Shown: posts 38 to 62 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by muffled on October 3, 2006, at 23:53:04
In reply to Re: IPrivate chat » muffled, posted by alexandra_k on October 3, 2006, at 11:05:59
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:28:44
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 3, 2006, at 21:41:50
> There is no conflict in holding individual views on each. They have different structures, different functions, different uses, different contexts.
I'm trying to remember the reasons people gave for why they were so opposed to exclusive boards... Things like 'people will feel excluded if they can't post' and 'it will create division on the boards' and stuff like that. I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms. I particularly remember a conversation about how it wasn't a good idea to have exclusive boards because people would feel like they were being slapped if they tried to goto the board / post on the board and got a message that they couldn't. I'm wondering why the person who was concerned about that isn't concerned about that in this case?
I know they aren't the same thing. They seem to be similar in relevant respects and hence yes I am surprised that people go one way on one of those and the other way on the other. Surprised. Yeah.
> Deputies do check the admin board.
Right then. So there is a forum already for admin issues and once a post is posted I guess people read the post without it going AWOL or whatever too...
> How would posting on the admin board about something that no one but deputies or Dr. Bob could possibly answer due to the tecnical nature of the question be effective or efficient?
What a high opinion you have on the deputies and Dr Bob! Don't mistake a failure of imagination into an insight into necessity. I think that other Babblers have shown an interest in how things are done here, and I think that other Babblers have demonstrated technical competence at times, too.
> If someone else was curious about what I was talking about, who's going to explain it to them?
Nobody has an obligation to answer posts to the best of my knowledge. Especially not on the admin board as the purpose isn't support.
> Why would that be desirable or necessary?
It isn't necessary. It might be desirable...
> What benefit could there be in posting questions or comments that are not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards...
> There's something about this I'm missing here. I can't conceive of why anyone would WANT to read that stuff or what benefit there would be to opening it up to everyone when it doesn't apply.
Maybe some examples of deputy issues that are 'not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards' and deputy issues that 'doesn't apply' to Babblers would help.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:38:30
In reply to Re: utterly and completely confused » gardenergirl, posted by Jost on October 3, 2006, at 22:42:31
The issue around small boards...
Babble has become a big city. Lots of posters. There are benefits to big cities, but there can be costs too... Dr Bob thought it might be nice to have some small town boards too. Boards whose membership numbers were restricted so that people could get to know one another better and feel freer to post without being misunderstood. To promote a bonding experience.
It was unclear how they were going to work. Would they be invitation only? Would it be first come first served? How many people should there be? Should there be a new small board opened whenever there were enough people who were interested? Should the content be viewable by people who couldn't post to the board?
They were met with serious opposition.
I can remember some of the reasons people gave for *why* they were so objectionable:
- People will feel excluded
- It will be just like a 'gated community' / 'exclusive community' etc
- People will feel slapped if they try to enter / post but are prevented
- It will create division on the boardsI know that a private chat room for deputies is different from a private board. One is a room, the other is a board, I understand the difference.
What I don't understand, however, is why those reasons that people had *against* small boards don't apply to private chat?
Just trying to understand...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:43:20
In reply to :-) (nm) » alexandra_k, posted by muffled on October 3, 2006, at 23:53:04
hey muffled
((((((((((muffled))))))))))))
;-)
Posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 16:10:24
In reply to Re: Deputy issues that don't concern babblers » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:28:44
It seems like the main problem is that people will feel excluded, so why not include posters sometimes?
How about if Dr. Bob and the deputies chat with posters for a while before their meetings in reserved chat? Twice a month or something the deputies and Dr. Bob can have a meeting with posters in chat room 1 to talk about admin stuff. It will give posters an opportunity to voice their concerns and opinions in real time. After the chat with posters, the deputies and Dr. Bob can move to reserved to discuss deputy stuff. The admin-poster chat could take a specified amount of time, like 30 mins or something. Everyone will have an opportunity to talk to Dr. Bob this way.
Deneb*
Posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 16:39:28
In reply to Re: Deputy issues that don't concern babblers » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:28:44
> I'm trying to remember the reasons people gave for why they were so opposed to exclusive boards...I'm sure it's in the archives somewhere.
> I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms.
Which people?
> I particularly remember a conversation about how it wasn't a good idea to have exclusive boards because people would feel like they were being slapped if they tried to goto the board / post on the board and got a message that they couldn't. I'm wondering why the person who was concerned about that isn't concerned about that in this case?
