Posted by alexandra_k on February 17, 2005, at 23:21:36
In reply to Re: I:A/M » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 17, 2005, at 21:30:41
> The part that makes me sad is that I'd rather he saw Babble as Gabbi and Alexandra and Mel and Toph and Lou and Daisy and Sabrina and PartlyCloudy and Dinah and Rod and Broken and Gardenergirl and... well, you get the idea... and all those lovely (exuberant or fierce or really interesting or kind or bubbly or... well, you get the idea) individuals that we haven't yet had a chance to meet but are really looking forward to meeting.
So one way of looking at Babble is looking at the unique individuals that comprise it. (And on that score we would quite like Dr Bob to just LOVE Babble).
> How does that fit into group dynamics? No, probably better not answer...
And another way of looking at Babble is in terms of group dynamics where it is something of an abstract entity and the particular posters are fairly incidental (in the sense that they come and go over time).
But you can see it both ways.
You can like the particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being satisfyed with the group dynamic.
You can like the particular posters while being satisfied with the group dynamic.
You can dislike particular posters while being dissatisfied with the group dynamic.All I mean to say is that what Dr Bob thinks of Babble (as an abstract entity process group) is a seperate issue from what Dr Bob thinks of the individual posters who comprise Babble. Or at least that one doesn't have to reflect the other.
Or have I missed your point completely?????
poster:alexandra_k
thread:458017
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050128/msgs/459670.html