![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 60. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2005, at 9:46:53
Dr. Hsiung,
I am requesting that you write a list of criteria to determine if a post, or thread , is supportive or not. I feel that if this is defined as some type of "test" to determine "support" , that this could give more clarification to what is "support" or not and have the potential to improve the forum.
Lou Pilder
Posted by TofuEmmy on January 20, 2005, at 12:05:51
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-testsuprt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2005, at 9:46:53
Posted by Atticus on January 20, 2005, at 14:44:10
In reply to Let's call it the Brassiere Test! :-) (nm), posted by TofuEmmy on January 20, 2005, at 12:05:51
So I guess under this Brassiere coding system, a sports bra would be the most supportive type of message. I suppose "B cup," "C cup," and "D cup" (the last one being exceptionally supportive) designations could be included. But what about the "Wonder Bra" designation, which produces an illusion of exceptional support by producing an illusion of exceptional abundance? But it all sounds a bit kinky, though, so I'm all for it. I eagerly await little Brassiere symbols next to every post. ;) Atticus
Posted by gardenergirl on January 20, 2005, at 21:26:18
In reply to Re: Let's call it the Brassiere Test! :-) » TofuEmmy, posted by Atticus on January 20, 2005, at 14:44:10
So are you saying that really "heavy" topics (lol, reverse those words and say very fast)might require more support? Say an underwire versus a camisole? Wide shoulder straps with padding, perhaps?
And what about minimizers posts? Would those be supportive?
Silly gg
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 20, 2005, at 23:50:56
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-testsuprt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2005, at 9:46:53
Lou, what did you think of the replies to your thread? I would be hurt...
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 0:02:54
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-testsuprt » Lou Pilder, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 20, 2005, at 23:50:56
JMO maybe SOCIAL would be a better place for this I think Lou was serious and wanted a reply from Dr Bob.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2005, at 1:09:19
In reply to Lou's request to Dr. Hsiung-testsuprt, posted by Lou Pilder on January 20, 2005, at 9:46:53
> I am requesting that you write a list of criteria to determine if a post, or thread , is supportive or not.
That might be interesting. Would anyone like to start? :-)
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 5:01:47
In reply to jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 0:02:54
Fallen,
You wrote,[...Lou was serious...a reply from Dr....].
Dr. Hsiung has replied and agrees that a list could be something here that could be explored. Someone said it,[...all's well that ends well...].
Thanks for your considerate post to me.
Lou
Posted by malthus on January 21, 2005, at 6:12:03
In reply to Re: list of criteria, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2005, at 1:09:19
> > I am requesting that you write a list of criteria to determine if a post, or thread , is supportive or not.
>
> That might be interesting. Would anyone like to start? :-)
>
> BobOne of the first things that makes me feel supported is if someone replies to me directly. An example is given below where I felt ignored (unsupported) because the writer didn't address his issue with me directly but rather to a third party. The second thing that made me feel unsupported was that after apologizing he didn't acknowledge it. So the two criteria I propose are:
a) Although it is not mandatory to respond to another's post directed to you, bringing to the attention of a third party a post directed to you without first replying to the person who initially wrote to you is unsupportive.
b) While apologies can be accepted or not, not acknowledging them either way is unsupportive.
Dr Hsiung and Dinah,
I am requesting that you make a dertermination as to if the following post is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines ofthe forum.
I feel accused and put down when I read the post.
The poster writes,[...you have done what you are complaining about...].
Lou Pilderhttp://www.drbob.org/babble/admin/20041218/msgs/432143.html
Posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 7:10:49
In reply to jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 0:02:54
Fallen,
It's sweet of you to support Lou with your post. And I agree, funny, tangential comments on Admin or in any thread can derail a thread. However, I don't believe that any of us who posted on this thread believed that Lou was not serious in his request. I find that Lou is quite sincere in his desire for improving Babble.I also would like to think that I have had enough on-board and off-board correspondence with Lou that he would be able to see my intent (to be funny) in my post. If I am mistaken in that belief and Lou is hurt by this, then I apologize to Lou.
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 7:21:09
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 7:10:49
gg,
You wrote,[...can derail the thread...].
Hummmmm.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 7:28:20
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 7:10:49
gg,
You wrote,[...funny...comments...Lou would be able to see..intent..].
I did see that the posts in question had a humourous intent. I find no fault with them, for the word "support" is what the thread was about. I do not want anyone "railroaded" , though.
Best regards,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 7:51:09
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 7:10:49
gg,
You wrote,[...I don't believe...Lou was not serious...].
Well, we are moving now with Dr.Hsiung's post conducting the posters to start some steam going, so we are on the right track. There is a new poster on board. I am hoping for us to arrive soon to our destination about "support".
Lou
Posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 9:50:02
In reply to Lou's response to gg's post-midnghtspcl » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 7:51:09
Nice use of the railroad theme...
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 10:10:41
In reply to Very clever, Lou :-) » Lou Pilder, posted by gardenergirl on January 21, 2005, at 9:50:02
gg,
You wrote,[...railroad theme...]. You brought back the old folk music from my past with "derail". But thanks, those were classic songs that I am glad to revisit. Have to leave-I will write back later.
