![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Zo on April 24, 2002, at 0:28:48
In reply to Re: please be civil » Anyuser, posted by Dr. Bob on April 23, 2002, at 20:38:19
Which post is SARCASM, and therefore worthy of a PBC?
"Are the 2000 topics of such burning interest that it's imperative to be able to contribute to the threads? Do you really want to catch up on Phil and Shar's latest cocktails? Is this so interesting to you and so very important to be a part of?"
Or its response:
"On the other hand, the really scary thing is the mere existence of a voluntary and exclusive club of "old timers." Why would one seek information or advice from an old timer? Who on earth would want to belong to such a club?"
BING! Time's up. The correct answer is: NEITHER!
(I can't stand it anymore) Zo
Posted by mist on April 24, 2002, at 1:17:05
In reply to Re: Gee whiz » Anyuser, posted by allisonm on April 23, 2002, at 23:51:17
> but just happens to have the opinion that it's a nice addition because SHE has felt excluded from the regular boards for some time.
>
> >>Who on earth would want to belong to such a club?<<
>
> I would because I once knew these people, but, like me, they have been pretty much swept aside by the tidalwave of new members (my perception, Anyuser).
I don't entirely understand this. I started posting in 2000 (and read many of the archives before I posted) and am therefore technically an old-timer too. It seems like a lot of the old-timers feel they were somehow pushed out by newer people but I don't recall what ocurred or when.The description of newcomers as a tidal wave that pushed out old posters particularly puzzles me. Again, I didn't see signs of anyone being "pushed" out or anything I'd describe as a tidal wave—just new people joining. Even though I've been on the boards for awhile, either reading or posting, I find that new people have something of equal, if sometimes different, value to offer as the old timers. They only further enrich the boards. In fact, I wish more new people would join.
My impression is there might have been some problem posters along the way but they were a tiny minority and they were dealt with. In fact, I remember almost nothing about them because they didn't seem to have a huge impact. I never noticed that they interfered with others' ability to post.
I don't see any difference between the old timers who were posting when I started and the newer ones. We're all people. People facing difficult problems. Everyone is here looking for basically the same thing—support. And no one is trying to stop anyone else from posting—except on the 2000 board.
I understand that some posters became friends and were part of a close circle. That's great, but this site is still about the larger community. To me it's obvious that setting up a board with a "keep out" sign on it will have ramifications in a support community like this. That it will cause rifts. It's human nature. I believe it's important to be sensitive to that.
-mist
Posted by beardedlady on April 24, 2002, at 5:16:54
In reply to POP QUIZ (sorry Allison) » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 24, 2002, at 0:28:48
When I told Dr. Bob he was being sarcastic with me, he told me he was being honest. Why aren't these called "honesty"?
beardy : (>
Posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 7:08:30
In reply to not clear what led to this, posted by mist on April 24, 2002, at 1:17:05
Thanks mist. I really loved your post.
Somehow the justification for the new reunion board has shifted from wanting to have a place to catch up with people who haven't been around any more to wanting to get away from the flood of unsupportive, etc. newcomers who push the oldtimers out.
I have nothing against the people who posted on the 2000 board. Some of them are my friends, and I know that they are not trying to make anyone feel left out. My objections have always been philosophical.
But the latest turn in the argument saddens me. It seems to lump all newcomers together as a teeming mass of unsupportive rabble. Just my perception based on the fact that the "old-timers" seem to want to get away from us. I'm not singling anyone out here. But reading a few of the latest posts has made me feel like some sort of horrid creature - a newcomer.
If Judy and Tina feel safe on the new board, I'm happy for them. I wish I had somewhere on this board to feel safe. Because I don't think it's newcomers that make this place unsafe. And I don't think it's oldtimers. I think it is individual posters.
I wouldn't join the 2001 board because the dear friends I made in 2002 wouldn't be welcome there. And the dear friends I have yet to make in 2002 and 2003 wouldn't be welcome there. And the dear friends who were posting in 2000 wouln't be welcome there. No amount of benefit would be worth knowing that to me. But that's just me. I have this thing about fairness.
But my opinions and your opinions aside, is it really fair to paint all newcomers with the same brush? We're not all so bad you know. I know there are people on the board who like me and people who don't. But I don't think they gravitate towards me by the year I joined.