Did you ask this person? Have you considered that circumstances might be different within and/or without the person which might lead him or her to a different reaction to a new concept? Is there something unacceptable about that?
>
> I know they aren't the same thing. They seem to be similar in relevant respects and hence yes I am surprised that people go one way on one of those and the other way on the other. Surprised. Yeah.It's dangerous to predict or assume how someone will view any specific situation.
>
> > Deputies do check the admin board.
>
> Right then. So there is a forum already for admin issues and once a post is posted I guess people read the post without it going AWOL or whatever too...Humminahh?
>
> > How would posting on the admin board about something that no one but deputies or Dr. Bob could possibly answer due to the tecnical nature of the question be effective or efficient?
>
> What a high opinion you have on the deputies and Dr Bob!:-|
> Don't mistake a failure of imagination into an insight into necessity.
You can say *that* again.
> I think that other Babblers have shown an interest in how things are done here, and I think that other Babblers have demonstrated technical competence at times, too.
Certainly.
>
> > If someone else was curious about what I was talking about, who's going to explain it to them?
>
> Nobody has an obligation to answer posts to the best of my knowledge. Especially not on the admin board as the purpose isn't support.True. And there is also no obligation to post questions or concerns to the board. I suppose that each of us decides how best to get our needs met and direct our energies to that end.
>
> > Why would that be desirable or necessary?
>
> It isn't necessary. It might be desirable...Heck, even Donald Trump is reportedly desirable. Ya got me there. Doesn't mean it's going to happen, though.
>>
> Maybe some examples of deputy issues that are 'not relevant to board policies or the general experience of the boards' and deputy issues that 'doesn't apply' to Babblers would help.See earlier post.
alex, I seem to want to reassure you about this, and clearly I can't. I don't wish to keep going 'round about it, either. I really don't want to feel angry about someone else's issue.
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 17:49:46
In reply to We obviously don't agree » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 16:39:28
> > I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms.
> Which people?The people who thought that those reasons meant that there shouldn't be small boards. I think a fair few people agreed with those reasons. They thought that was precisely why there shouldn't be small boards.
I'm just having trouble seeing how those reasons don't apply to this instance.
It is about... Consistency.
Maybe there are other reasons for not wanting small boards? If so, then perhaps those other reasons don't apply to this case. Or perhaps there aren't other reasons for not wanting small boards in which case... I guess that consistency would require that small boards really aren't that objectionable after all.
This isn't so very much about opposition to restricted chat as it is about support for small boards. I'll admit I was a bit confused / upset about it to start with... I still think that the admin board is a good place to talk about admin. That is precisely what the admin board is for, I would have thought.
Another thing that bears on this issue is Dr Bob asking specifically what the deputies think. Kind of implies that if others say what they think they are butting in to the conversation and he doesn't care what other people think about the issue.
But maybe he will get better with that...
Another thing is his tendency to say 'it was the deputies idea' when it was not. Or 'the deputies decided' when they did not, they just went along with what he had decided already. Or 'we decided that' when he really meand 'I decided that'.
There have been problems with that already and I anticipate still more.
I guess the nature of the admin board is changing... We get to discuss things like what colour chat should be and how many lines we get in Babblemail and the real policy decisions won't really be on admin anymore.
> I suppose that each of us decides how best to get our needs met and direct our energies to that end.
I'm concerned about what is best for the group.
And I'm concerned that Dr Bob is thinking that a certain amount of inclusion / exclusion dynamics are inevitable. But he should be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity too. Sure, I understand that sometimes people just will feel what they feel. But my point is that if he considers those dynamics to be 'inevitable' then he won't really consider what he can do to minimise those dynamics. He won't really be concerned with minimising them. Why put energy or effort into what is inevitable? There would be little point.
> I really don't want to feel angry about someone else's issue.
This is an admin issue gg. Or maybe... Only deputies get to deal with the real admin issues now and what non-deputies have to say is... Of little concern.
I'm sorry... I don't understand why anger.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 18:02:51
In reply to Re: A possible solution, posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 16:10:24
There are a limited number of people who can enter chat.
Currently... 15. At the moment there are...
4 deputies and Dr Bob. (I think 4 deputies).
So that means 10 other people can go along.
The time might be inconvenient for some people who want to go.
Half an hour for 15 people would give each person...
Around 2 minutes.
And with the time delay...I don't see what is wrong with the admin board.