I'm movin on.(Hank Williams)
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 10:17:28
In reply to Re: Very clever, Lou :-)- » gardenergirl, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 10:10:41
"I'm Movin On" was recorded by Hank Snow, not Hank Williams. My apologys. The song is somewhat about a locomotive.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:06:42
In reply to Re: list of criteria » Dr. Bob, posted by malthus on January 21, 2005, at 6:12:03
There is a suggestion that one post directly to the poster vs posting to a third party,(directly to you)is not supportive.
Well, I tried that and there is a large body of objections to me requesting clarification about what someone wrote either to me or about something relevant to me in the archives. I do agree that to post directly has its merits, but I also think that there is the potential for conflict because of the potential for there to be confrontation.
OTOH, posting to the admin. board has also posts objecting to that in the archives.
I propose the following:
That there be appointed 12 spacific deputys in charge of objections to posts by other posters. The deputys will have 1 hour to respond to an email to the objection or request for a determination. Each deputy could have their own specialty and be on call durring their 2 hour convieniant times to answer objections to posts.
They will reply accordingly and there could be an appeal to Dr. Hsiung. I can think of many posters here that have particular expertise in distinct areas to handle calls for objections by other posters. I think that this has the potential to prevent confrontation and at the same time avoid the admin. board to have it there. Am I on the right track?
Lou
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 15:20:42
In reply to Lou's reply to Fallen-alswelthtedswel » Fallen4MyT, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 5:01:47
You are very welcome Lou I am glad Dr Bob replied to you too :)
> Fallen,
> You wrote,[...Lou was serious...a reply from Dr....].
> Dr. Hsiung has replied and agrees that a list could be something here that could be explored. Someone said it,[...all's well that ends well...].
> Thanks for your considerate post to me.
> Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:34:30
In reply to Lous' response to -list of criteria-24/7, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:06:42
Friends,
I am retracting my suggestion because:
A. I do not think that to have a person take a 2-hour shift, 7 days a week could be expected.
B. The replying in 1 hour would be too difficult to do if many posts were presented to the deputy
C. What if there are not 12 posters here that could volunteer?
D. The decisions could be appealed which leaves Dr.Hsiung to be the final authority so that any decision could still have to be determined by him anyway. Now if the deputy's decision was binding, then that could be a different situation. Then appeals could be done on a basis of distinct errors by the deputy and these could be listed as for a grounds to appeal. Lou
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:40:37
In reply to Re: list of criteria, posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2005, at 1:09:19
Well, toss yet another idea in Dr. Bob's "Terrible Idea" bin. Has it occurred to you that purely humorous posts meant to boost someone's spirits or just stand as banter between two chums that leads both to leave PB in a better mood might be just as valuable as an explicitly "supportive" post? There are many different ways for human beings to interact in a way that is mutually positive for both. I think this idea may be the biggest stinker yet: having people say, "I don't think so-and-so's post is as supportive as another post, and is therefore of lesser value. I prefer to interact with fellow Babblers with poems (not at all supportive -- just pure observation and creative expression) and humour (not "supportive" under the kinds of literal interpretation to which Dr. Bob is prone.) There's no place for me on a Psychobabble that loses all sense of proportion and rates a really good joke lower than a shoulder to cry on. People need both, and IMO, to compare the two is to compare apples and oranges and decide which is superior. For once, Bob, please, don't jump into the pond with both feet until you've thought a proposed idea through. Who wants to see their posts evaluated publicly? I think that's something almost all of us have expressed a distaste for. Atticus
Posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:43:54
In reply to jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 21, 2005, at 0:02:54
And Lou's gotten a reply from Dr. Bob. I still think this idea smells to high heaven. (And a little humor never hurts to leaven a situation with perspective, I think. See my above post to Bob.) Atticus
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:50:05
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:43:54
Could someone clarify to me what is meant in the subect line,[...under {Lou's}...] Under Lou's (what)?
Lou
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:58:58
In reply to Re: jokes are funny but not in admin or under Lou's » Fallen4MyT, posted by Atticus on January 21, 2005, at 15:43:54
. (And a little humor never hurts to leaven a situation with perspective, I think. See my above post to Bob.) Atticus
Wow, I'm really surprised, Gardener already said she knew Lou well enough that she thought it was okay, so that's completely different, but I know if I made a serious request to Dr. Bob that maybe wasn't understood by everyone, but was important to me, and a string of jokes appeared underneath it, from people with whom I wasn't sure where I stood, I would feel humiliated and demeaned.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:59:54
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus' post-undrLu, posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 15:50:05
> Could someone clarify to me what is meant in the subect line,[...under {Lou's}...] Under Lou's (what)?
> LouI think it meant under Lou's request to Dr Bob.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 21, 2005, at 16:04:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Atticus' post-undrLu, posted by Gabbix2 on January 21, 2005, at 15:59:54
Gabbix2,
That makes sense. There is a limited amount of space to write in the subject line. I see it .
Thanks,
Lou
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.