Could we please re-change the direction of this conversation?
Posted by allisonm on April 24, 2002, at 7:35:36
In reply to not clear what led to this, posted by mist on April 24, 2002, at 1:17:05
Hi, Mist.
It was late. I was tired. At the time it did feel like a tidal wave. I have been posting since around 1998. Like you, I have seen a lot over this time. Remember BBob et al? Remember when a lot of people started feeling unsafe because whoever it was who would say hurtful things, get blocked, then come back in another form, would email individuals with very hurtful messages? Remember what happened to Cam? People stopped routinely identifying their email addresses so that others would write them directly. A lot of people left and never came back.
Some went to another board called A Safe Haven, but many didn't.On PB, it was too dangerous to post one's feelings or anything personal. The tone of the board went from mostly cohesive and supportive, to what felt to me like a minefield. Over time, I have visited here and there. So many people started posting that it got to a point where I didn't recognize anyone's name anymore. Once in awhile you'll see Noa, SLS, Greg, Shar (I think). Sure, everything has to change, and things don't always change for the better. IMO, it's not especially supportive anymore, except perhaps for the newer ones who didn't go through the other stuff. Remember a time when there were no "please be civil" messages? I remember when Bob had to start doing that.
So yea, the board has changed. Maybe excluded isn't the right word. Maybe it should be alienated.
Some of us formed close friendships before the anonymous personal attacks and loss of trust. Now I am seeing a few of them back on this 2000 board. I've not seen some of them in a long time. I like talking to them because a lot of them don't post much or at all on the regular boards anymore because of a large rift that you might not be seeing. It was a bigger deal than I think you recall. To me, the current boards still are not safe places and never will be again (think back about Anyuser's introductory point in "Gee whiz<allisonm." That kind of crap didn't happen. People were civil, even if they disagreed). Seeing the few old timers on the 2000 board gives me an opportunity to reconnect to people who were here back when anyone could talk, everyone got along for the most part, and it was safe.
Posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 7:47:47
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this » mist, posted by allisonm on April 24, 2002, at 7:35:36
I've read the archives and I do know about, well I don't want to name any names. That's why I have so much respect for you who stuck around. I know I wouldn't have.
But Allison, if you'll check the list of names that are eligible for posting on 2000, you'll find the names of some of the posters you speak of. Would you feel so safe if they heard of the reunion board and came back?
Why are the list of posters eligible for the 2000 board inherently safer than, oh I could name many newer posters so I won't name any - who are not eligible for the new board.
Shifting the focus of the new board as a place to be safe from the PSB posters disturbs me and saddens me. It is the type of division that so many worried about at the creation of this board.
I wish you much safety and happiness on the new board.
Posted by allisonm on April 24, 2002, at 8:24:34
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this » allisonm, posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 7:47:47
This 2000 board wasn't my idea. I just stumbled onto it and was grateful to Dr. Bob for thinking about the old members.
Ya know, we can debate this subject and project what could happen to it to the nth degree. I have stated my feelings and have tried to explain why I feel such. No one gets it, and I am out of words. Obviously, I am in a minuscule minority on this issue. There has not been a place for me on these boards for a long time. Stupid me for thinking there might be. So long.
Posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 8:31:18
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this » DinahM, posted by allisonm on April 24, 2002, at 8:24:34
Now you see, Allison, we have a lot in common :) I never meant my post as an attack or criticism of you, just as an attempt to understand why you would feel safe on a board that includes the very posters you were talking about, while not feeling safe with the rest of us. No need to say "so long" or be hurt. It was just a dialogue. Perhaps the tone of my post was not clear, but the tone it was written in was one of reflection. A very quiet tone. Speaking as one who does understand, in a way. I just don't understand parts of it. I do understand wanting to be safe.
Never meant to offend.
Posted by tina on April 24, 2002, at 9:03:28
In reply to Re: Gee whiz » allisonm, posted by Anyuser on April 23, 2002, at 17:15:36
> On the other hand, the really scary thing is the mere existence of a voluntary and exclusive club of "old timers." Why would one seek information or advice from an old timer? Who on earth would want to belong to such a club?
