![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 21 of 21. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 7:19:04
The Psycho-board archived (again) when it contains fewer posts than does the Social board. Same with Alternative; it archived when there were still only a relatively small number of posts. You have been asked if you could archive Social, to at least obscure the profanity in those subject lines, but there they lie, amidst the largest group of posts of any I have just described.
Why will you not archive the Social board?
Lar
Posted by SLS on September 6, 2004, at 8:10:18
In reply to Bob, you are being needlessly obtuse, posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 7:19:04
Test.
This is only a test.
***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC
This has been a test of the Psycho-Babble emergency civility intervention system.
Please disregard the subject line.
If this had been an actual emergency, a moderator would have intervened and blocked Larry Hoover from posting any further. However, this is only a test. No further action is necessary.
- Scott
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 8:47:57
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being needlessly obtuse, posted by SLS on September 6, 2004, at 8:10:18
> Test.
>
> This is only a test.
>
> ***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC***PBC
>
> This has been a test of the Psycho-Babble emergency civility intervention system.
>
> Please disregard the subject line.
>
> If this had been an actual emergency, a moderator would have intervened and blocked Larry Hoover from posting any further. However, this is only a test. No further action is necessary.
>
>
> - ScottWas I uncivil? I'm very sorry if I was. I don't feel well at all. I think I'm sick. No, I know I'm sick. I feel yucky from head to toe. My brain is not my normal brain right now.
Lar
Posted by SLS on September 6, 2004, at 9:01:40
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand » SLS, posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 8:47:57
> Was I uncivil? I'm very sorry if I was. I don't feel well at all. I think I'm sick. No, I know I'm sick. I feel yucky from head to toe. My brain is not my normal brain right now.I double-checked the usage of the word 'obtuse' in various contexts, and found that more sources than not defined it as such:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=obtuse
I had thought that one of its meanings was to be difficult to understand without necessarily indicating a lack of intelligence.
I hope I didn't offend you by jumping in.
- Scott
Posted by gardenergirl on September 6, 2004, at 10:09:19
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand, posted by SLS on September 6, 2004, at 9:01:40
You know, I noticed that too and wondered why social was still so big....
gg
Posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 10:23:02
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand, posted by SLS on September 6, 2004, at 9:01:40
I frequently use the word obtuse as meaning indirect and hard to understand, without intending any negative inferences. I'll be more careful now that I realize there can be negative meanings to the word. D*mn shame. It's a fine word.
Posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 10:31:06
In reply to Bob, you are being needlessly obtuse, posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 7:19:04
Lar, I think there are some genuine Babble machinery reasons why changing the subject line is difficult. I remember that from a previous Babble subject line emergency. I'm less familiar with the archiving machinery, but perhaps that is equally difficult to change for a one time situation.
Since it's so difficult to change the subject line, I sort of wish that Bob would just delete these posts, since they aren't really necessary to maintain the integrity of the archives and what was going on. But if he won't, the only practical thing for us to do is to give the archive system a bit of help. Dr. Bob gave tacit approval to that strategy in his post to Shadows above. I wouldn't go so far as to duplicate post or spam the board, because I think that's against the civility regs. But let's see if we can make the board archive tonight. A game of sorts? Archive Social!!!
I'm sorry you're not feeling well, Lar. But I'll redirect my good wishes for your speedy recovery to Social.
Posted by Racer on September 6, 2004, at 10:51:37
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being Bob » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 10:31:06
I've used the script that 'jumpstarted' this board for a few bulletin boards, and, at least in its original form, it's really not easy to make those changes. It involves manually changing every page that refers to the post by its subject line, for one thing, as well as changing the subject line on the post itself.
Deleting the posts isn't a lot easier, for that matter: you'd have to edit all those same pages that refer to those subject lines, for one thing, and then make another page to stand in for the offensive post, too. (Otherwise, the threading gets wonky.)
On the other hand, it shouldn't be all that difficult to archive the Social board to hide the subject lines...
Posted by SLS on September 6, 2004, at 11:24:46
In reply to I'll be pre-emptively supportive here, posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 10:23:02
> I frequently use the word obtuse as meaning indirect and hard to understand, without intending any negative inferences. I'll be more careful now that I realize there can be negative meanings to the word. D*mn shame. It's a fine word.
Now that I think of it, I'm not sure Larry fully appreciated the humor in my "This is only a test post". Living up in Canada, I don't know if they have anything equivalent to the US Emergency Broadcasting System.
:-)
- Scott
Posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 11:35:49
In reply to Re: I'll be pre-emptively supportive here, posted by SLS on September 6, 2004, at 11:24:46
Scott, you're a dear.
To hear more about why you're a dear, come to Social and I'll tell you. Because clearly it isn't an admin subject, and I'm sure to be redirected.
Posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 12:10:14
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being Bob » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 10:31:06
It's a favorite tactic of mine, and pragmatism is a guiding principle in my life, even tho I'm also a certified windmill tilter.
But Dr. Bob, from that standpoint, it can't be what you want for your data base to have posters having to post a whole lot to get rid of offensive subject headers. From a pragmatic standpoint, you probably would prefer to conserve database space. So wouldn't it be pragmatic, and doing what works, in the future to delete posts with subject headers that are blatantly offensive?
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 12:10:23
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand, posted by gardenergirl on September 6, 2004, at 10:09:19
> You know, I noticed that too and wondered why social was still so big....
> ggIf you look at the archive dates at the top of Social, during all of this year, the maximum period of time between archiving is two weeks. The minimum is seven days, and eight is really quite commonplace.
In this instance, the archive interval is already at seventeen days. The number of posts is quite large, and there are vulgar subject lines in full view. If it is a technical issue (software coding that archives at X number of posts), it would be nice to know that. If it's an arbitrary decision by the administrator, though, I am baffled. Code can be changed. Alternative archives when I don't even want it to. If only the administrator would recognize that not knowing simple answers is so frustrating, and is a big part of what occupies this whole board. Back to bed with my sorry head.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 12:16:06
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 12:10:23
That much I know.
Posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 12:54:54
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 12:10:23
I honestly don't think Dr. Bob realizes that it's something like "It's a technical issue relating to the site operation that makes doing what you suggest impossible, difficult, whatever the truth may be." That's what I was suggesting in an earlier thread. I generally get the most satisfying answers from Dr. Bob when I keep my questions extremely concrete and to the point. Like asking "Is there a technical issue that prevents you from deleting or changing the subject lines in the posts, or archiving hte board early." or "While I know you dislike to delete posts, I also know you like to keep the language here family friendly. Is there some inherent value in keeping rather than deleting these posts with very family unfriendly subject lines? Could you make an exception in this one case? I don't think deleting those specific posts would change the ability of future readers to ascertain what was happening in that thread." rather than "Why don't you do something about those posts?"
I think that discussions containing very general questions frustrate Dr. Bob as much as they frustrate us. Of course the problem comes in that we don't always know which specific questions to ask.
Dr. Bob, if what I'm saying is incorrect, I'm sure you'll feel free to point out the errors in my conclusions. I don't mean anything negative about it at all. We all have our own communication styles. I once questioned my therapist about whether it was bad of him to change his style of speaking to suit me, and he answered that it was more important that he got his point across in a way that I could hear and understand it than that he maintain a certain style. So I'm not in any way saying that you are unique or especially difficult to converse with. I could say the exact same thing (with different examples) about myself.
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 6, 2004, at 20:31:12
In reply to Re: P.S. » Larry Hoover, posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 12:54:54
Dinah, the way you describe Dr. B....
he sounds like a computer.
Is he a computer?
Posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 21:52:38
In reply to Re: P.S., posted by Jai Narayan on September 6, 2004, at 20:31:12
Good G*d No! Of course not! He's a terrific guy, very nice. But I've found myself frustrated at times trying to communicate with him, and when I see someone else frustrated, I feel some empathy and since I've found communicating with him a bit less frustrating lately, I try to pass on why that may be. I could be completely off base, and that's why I suggested that Dr. Bob could correct me if I'm wrong. It's just sort of nice for me to not feel so frustrated, and I'd like to help others feel less frustrated too, if I can.
Different people have different communication styles. There's nothing wrong with that. And Dr. Bob might communicate differently in person than he does in cyberspace, because he's got a heck of a lot to do on the board and that might influence how he reads things.
But judging from your reply, this is yet another instance where it doesn't pay for me to try to help. I need to learn to just quit doing that.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 6, 2004, at 23:24:46
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 12:10:23
> > You know, I noticed that too and wondered why social was still so big....
> > gg
>
> If you look at the archive dates at the top of Social, during all of this year, the maximum period of time between archiving is two weeks. The minimum is seven days, and eight is really quite commonplace.
>
> In this instance, the archive interval is already at seventeen days. The number of posts is quite large, and there are vulgar subject lines in full view. If it is a technical issue (software coding that archives at X number of posts), it would be nice to know that. If it's an arbitrary decision by the administrator, though, I am baffled. Code can be changed. Alternative archives when I don't even want it to. If only the administrator would recognize that not knowing simple answers is so frustrating, and is a big part of what occupies this whole board. Back to bed with my sorry head.I didn't think to look at the dates. I do think the archiving is unpredictable. For instance, Admin had been sooo long for sooo long, compared to other forums. I thought maybe Dr. Bob just felt it was important to keep access easily available to those threads? Who knows. You're right, when all you can do is speculate, you can come up with some maddening answers. Kind of like the war....okay, don't go there!