Posted by Jost on October 4, 2006, at 18:07:08
In reply to Re: excluding others in order to bond... » Jost, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 15:38:30
Alex, the main answer to the question of why a reason against X may not be a reason against Y, even if there's overlap or similarity in some respects between X and Y, is that the differences between X and Y that nullify the reason.
For example, if I object to pickles and my reason is that pickles are very sour, you may wonder why I like sour cherry pie, because it also is very sour.
I will then reply that the sweetness of the pie makes the sourness seem very different from the sourness of the pickles. The fact that the pie is very sour can become one of its virtues.
Would you say, but you said before that sourness was bad- how can you now be changing so much as to make the statement that sourness is actually good?
If a board is constituted so that people can be together in a small group, that may facilitate greater initmacy.
One might argue that these small boads are unacceptable because it will make people feel excluded. In a given community (ie Pbabble at the time of the discussion), this may seem a dominating argument against small boards, ie, more powerful than the arguments for them (eg intimacy).
The question becomes, does this objection apply at all times, in all situations, to all small boards?
To me, the answer is clearly, no.
The factor of exclusion may be outweighed by some other, more powerful consideration-- even, in some groups, at some times, the value of intimacy. If the sentiment in the larger group were that the value of intimacy outweighed the disincentive of some feeling of exclusion at some times-- nothing would IMO make it inherently wrong to have small boards.
'
One group (Pbabble sub1) may have a different set of community standards, values (as a group) than another group (Pbabble sub2). Therefore they may make opposite choices, despite seemingly "identical" questions.Or the small boards may have different purposes, members, times of meeting, etc etc-- that could distinguish them from one another--
This for example is how laws accrete and evolve-- as situations develop, the understandings of rules, and the distinctions between seemingly similar situations (and therefore the qualification of general theoretical concepts and models created to analyze them) also ramify and become more nuanced.
I guess that's my first take on why you could come up against people who take a seemingly (but only seemingly) counterposed position from the one they took previously in a parallel-seeming (but not, to them, actually parallel) situation.
This is probably an incredibly round-about explanation, but do you know what I mean?
Jost
Posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 18:45:00
In reply to Re: A possible solution » Deneb, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 18:02:51
Yeah, you're right Alex. It's not too feasible. It's just that I like chatting with Bob and would do anything to have that opportunity.
How about this:
Whenever Dr. Bob is in the chat room, he can come over to rooms one and two just to say, "Hey" to people there, before going back to reserved chat.
I dunno. I'm getting desperate here.
When you talk about reserved chat and exclusion, I starting thinking and feeling like I'm excluded, and that feels unpleasant.
Wait a sec...I know!
When someone wants to chat with Bob and the deputies about an admin issue, how about they post their request to chat on the admin board and then Bob and the deputies can chat with this person whenever? Other people who are interested can join in....but then there is still the problem of exclusion since only 15 people can be in chat at one time.
Argh, I think the admin board is the best place because people won't be excluded from the conversation.
But I soooo want to chat with Bob, and yeah, I think I'm a little jealous of the deputies. They get to communicate with Dr. Bob more than the rest of us.
I'm feeling jealous and excluded. I think I'll post lots of Bob posts to make me feel better.
Deneb*
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:55:12
In reply to Re: A possible solution » alexandra_k, posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 18:45:00
> When you talk about reserved chat and exclusion, I starting thinking and feeling like I'm excluded, and that feels unpleasant.
I do think discussions here can sometimes foster division. Because there are different sides to issues, but decisions are made one way or the other...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 22:09:34
In reply to Re: A possible solution, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:55:12
> I do think discussions here can sometimes foster division. Because there are different sides to issues, but decisions are made one way or the other...
Then maybe its time to look for comprimise solutions.
Posted by Deneb on October 4, 2006, at 22:13:38
In reply to Re: A possible solution, posted by Dr. Bob on October 4, 2006, at 20:55:12
> I do think discussions here can sometimes foster division. Because there are different sides to issues, but decisions are made one way or the other...
>
> BobI'm not really against reserved chat, at least not when I think rationally about it. There's some emotional immaturity on my part.
I also tend to be influenced a fair bit by discussions of different views. I didn't really think much about exclusion until Alex brought it up.
Deneb*
Posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 22:24:52
In reply to Re: I think the point may be getting lost... » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 17:49:46
> I still think that the admin board is a good place to talk about admin. That is precisely what the admin board is for, I would have thought.
That's still precisely what the admin board is for. Nothing has changed that. There's nothing that was said in the first team meeting that otherwise would have been posted on the admin board if we hadn't had a chat space.