Then what was your point??
Posted by tina on April 24, 2002, at 9:13:35
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this » DinahM, posted by allisonm on April 24, 2002, at 8:24:34
........ have tried to explain why I feel such. No one gets it, and I am out of words. Obviously, I am in a minuscule minority on this issue. There has not been a place for me on these boards for a long time. Stupid me for thinking there might be. So long.
Me too Alli. I think we're wasting our breath.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 10:06:40
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this » allisonm, posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 7:47:47
> if you'll check the list of names that are eligible for posting on 2000, you'll find the names of some of the posters you speak of.
FYI, posters who are blocked will be blocked even if their names are on the list. The list is just based on when posters started posting.
Bob
Posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 11:51:16
In reply to Re: list of names, posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 10:06:40
Posted by Krazy Kat on April 24, 2002, at 14:12:20
In reply to You mean their time isn't up yet? :) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 11:51:16
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 24, 2002, at 19:20:33
In reply to You mean their time isn't up yet? :) (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 11:51:16
Posted by mist on April 25, 2002, at 0:31:57
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this, posted by DinahM on April 24, 2002, at 7:08:30
> Thanks mist. I really loved your post.
Dinah,
Thank you. You made some very good points too.
-mist> Somehow the justification for the new reunion board has shifted from wanting to have a place to catch up with people who haven't been around any more to wanting to get away from the flood of unsupportive, etc. newcomers who push the oldtimers out.
>
> I have nothing against the people who posted on the 2000 board. Some of them are my friends, and I know that they are not trying to make anyone feel left out. My objections have always been philosophical.
>
> But the latest turn in the argument saddens me. It seems to lump all newcomers together as a teeming mass of unsupportive rabble. Just my perception based on the fact that the "old-timers" seem to want to get away from us. I'm not singling anyone out here. But reading a few of the latest posts has made me feel like some sort of horrid creature - a newcomer.
>
> If Judy and Tina feel safe on the new board, I'm happy for them. I wish I had somewhere on this board to feel safe. Because I don't think it's newcomers that make this place unsafe. And I don't think it's oldtimers. I think it is individual posters.
>
> I wouldn't join the 2001 board because the dear friends I made in 2002 wouldn't be welcome there. And the dear friends I have yet to make in 2002 and 2003 wouldn't be welcome there. And the dear friends who were posting in 2000 wouln't be welcome there. No amount of benefit would be worth knowing that to me. But that's just me. I have this thing about fairness.
>
> But my opinions and your opinions aside, is it really fair to paint all newcomers with the same brush? We're not all so bad you know. I know there are people on the board who like me and people who don't. But I don't think they gravitate towards me by the year I joined.
>
> Could we please re-change the direction of this conversation?
Posted by mist on April 25, 2002, at 1:00:15
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this » mist, posted by allisonm on April 24, 2002, at 7:35:36
Allison,
I don't remember everything you're talking about but I believe you. I was not involved in the boards the way you and others were. However, I've seen both old-timers and newcomers here say mean things to others in their posts (without getting civility warnings), so I tend to feel safe (or not) based on the individual and not when they started posting.
I still find the exclusion of some posters from a board here disturbing. However, at this point that's at least in part because of the way it was handled and some of the responses that the hurt (excluded) posters got when they expressed their feelings about it. -mist
> Hi, Mist.
> It was late. I was tired. At the time it did feel like a tidal wave. I have been posting since around 1998. Like you, I have seen a lot over this time. Remember BBob et al? Remember when a lot of people started feeling unsafe because whoever it was who would say hurtful things, get blocked, then come back in another form, would email individuals with very hurtful messages? Remember what happened to Cam? People stopped routinely identifying their email addresses so that others would write them directly. A lot of people left and never came back.
> Some went to another board called A Safe Haven, but many didn't.
>
> On PB, it was too dangerous to post one's feelings or anything personal. The tone of the board went from mostly cohesive and supportive, to what felt to me like a minefield. Over time, I have visited here and there. So many people started posting that it got to a point where I didn't recognize anyone's name anymore. Once in awhile you'll see Noa, SLS, Greg, Shar (I think). Sure, everything has to change, and things don't always change for the better. IMO, it's not especially supportive anymore, except perhaps for the newer ones who didn't go through the other stuff. Remember a time when there were no "please be civil" messages? I remember when Bob had to start doing that.
