![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by confuzyq on July 22, 2007, at 0:27:09
In reply to Re: Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :), posted by muffled on July 21, 2007, at 22:36:04
Hi Muffled! Yes you sure did, I'm sorry. I wished right away that I could change how I phrased that, so it didn't sound like I thought no one had acknowledged Bob's move, because that would be incorrect.
From what I know, the psych board regulars are some of the most peaceful of all, and least likely to be "emotionally invested" in things like the block formula! I think that here on Admin is exactly where the people who do want to watch and sometimes get involved in these things look. But either I'm missing something, or this simply isn't the news I thought it was.
I feel like I really have no business even starting a topic on this. I was just worried Bob would think it didn't really matter to *many* people that he gave in (which as we know is rare), despite many many ppl having gotten involved in this matter over the years.
Again Muffled, sorry if I sounded like I thought *no one* acknowledged Bob's change. :)
> I DID say thanks.
> I was a little confused by the math too, well mebbe COMPLETELY lost.
> I think there are only a few that take much ongoing interest in admin stuff. Most people just pass thru.
> Would you think I should mention this event over on psycholgy? I can post a link to the new FAQ?
> Whatever...
> BTW I think Bob would be a tad dull as a lab rat, he sure don't say much!
> M
Posted by karen_kay on July 22, 2007, at 21:36:18
In reply to Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :), posted by confuzyq on July 21, 2007, at 12:10:48
i've been waiting for you for quite some time, you know?
blah blah blah my comments regardign this issue. attempting to keep this administrative blah blah blah.
hope you see it my way,
kk
Posted by confuzyq on July 22, 2007, at 23:52:33
In reply to :) » confuzyq, posted by karen_kay on July 22, 2007, at 21:36:18
> blah blah blah my comments regardign this issue.
I'm sorry, but i can barely even bring myself to respond to someone who embraces this view of the matter. not only are you clearly wrong but your statement is quite frankly brimming with incivility, racism and political incorrectness. forget the block concession i was gracing with my approval -- i say off with you again *now*, the longer the better!
kk, are you saying that through all the years, adventures, thrills, marriages, babies and dumb-o-max, something is calling out to you here? well then you're clearly delusional too. ;)
(BOB!!! This is kk, she likes it, don't spank me!!)
Posted by adelaide curtis on July 23, 2007, at 14:04:02
In reply to Re: :) » karen_kay, posted by confuzyq on July 22, 2007, at 23:52:33
i really do not understand why this is an appropriate post?
Posted by karen_kay on July 23, 2007, at 14:16:51
In reply to ? » confuzyq, posted by adelaide curtis on July 23, 2007, at 14:04:02
was just interrupting this thread. sorry.
kk
Posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 14:17:05
In reply to ? » confuzyq, posted by adelaide curtis on July 23, 2007, at 14:04:02
> i really do not understand why this is an appropriate post?
I was joking in a time-honored kk fashion, and she will know that. I thought it would be obvious to all that I was kidding and with no bad intentions, but I was wrong so I apologize.
Posted by karen_kay on July 23, 2007, at 14:31:16
In reply to Re: ? » adelaide curtis, posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 14:17:05
turn on your bmail and we can play dear! (unless it's on and i'm a twit)
blah blah balh, that is administrative, correct?
fondly interrupting again and missed you more than you know,
kk
Posted by Deputy Racer on July 23, 2007, at 14:46:14
In reply to ? » confuzyq, posted by adelaide curtis on July 23, 2007, at 14:04:02
> i really do not understand why this is an appropriate post?
Please follow the board guidelines, which specify that posts you think may not be appropriate should be pointed out to the administration via the "Notify Administrators" button on the bottom of each post.
If you have any questions about this or other policies, please read the FAQ, located at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#help-enforce Any follow ups to this should be civil.
Dr Bob has ultimate authority over all administrative actions on this site, and may choose to revise or reverse any action taken by a deputy.
Deputy Racer
Posted by karen_kay on July 23, 2007, at 15:45:22
In reply to pardon my interruption » adelaide curtis, posted by karen_kay on July 23, 2007, at 14:16:51
and yet i interrupt again.
everything i write appears rude. i was attempting to apologize for interrupting dear. was trying to 'play' with c adn didn't mean to offend you, if that was the case, the first time.
certainly didnt' mean to the second either.
so sorry, am having a rough time communicating right now. but, i just reread my post and i may have appeared to have been rude, which certainly wasn't my intention (even if i'm known for that).
again, i'm sorry for interrupting this thread once again. geez, i hope i don't get blocked (and i'm not being sarcastic, as i'm prone to be).
honestly and sincerely,
kk
Posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 17:01:12
In reply to shoot. adelaide curtis, posted by karen_kay on July 23, 2007, at 15:45:22
> everything i write appears rude. i was attempting to apologize for interrupting dear. was trying to 'play' with c adn didn't mean to offend you, if that was the case, the first time.
>nah, it was me -- see my name in the title of that post?
and dear, my little thread here is going nowhere fast, so i *thank you* for interrupting! now it will appear at a glance that a few people came to my party at least.