Is it the mere existence of a restricted space (of which there are too many to count on the internet and in real life)? Or is it that the admin. team have private communications at all? I still don't get the objection.
> Another thing that bears on this issue is Dr Bob asking specifically what the deputies think. Kind of implies that if others say what they think they are butting in to the conversation and he doesn't care what other people think about the issue.
That's an inference, not an implication. Others may infer something different or may see nothing more than that Dr. Bob consults deputies about stuff.
> Another thing is his tendency to say 'it was the deputies idea' when it was not. Or 'the deputies decided' when they did not, they just went along with what he had decided already. Or 'we decided that' when he really meand 'I decided that'.
I agree that's problematic. I don't see how that's connected to a restricted chat room.
> I guess the nature of the admin board is changing... We get to discuss things like what colour chat should be and how many lines we get in Babblemail and the real policy decisions won't really be on admin anymore.
Well, there's this thread. That doesn't seem to be the same as what color the board is. There's the one about a recent block. There's one about the implications and preferences regarding redirects.
> > I really don't want to feel angry about someone else's issue.> This is an admin issue gg.
I would suggest that it might not be just an admin issue, alex.
> Or maybe... Only deputies get to deal with the real admin issues now and what non-deputies have to say is... Of little concern.Do you really believe that? And if so, just because the admin team communicated via a chat room instead of a list serv on one evening this week?
> I'm sorry... I don't understand why anger.
That's okay. It was my feeling to sort out.
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 22:26:27
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't » alexandra_k, posted by Jost on October 4, 2006, at 18:07:08
But I think I get what you mean. Thanks for posting that.
Watching a gubernatorial debate about the economy before coming online...not the best for the ol' noggin. :)
gg
Posted by Jost on October 4, 2006, at 23:11:26
In reply to Ack, my brain hurts! :) » Jost, posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 22:26:27
Sorry, gg! sometimes I wonder if I'm resorting to a "mebbe I can jest confuse 'em" strategy
No one should try to get through that---
Uigh. Sorry about the economic debate. But I admire you for watching debates, it's very public-spirited to do so. In NY, we can't indulge in that, cause we mostly already know who to vote for-- or just take the New York 'Times into the voting booth with us.
Voting is easy, though. They have the voting booths in the lobby of my building. Although I do feel kinda bad going past them and not voting so many times...
Jost
Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 19:29:18
In reply to Re: I think the point may be getting lost... » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 22:24:52
> Is it the mere existence of a restricted space (of which there are too many to count on the internet and in real life)?
i thought that was the objection to small boards, yeah.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 21:11:05
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't » alexandra_k, posted by Jost on October 4, 2006, at 18:07:08
I'm not sure what is going on in the taste case...
1.
P1) I don't like things that are sour
(aka - for all things that are sour, I don't like them)
P2) Cherry pies are sour
______________________________________
C) I don't like cherry piesC logically follows from P1 and P2 which is to say that IF P1 and P2 are true then to deny C is to contradict oneself. If one also believed:
C*) I do like cherry pies - then this would conflict with C.
Here is another argument with the same logical form:
2.
P1) I disapprove of things that exclude others
(aka - for all things that exclude others, I disaprove of them)
P2) Small boards exclude others
______________________________________
C) I disapprove of small boardsC logically follows from P1 and P2 which is to say that IF P1 and P2 are true then to deny C is to contradict oneself. If one also believed:
C*) I do not disapprove of small boards - then this would conflict with C.
Just one more:
3.
P1) I disapprove of things that exclude others
(aka - for all things that exclude others, I don't like them)
P2) Restricted chat excludes others
_____________________________________
C) I disapprove of restricted chatC logically follows from P1 and P2 which is to say that IF P1 and P2 are true then to deny C is to contradict oneself. If one also believed:
C*) I do not disapprove of restricted chat - then this would conflict with C
Now there are two things one can to to regain consistency:
1) One could deny that either P1 or P2 are true after all. If you deny either (or both) then there is no contradiction in accepting C as true hence there would be no contradiction in accepting C*.
2) One could choose not to accept C*.A fairly natural way to go would to be deny P1. Instead of dissaproving of ALL sour things or ALL exclusive things one might dissaprove of some but not others. If that is right then I don't think one can legitimately cite sourness or exclusiveness as a reason for disliking or dissaproving of something, however. What is crucial is *why* you dislike or dissaprove in the one case but not the other.
