting, posted by SLS on October 13, 2010, at 12:21:18
> Posting activity seems to be reduced here recently. Does anyone else feel this way? What might be some reasons why this is occurring?
>
>
> - ScottThe spam-like posts of a small number of posters (who shall remain nameless). Such posts may be very off-putting and essentially hijack threads.
Posted by sigismund on October 22, 2010, at 19:26:13
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by ed_uk2010 on October 22, 2010, at 14:17:11
>What might be some reasons why this is occurring?
The reduced rate of posting is a reason for the reduced rate of posting.
Seriously.
Posted by Free on October 22, 2010, at 23:42:21
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by sigismund on October 22, 2010, at 19:26:13
> >What might be some reasons why this is occurring?
>
> The reduced rate of posting is a reason for the reduced rate of posting.
>
> Seriously.This is true. It's a vicious circle. I guess it's analogous to "the less money you have the less money you make."
To recap, the reasons for reduced rate of posting are:
1) Bunch of people left
2) New people aren't coming by so much
3) There are more alternatives on the internet
4) Babble doesn't get as many hits on google as it used to
5) Site is old fashioned
6) Unresolved strains from Facebook/Twitter issues
7) Blocks
8) Inactive community (new posters need an active community to come to)
9) Too many redirects (which kill threads)
10) Unlike Facebook, can't control who you can accept as friends
11) Can't delete own posts
12) Cliques
13) Fighting
14) Babble atmosphere
15) Liked the ones who were kicked out and are not so keen on those who are left
16) Oversensitive, trigger-happy users of the "report" button
17) Demeaning PBCs
18) People are treated like children
19) Outlandish reasons for blocks
20) Generalizations are not civil-- if they're negative
21) Too scared to post thoughts because one would surely get blocked
22) Seemingly unyielding taciturnity in the development and implementation of policy
23) Censorship, threats, bans, etc
24) Suppression of people's thoughts
25) Bob almost never acknowledges anyone's suggestions
26) Situation here is enough of an anomaly to cause repeated stress and disappointment in those who have looked to Bob for leadership
27) Spam-like posts of a small number of posters may be very off-putting and essentially hijack threads
28) Reduced rate of posting is a reason for the reduced rate of posting
29)Posts turn up in google searches
30)Posts can be used for research
31)Inconsistent application of the rules
32)Discomfort in witnessing what feels like a public beating with PBCs and Blocks. (Actually, I think this has gotten way better. The mincing and parsing of words under the microscope and out of context used to be much worse imo.)
33)Don't like getting blamed for someone's block (because I didn't ask them to apologize and rephrase.)Well, a boatload of reasons for the post-rate shrinkage. But will anything be done of about it?
I hope so. Maybe someday it will be a vibrant place like it used to be.Please feel free to correct any mistakes I might have made in recapping.
Posted by Phillipa on October 23, 2010, at 12:45:00
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting, posted by Free on October 22, 2010, at 23:42:21
Free good job and for those questioning validity of redirecting a thread to another board see mine from meds to social on guilt. Died. This is just the most recent example I see. Off to work now yikkee ah oh!!!!!! Phillipa
Posted by 10derHeart on October 23, 2010, at 15:39:53
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Free, posted by Phillipa on October 23, 2010, at 12:45:00
> for those questioning validity of redirecting a thread to another board see mine from meds to social on guilt. Died.
Well, like Mark Twain said, "The report of its [my] death was an exaggeration," I think that could be the case here, too. How long do we wait before we pronounce a thread *dead" at Babble? Only a day? Hmmm...
You started the thread about 24 hours ago which means many posters (in the U.S/Canada, etc.) could have been asleep at least 1/3 of the time since then. Dinah answered you just last night, so maybe that will spark more replies. That seems to happen - people start posting after the first person posts.
I think the Social board is active enough to not lose hope after only scarcely a day :-)
Maybe a little patience and faith?
I myself will try to respond if I can think of something helpful to say.
I'm not sure there is much use in trying to convince Dr. Bob to not separate medication issues from other topics. He has not been interesed in doing so for a lot of years, it seems. I myself wonder if he stopped redirections would the meds board become a jumbled mass of topics, confusing and hard to sort through? I, for one, scan it but would have been *more* likely to see your post on Social. I think there may be a number of posters who really appreciate the separation of posts into categories.
Of course, you and everyone are entitled to your views. Just things to think about...
Posted by twinleaf on October 23, 2010, at 16:14:10
In reply to Re: Reduced rate of posting » Phillipa, posted by 10derHeart on October 23, 2010, at 15:39:53
You are right about the thread which Phillipa brought up. But overall, she is right that redirection does kill threads. I think that a certain amount of redirection is really needed to maximize the usefulness of the boards. But there have been times when it appears excessive to many of us - for example, redirecting posts from Medication to Neurotransmitters. At the moment, the amount of redirection seems appropriate to me, although, several months ago it did appear excessive, and did appear to result in the sudden ending of a lot of threads.
I have noticed that a high level of stressful communication here on Administration seems to correlate with an increased volume of redirection on the other boards.
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.