> turn on your bmail and we can play dear! (unless it's on and i'm a twit)
well shoot -- i was so looking forward to being able to say this and get away with it, that i'll say it anyway, even tho you did manage to bmail me: Looks like the answer isssss, you're a twit! ;-)
seriously, enjoyed your bmail and will reply soon!
Posted by adelaide curtis on July 23, 2007, at 17:05:51
In reply to Please follow board guidelines » adelaide curtis, posted by Deputy Racer on July 23, 2007, at 14:46:14
why did you not give confuzyq get a "please follow site guide line" ? while i did..
do you know them well enough to assume they are playing games...?
you do not know me and rather error on the side that "i too can not play" :(
oh the shame......were you being uncivil to me because you did not use the "please notify" button...?
deputies are the only ones allowed to make comments on things they deem uncivil.? right?
Posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 17:56:46
In reply to why.., posted by adelaide curtis on July 23, 2007, at 17:05:51
> why did you not give confuzyq get a "please follow site guide line" ? while i did..
> do you know them well enough to assume they are playing games...?Hi adelaide, i'm only guessing but i think racer could in fact tell kk and i knew each other and were just playing -- kk had said in her first post that she's been waiting or looking for me or whatever for a long time. (plus, posts from or to kk in themselves are notorious for being calls to silliness. ;)
i think racer also knew i was kidding about being offended by kk's post, since she hadn't actually expressed any opinion at all in it (she only said "blah blah blah my comments regardign this issue").
Sorry we didn't know you were kidding too.
> you do not know me and rather error on the side that "i too can not play" :(
> oh the shame...
>
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2007, at 18:16:30
In reply to Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :), posted by confuzyq on July 21, 2007, at 12:10:48
> Hi people, I'm surprised that few have had a reaction at all to Bob agreeing to change the block formula in a way that, from what I understand, will go easier on people in all cases (yet for those who believe in blocks including lengthy-ish ones sometimes, not *too* easy).
>
> My brain is missing the part that can do math, but I think that his change resulted in a reduction of almost 3/4 in Zen's block (from 33 to 9 weeks). That's huge I think.
>
> "Positive reinforcement," right? Even if his changes haven't been all that people wanted, anything that moves in the desired direction is worth acknowledging and rewarding, so that even more gains might be made in the future, and Bob can tell that listening and compromising paid off at all. As of now, I don't think he can even tell that people really did care if anything came of it when they took the time to debate and oppose long blocks in particular.
>
> Maybe more people would come forward and "reward" him if they thought of this as an opportunity to make *him* the lab rat this time; say "Good Bob, good Bob! Sure there may still be a ways to go, but you definitely made progress, and you listened!" Maybe then he'll remain more amenable to listening and acting in the future..?
>
> What do you think Dr. Bob, any comments or thoughts on the reaction thus far?
i am fed up to the gills with the entire issue. it could have been over with weeks ago. i don't believe it should have taken so long.
i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to say "i'm going to reduce Zen's block because...............................".i don't care about the formula. i do not believe that anyone understands it other than the mathemeticians.
i am glad that Zen's block has been shortened.
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2007, at 18:16:38
In reply to Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :), posted by confuzyq on July 21, 2007, at 12:10:48
> Hi people, I'm surprised that few have had a reaction at all to Bob agreeing to change the block formula in a way that, from what I understand, will go easier on people in all cases (yet for those who believe in blocks including lengthy-ish ones sometimes, not *too* easy).
>
> My brain is missing the part that can do math, but I think that his change resulted in a reduction of almost 3/4 in Zen's block (from 33 to 9 weeks). That's huge I think.
>
> "Positive reinforcement," right? Even if his changes haven't been all that people wanted, anything that moves in the desired direction is worth acknowledging and rewarding, so that even more gains might be made in the future, and Bob can tell that listening and compromising paid off at all. As of now, I don't think he can even tell that people really did care if anything came of it when they took the time to debate and oppose long blocks in particular.
>
> Maybe more people would come forward and "reward" him if they thought of this as an opportunity to make *him* the lab rat this time; say "Good Bob, good Bob! Sure there may still be a ways to go, but you definitely made progress, and you listened!" Maybe then he'll remain more amenable to listening and acting in the future..?
>
> What do you think Dr. Bob, any comments or thoughts on the reaction thus far?
i am fed up to the gills with the entire issue. it could have been over with weeks ago. i don't believe it should have taken so long.
i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to say "i'm going to reduce Zen's block because...............................".i don't care about the formula. i do not believe that anyone understands it other than the mathemeticians.
i am glad that Zen's block has been shortened.
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2007, at 18:16:41
In reply to Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :), posted by confuzyq on July 21, 2007, at 12:10:48
> Hi people, I'm surprised that few have had a reaction at all to Bob agreeing to change the block formula in a way that, from what I understand, will go easier on people in all cases (yet for those who believe in blocks including lengthy-ish ones sometimes, not *too* easy).
>
> My brain is missing the part that can do math, but I think that his change resulted in a reduction of almost 3/4 in Zen's block (from 33 to 9 weeks). That's huge I think.