So I guess the person who dislikes some sour things but not others could appeal to the degree of sourness. There could be some kind of threshold and when that is passed the like turns to dislike. Kind of like how I like cigarettes but I wouldn't like to chainsmoke a whole pack. There is no contradiction in that.
I'm not sure that appealing to degrees of exclusion would help in this case. One could say that the kind of exclusion is different and one only dissaproves of certain kinds of exclusion. Thus there is exclusion1 and exclusion2 and one dissaproves of exclusion1 but not exclusion2. So what is the difference between exclusion1 and exclusion2?
The reason for the exclusion?
Perhaps...
Posted by Jost on October 6, 2006, at 23:44:57
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't, posted by alexandra_k on October 6, 2006, at 21:11:05
The problem may be that symbolic or mathematical logic doesn't apply perfectly in the realm of ordinary talk, because people aren't arguing in philosophically rigorous ways.
They're using language rather imprecisely, vaguely, and without developing overarching theories of how latter uses of concepts modify prior uses.
So my explanation of not liking pickles may be 'pickles are sour":
When sour cherry pies come along-- you may say I can't like them because I don't like sour things.
I might, to provide some logical consistency, have to go back and say, I don't like pickles because I don't like things that are sour, and have no sweetness.
Of course, I also hate sweet pickles. They may be sweet and sour. And I definitely don't like Sweet and Sour Pork-- esp. the sauce.
At that point I may again, in fact, have to refine further my definition of how sweetness and sourness can in fact be understood so as to rationalize my claims. This can be an endless process of the evolution of a complex set of beliefs.
My general point is that each case causes me to redefine terms, qualifying my explanation, and distinguishing different combinations of tastes, from others.
You might think, then, that whoever disliked small groups in the previous context, may be considering other factors now, as primary, when thinking about the small group. Therefore, the different assessment. But that person isn't necessarily going to go back and restate the earlier position so as made both ideas mutually compatible. Doesn't mean it couldn't be done, though. I think it could.
You don't, because to you, this new situation doesn't seem to require-or produce--a new context.
Can I ask, though, do you think there is an explanation that someone could believe that would make this small group okay, even if the other small group didn't seem okay to them?
Because I perhaps mistakenly thought you said you thought you did understand that. But if you do, doesn't this become a case where your reaction is just different from the other person's-- and the circle can't be squared, in that sense?
Jost
Posted by alexandra_k on October 7, 2006, at 0:12:23
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't » alexandra_k, posted by Jost on October 6, 2006, at 23:44:57
> The problem may be that symbolic or mathematical logic doesn't apply perfectly in the realm of ordinary talk...
Sometimes it can be tricky... The whole point of logic is that it makes ones logical (and ontological) committments clear so we are better able to assess claims and arguments.
> So my explanation of not liking pickles may be 'pickles are sour":
> When sour cherry pies come along-- you may say I can't like them because I don't like sour things.
> I might, to provide some logical consistency, have to go back and say, I don't like pickles because I don't like things that are sour, and have no sweetness.
> Of course, I also hate sweet pickles. They may be sweet and sour. And I definitely don't like Sweet and Sour Pork-- esp. the sauce.
> At that point I may again, in fact, have to refine further my definition of how sweetness and sourness can in fact be understood so as to rationalize my claims. This can be an endless process of the evolution of a complex set of beliefs.Welcome to philosophy :-)
Has kept people busy for centuries :-)
I think there is a way out with flavour being emergent.
Though...
1) Do you like beer?
2) Did you like your first sip of beer?
I'm hoping the answer to 1 is yes and the answer to 2 is no. If the example doesn't work for you substitute.
The point is... Did the beer taste different or did it taste the same but your response to the taste was different?
Taste...
Might be phenomenologically brute.
(Some people are led to that)
> You might think, then, that whoever disliked small groups in the previous context, may be considering other factors now, as primary, when thinking about the small group. Therefore, the different assessment.If that is the case I'd like to hear why it is that people don't like small boards. For the future, you see.
> Can I ask, though, do you think there is an explanation that someone could believe that would make this small group okay, even if the other small group didn't seem okay to them?I'm sure there is an explanation floating somewhere in logical space just waiting to be grasped, sure.
But what is interesting is that reasons are supposed to *cause* behaviour, not just justify it in hindsight...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 7, 2006, at 1:03:58
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't, posted by alexandra_k on October 7, 2006, at 0:12:23
Oh Jost, ignore me I'm talking sh*t.