>
> So yea, the board has changed. Maybe excluded isn't the right word. Maybe it should be alienated.
>
> Some of us formed close friendships before the anonymous personal attacks and loss of trust. Now I am seeing a few of them back on this 2000 board. I've not seen some of them in a long time. I like talking to them because a lot of them don't post much or at all on the regular boards anymore because of a large rift that you might not be seeing. It was a bigger deal than I think you recall. To me, the current boards still are not safe places and never will be again (think back about Anyuser's introductory point in "Gee whiz<allisonm." That kind of crap didn't happen. People were civil, even if they disagreed). Seeing the few old timers on the 2000 board gives me an opportunity to reconnect to people who were here back when anyone could talk, everyone got along for the most part, and it was safe.
Posted by allisonm on April 26, 2002, at 19:20:43
In reply to Re: not clear what led to this » allisonm, posted by mist on April 25, 2002, at 1:00:15
> >However, at this point that's at least in part because of the way it was handled and some of the responses that the hurt (excluded) posters got when they expressed their feelings about it. -mistMist,
I agree with you a zillion percent!
Allison
Posted by jay on April 27, 2002, at 19:23:34
In reply to Re: Gee whiz » Anyuser, posted by tina on April 24, 2002, at 9:03:28
> > On the other hand, the really scary thing is the mere existence of a voluntary and exclusive club of "old timers." Why would one seek information or advice from an old timer? Who on earth would want to belong to such a club?
>
>
> Then what was your point??The point is the concept of segregation is backwards, disgusting, and illegal in most cases.
Jay
Posted by tina on April 29, 2002, at 9:11:54
In reply to Re: Gee whiz..segregation is illegal! » tina, posted by jay on April 27, 2002, at 19:23:34
This is NOT segregation. It's simply an extra board for some of us who posted a long time ago and would like to catch up. That's it, that's all.
Talk about "makin' a mountain out of a molehill"
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2002, at 18:16:14
In reply to Re: Gee whiz..segregation is illegal!, posted by tina on April 29, 2002, at 9:11:54
> This is NOT segregation.
It could be argued that it's "setting apart from others", but setting apart isn't necessarily illegal.
> Talk about "makin' a mountain out of a molehill"
One person's molehill is another's mountain. My question has been *why* people have been seeing it as a mountain.
Bob
Posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 1:04:49
In reply to Re: mountains and molehills, posted by Dr. Bob on April 29, 2002, at 18:16:14
Bob,
What I'm hearing is that you don't get why these "mountain" people are making a big to do over nothing, when your position is a perfectly reasonable "molehill."
I don't see how one can even begin to settle community disagreements without first granting others the dignity of their own reality, the importance of their feelings, credence to their perceptions, and merit to their point of view.
If I'm getting this wrong, perhaps you can restate?
Thanks,
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2002, at 10:04:05
In reply to Re: mountains and molehills » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on April 30, 2002, at 1:04:49
> What I'm hearing is that you don't get why these "mountain" people are making a big to do over nothing, when your position is a perfectly reasonable "molehill."
I'm afraid Tina's post may come across that way. Me, I'm not sure I completely get why people are upset, but I'm not saying they shouldn't be upset, I'm trying to understand why they're upset. Which may of course be different for different people...
Bob
Posted by Chris A. on April 30, 2002, at 18:13:08
In reply to Re: mountains and molehills, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2002, at 10:04:05
Posted by Zo on May 1, 2002, at 18:03:46
In reply to Re: mountains and molehills, posted by Dr. Bob on April 30, 2002, at 10:04:05
DB.
It is really helpful to be clearer where you are coming from.
It's risky to assign intent--postive or negative--to the posts of others.
That's what I'm learning.
So, thanks!
Zo
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 1, 2002, at 23:23:20
In reply to Re: mountains and molehills » Dr. Bob, posted by Zo on May 1, 2002, at 18:03:46
> It is really helpful to be clearer where you are coming from.
Somebody else just said something like that, too. Sorry, if I don't make sense, feel free to ask...
Bob
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.