>
> "Positive reinforcement," right? Even if his changes haven't been all that people wanted, anything that moves in the desired direction is worth acknowledging and rewarding, so that even more gains might be made in the future, and Bob can tell that listening and compromising paid off at all. As of now, I don't think he can even tell that people really did care if anything came of it when they took the time to debate and oppose long blocks in particular.
>
> Maybe more people would come forward and "reward" him if they thought of this as an opportunity to make *him* the lab rat this time; say "Good Bob, good Bob! Sure there may still be a ways to go, but you definitely made progress, and you listened!" Maybe then he'll remain more amenable to listening and acting in the future..?
>
> What do you think Dr. Bob, any comments or thoughts on the reaction thus far?
i am fed up to the gills with the entire issue. it could have been over with weeks ago. i don't believe it should have taken so long.
i don't think it takes a rocket scientist to say "i'm going to reduce Zen's block because...............................".i don't care about the formula. i do not believe that anyone understands it other than the mathemeticians.
i am glad that Zen's block has been shortened.
Posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2007, at 18:18:31
In reply to Re: Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :) » confuzyq, posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2007, at 18:16:30
Posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 18:48:47
In reply to Re: accidentally posted same post 3 times..sorry (nm), posted by fayeroe on July 23, 2007, at 18:18:31
Hi Fayeroe, hope you're doing well! i sure can understand just deciding to steer clear. i should as well. maybe since i was gone for so long i was willing but i won't make a habit of it either.
and thanks for posting three times -- it's helping make my thread look so very popular. :)
Posted by jammerlich on July 23, 2007, at 18:54:16
In reply to Re: accidentally posted same post 3 times..sorry » fayeroe, posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 18:48:47
So, I MUST have my name included in it. It's fine. Call me a leech. I don't mind. It's probably true.
Thank you, Dr. Bob, for shortening Zen's block.
Posted by scratchpad on July 23, 2007, at 19:09:01
In reply to Wow, this thread seems really popular!!!!!, posted by jammerlich on July 23, 2007, at 18:54:16
> So, I MUST have my name included in it. It's fine. Call me a leech. I don't mind. It's probably true.
>
> Thank you, Dr. Bob, for shortening Zen's block.
Add my thanks to that, even though I thanked him way up at the top of the board.
Can't reward good stuff enuff.Scratchless
Posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 19:19:39
In reply to What a great thread!! » jammerlich, posted by scratchpad on July 23, 2007, at 19:09:01
...and that's my first snort ever! (here, that is. i have had other snorts in my life before, i'll have you know. ;) thanks ladies for helping me lose my snort virginity! i just hope you're laughing with me and not at me lol. i, um, just have this horror of starting threads!
Posted by karen_kay on July 23, 2007, at 20:01:53
In reply to Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :), posted by confuzyq on July 21, 2007, at 12:10:48
in my haste to 'make contact' with c, i had neglected to even read this thread.
i'm a twit.
while i will say i'm very happy to see that zen's block has been reduced, i'm not inclined to discuss my mood regarding the block.
hope that fits into civility guidelines and thank you very much mister bob for the block reduction. the reduction is a VERY good step in the right direction. i do mean that sincerely.
regards,
kk
Posted by fayeroe on July 24, 2007, at 16:43:58
In reply to Re: accidentally posted same post 3 times..sorry » fayeroe, posted by confuzyq on July 23, 2007, at 18:48:47
> Hi Fayeroe, hope you're doing well! i sure can understand just deciding to steer clear. i should as well. maybe since i was gone for so long i was willing but i won't make a habit of it either.
>
> and thanks for posting three times -- it's helping make my thread look so very popular. :)ma'am, i'm just here to serve and please.......fayeroe
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2007, at 1:17:46
In reply to why.., posted by adelaide curtis on July 23, 2007, at 17:05:51
> why did you not give confuzyq get a "please follow site guide line" ?
Please point out to the administration posts you think may not be appropriate with the "Notify Administrators" button at the bottom of each post. Since posting about it could lead the other poster to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2007, at 1:18:00
In reply to Chance to make Bob the lab rat? Join me anyone? :), posted by confuzyq on July 21, 2007, at 12:10:48
> Maybe more people would come forward and "reward" him if they thought of this as an opportunity to make *him* the lab rat this time; say "Good Bob, good Bob! Sure there may still be a ways to go, but you definitely made progress, and you listened!
>
> What do you think Dr. Bob, any comments or thoughts on the reaction thus far?I'd rather be seen as a lab rat than a punch bag?
Bob
Posted by karen_kay on July 25, 2007, at 10:26:19
In reply to Re: Chance to make Bob the lab rat?, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2007, at 1:18:00
even the administrator needs support.
i'll support you (does that sound dirty? i meant it to!). i'm out of wine, but i have plenty of hard liquor.
(((mister bob))) i think sometimes you're a bit inconsistent, no? or perhaps we're a bit inconsistent? or maybe i'm just silly?
but, the offer's open for the liquor! but we have to keep it completely unadmin!
take care,
kk
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.