I hope you went to bed with your sorry head, and I enjoyed your short rhyme!
Be well, Lar,
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on September 6, 2004, at 23:29:08
In reply to Re: P.S. » Jai Narayan, posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 21:52:38
Dinah,
I found your sharing of your own experiences helpful. I'm glad you did. I suspect it would be hard to pull out the question in longer posts, especially if you were pressed for time.Kind of like TV judges or opposig counsel saying, "Is there a question there somewhere?" when the attorney is basically testifying. I hate that on TV shows about lawyers! :)
Next time I'll try being much more direct and concise and see what response I get.
Thanks again, Dinah.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 1:50:03
In reply to Re: Bob, you are being hard to understand » gardenergirl, posted by Larry Hoover on September 6, 2004, at 12:10:23
> The Psycho-board archived (again) when it contains fewer posts than does the Social board. Same with Alternative; it archived when there were still only a relatively small number of posts. You have been asked if you could archive Social, to at least obscure the profanity in those subject lines, but there they lie, amidst the largest group of posts of any I have just described.
>
> Why will you not archive the Social board?
>
> LarThe archiving of boards is automatic. But they don't all archive at the same size, if that were the case, the less active ones would hardly ever turn over, which I think inhibits posting.
Social is more active, so it archives at a larger size. See below for more regarding the exact timing:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/387445.html
> From a pragmatic standpoint, you probably would prefer to conserve database space. So wouldn't it be pragmatic, and doing what works, in the future to delete posts with subject headers that are blatantly offensive?
>
> DinahAnother aspect of this is that the archives also introduce people to the group. And posts like that are one aspect of what it's like here. So I think the introduction is more accurate this way.
Conserving space is also an issue, but space keeps getting cheaper... :-)
> In this instance, the archive interval is already at seventeen days.
>
> Lar9/6/04 - 8/20/04 = 17 days, but 8/20/04 was the last *previous* archive, which excluded the current archive, which was 8/30/04.
Bob
Posted by Jai Narayan on September 7, 2004, at 7:41:53
In reply to Re: P.S. » Jai Narayan, posted by Dinah on September 6, 2004, at 21:52:38
>But judging from your reply, this is yet another instance where it doesn't pay for me to try to help. I need to learn to just quit doing that.
*I just got that bug in my head....
maybe Dr.B's not a person at all?
I'm really glad you did reply.
My sister who works with dreams says:
"if you dream you have a bear under your bed. When you wake up look under the bed first."I asked you because I knew you would be the person who would know for sure. I appreicated your candid reply.
You did nothing wrong.
Your help is always appreciated by me.
So please don't stop because of my unsual question.
I asked through no fault of your own.
Posted by Larry Hoover on September 7, 2004, at 8:27:19
In reply to Re: archives, posted by Dr. Bob on September 7, 2004, at 1:50:03
> > The Psycho-board archived (again) when it contains fewer posts than does the Social board. Same with Alternative; it archived when there were still only a relatively small number of posts. You have been asked if you could archive Social, to at least obscure the profanity in those subject lines, but there they lie, amidst the largest group of posts of any I have just described.
> >
> > Why will you not archive the Social board?
> >
> > Lar
>
> The archiving of boards is automatic. But they don't all archive at the same size, if that were the case, the less active ones would hardly ever turn over, which I think inhibits posting.
>
> Social is more active, so it archives at a larger size. See below for more regarding the exact timing:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040902/msgs/387445.htmlThank you for the explanation. Information alone is often the solution to raised emotion. It is easy to imagine premises which do not even have a bearing on the subject matter.
> > From a pragmatic standpoint, you probably would prefer to conserve database space. So wouldn't it be pragmatic, and doing what works, in the future to delete posts with subject headers that are blatantly offensive?
> >
> > Dinah
>
> Another aspect of this is that the archives also introduce people to the group. And posts like that are one aspect of what it's like here. So I think the introduction is more accurate this way.
>
> Conserving space is also an issue, but space keeps getting cheaper... :-)I don't have a problem with archives per se. And I sure find them useful when google won't find me a thread that I know is there. I keep forgetting to show you examples of that. It happens.....a lot, and I don't know why.
> > In this instance, the archive interval is already at seventeen days.
> >
> > Lar
>
> 9/6/04 - 8/20/04 = 17 days, but 8/20/04 was the last *previous* archive, which excluded the current archive, which was 8/30/04.
>
> BobYes, my brain failure yesterday left me vulnerable to faulty extrapolation, but of course, nobody knew what the archive date would yet be, non?
Thanks for the explanations. Details matter.
Lar
This is the end of the 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.