Posted by Dinah on October 7, 2006, at 11:14:38
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't, posted by alexandra_k on October 7, 2006, at 1:03:58
Sometimes....
Sometimes I don't always understand why you feel the way you feel about something. But I think something like "I don't really understand this, but I know Alex, and so I know if she feels this way there must be a reason for it, and I'm going to try to respect that reason." I think I've even tried to explain this thought process to you on occasion.
I guess I'm a bit hurt that you don't think something like "This seems like the same thing to me, and I don't understand how Dinah and gg see it as two different things. But I do trust Dinah and gg, and so I trust that they're just interpreting things differently than I am and that this isn't the same thing to them as it is to me. And although they can't explain it in such a way that it seems obvious to me, it does appear obvious to them. Since we're all three decent and reasonably intelligent people, it must be possible for decent and reasonably intelligent people to see this topic differently, even if if we can't reach consensus."
The above might not be possible or desirable for you, because you interpret things differently than I do, or have a different set of expectations and life circumstances. So it remains just my wish, not something I need consensus on from you. Because I think you're a decent intelligent person, and if you see this disagreement in a different way than I do, it must be possible for decent intelligent people to disagree on the topic of disagreement.
Posted by Dinah on October 7, 2006, at 11:38:21
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't, posted by alexandra_k on October 7, 2006, at 1:03:58
Actually, if it helps any, didn't I eventually say I thought gated communities wouldn't be so bad if they were invisible? That they wouldn't be that much different from babblemailing or IM's, which are frequently referred to on board.
That invisible rooms wouldn't have the quality of being totally visible, but excluding those who could see and read the messages but not join in? Or know who was hanging out in there, and know that you couldn't join those terrific posters?
But that Dr. Bob would have to monitor them extra closely for civility to posters who weren't present?
I was just wishing that the parent board was private, since I don't really want to discuss my son on a public googleable place. But then how would it grow to be a resource? But I can't post on it freely as it is now. But...
Posted by alexandra_k on October 8, 2006, at 17:01:04
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2006, at 11:38:21
> Actually, if it helps any, didn't I eventually say I thought gated communities wouldn't be so bad if they were invisible? That they wouldn't be that much different from babblemailing or IM's, which are frequently referred to on board.
> That invisible rooms wouldn't have the quality of being totally visible, but excluding those who could see and read the messages but not join in? Or know who was hanging out in there, and know that you couldn't join those terrific posters?
> But that Dr. Bob would have to monitor them extra closely for civility to posters who weren't present?I couldn't remember. Thats why I kept asking you to say where you stood on small boards.
Posted by alexandra_k on October 9, 2006, at 22:49:00
In reply to Re: reasons that sound identical, but aren't » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on October 7, 2006, at 11:14:38
>I am emotional child, with a machine for a brain that won't turn off. The machine overtakes all matters of life, a distraction. The machine shifts into overdrive to evade, avoidance of self. Without the machine, the emotional child, hence `the child', would be lost without any delineated boundaries for containment. The machine provides the only known sense of object constancy, and even at that, it is a hologram. What remains without the machine is the abyss. The starving child that is lost in rapprochement, in endless reenactment, to secure a renewed experience from a failed situation.
>Can I love as an adult? I suppose the machine can intellectually fabricate what may appear as the love from an adult. However, it is pretend, an act, an emulation from knowledge. I love as an emotional child, meaning, I love in a child vs. parental dynamic. This creates conflict between the machine and the child. The machine wants to be in control, to monitor the milieu, to prevent abuse, neglect and hurt. The child wants nothing to do with this role. The child wants to surrender, trust, and absorb the innocent essence of unconditional love. The machine and the child are hopelessly caught into developmental rapprochement, nomads land. The push-pull. The machine-child. The run, I test you, if you catch me, you love me, care for me. You miss, I look into my crystal ball, maybe you don't really love me. The machine builds walls, runs and plots a defense, all the while the child is screaming to be rescued from the machine.
> The machine is skilled, gifted, and prepared. The child is small, helpless, and insecure. If you talk to me as an adult, you are communicating with syntax formulas that are highly efficient. It is not real, but a carefully constructed defense operating out of insecurity. This creates problems. The child needs affection and trust when insecure. However, the machine intervenes and crystallizes a cellular matrix that takes control, because when the child is insecure, the machine is more defensive. When the child needs security the most, the machine starves it.
From
http://www.toddlertime.com/dx/borderline/emotional-child.htm
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.