![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 15 to 39 of 40. Go back in thread:
Posted by dove on October 29, 1999, at 14:34:48
In reply to Re: The nature of this board, posted by Bob on October 29, 1999, at 12:52:26
I also prefer to put "long" in the subject header, especially if I'm quoting a technical/medical abstract and those can be very long! So, if we can warn other community members with a simple warning in the subject header that should help I would think.
Just one important note, we need to make sure we're not jumping on any newbies for not using or abiding by these distinctions. Let everyone who decides to utilize these netiquette manners give everyone else a break if they choose not to.
dove
Posted by Judy on October 29, 1999, at 17:46:15
In reply to Re: The nature of this board (G), posted by dove on October 29, 1999, at 14:34:48
LOL! I burst into laughter when I saw the "G" rating on Dove's post! I thought "Hmmm - Is that supposed to mean 'General Audience'?" Any chance there could be a "Symbols Legend" on the Board for someone like me who can't remember her first name right now?
Could you run those ratings by one more time?
Judy
Posted by Deb R. on October 29, 1999, at 20:53:18
In reply to Re: The nature of this board (?), posted by Judy on October 29, 1999, at 17:46:15
I think a type of friendship has developed - this is a lovely thing I reckon!
Deb.
Posted by dj on October 29, 1999, at 22:20:38
In reply to Re: The nature of this board (?), posted by Judy on October 29, 1999, at 17:46:15
Nice concept, however I think it is pretty obvious by the headings of most posts what category they fall into. Dr. B's World Tour for instance is not one I would rush to , to check on meds. On the other hand an L for longer posts would make sense...say for instance if one goes beyond three of these posting infill screens...
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 1999, at 11:18:34
In reply to Rating System?, posted by dj on October 29, 1999, at 22:20:38
Hi, everyone,
I like the way some issues were brought up here, then some possible ways of addressing them. I'm just following the discussion for now. If some of the Wearied would say what they thought of the possibilities proposed, I'd be interested. Since consensus would be the best outcome...
Bob
Posted by Bob on October 30, 1999, at 16:39:33
In reply to Re: The nature of this board...friendship, posted by Deb R. on October 29, 1999, at 20:53:18
> I think a type of friendship has developed - this is a lovely thing I reckon!
... and Deb, you are an absolute joy to point that out. =^)
Bob
Posted by Phil R. on October 30, 1999, at 23:29:52
In reply to Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support, posted by dj on October 28, 1999, at 0:50:30
> I enjoy much of the dicussion that goes on here and believe it is in line with the header to this page which states that: "This is a bulletin board for mutual education and support."
Until now, I've been only a lurker to this bulletin board, and worse yet, an intermittent lurker. When I first started lurking, I was a little confused about the board's intended scope. The focus seemed to be mostly limited to the pharmacological treatment of unipolar depression. This is indeed a worthy area of ongoing discussion. But there are other psychiatric/psychological illnesses, and treatments other than medication (e.g. psychotherapy). I can easily envision people in these other situations who are also seeking a safe place to discuss their situations and treatment with supportive, like-minded folks who've been there. I hope many non-medication topics (such as Allison's request for info about hospitalization) are considered appropriate for this board.
I had considered submitting a question about pitfalls in the psychotherapeutic treatment of anxiety disorders and PTSD. But it seemed, and seems, too far outside of the usual topics here, and I was uncertain that anyone following this board would be interested. So I looked elsewhere in search of commentary and answers.
How welcome would mental health topics other than depression be here? How welcome would discussion of treatments other than medication be here? Or should these discussion instead take place in UseNet newsgroups? I don't mean to cause a stir, but I'm curious and I don't want to push the scope of this bulletin board further than its most frequent users would feel comfortable with.
- Phil R. (not the other Phil)
Posted by Bob on October 31, 1999, at 0:57:34
In reply to Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support, posted by Phil R. on October 30, 1999, at 23:29:52
Hi Phil R.
Your points are why I *don't* think Babble should be Balkanized into separate discussions. Sign me up for the "One Big Tent" Babbleparty.
If you've got questions about treatment -- whether drug therapy or talk therapy -- you should feel welcome bringing them up here. In the few months I've been here, I've seen numerous threads on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, Electroconvulsive Therapy, and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ... not to mention the current thread on Phototherapy for Seasonal Affective Disorder (dj, the lack of acronyms was for you ;^). More traditional forms of non-pharmeceutical therapy are one thing I really *haven't* seen brought up.
Phil R, a lot of people here talk about anxiety disorders and PTSD as well as depression -- with overlapping symptoms, concurrent disorders, whatever, a lot of folks have to deal with combinations of depression, anxiety, OCD, whatever. IMO (oops ... TLA), your specific concern about the efficacy of traditional talk therapy for conditions like PTSD or other anxiety disorders sounds like a great topic for a thread! It's your idea -- go ahead.
Cheers,
Bob
Posted by JohnL on October 31, 1999, at 3:03:37
In reply to Re: Rating System?, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 1999, at 11:18:34
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I like the way some issues were brought up here, then some possible ways of addressing them. I'm just following the discussion for now. If some of the Wearied would say what they thought of the possibilities proposed, I'd be interested. Since consensus would be the best outcome...
>
> BobI tend to fall on both sides of the fence in this debate. I think both sides presented valid points. I didn't see anything on either side that I disagreed with. I think this site will effectively self-police itself. Anytime there is a concern, someone like Weary will step in to create some awareness. Already I sense a responsible change in posts just based on debates here. I think both sides learned something from it. I'm glad this issue was brought up.
As for consensus on suggestions, the one I liked was the one about having another psychobabble for more personal discussions. You know, a place where we can go to say, "Hey I'm feeling bad, any words of encouragement out there?" Or, "Hey, it's a full moon today." Or, "Hey this isn't really related, but I have this off-the-wall theory on how my childhood caused my depression." A place for the long philosophical touchy feely kind of discussions. One place for technical discussions, another for general chat discussions. That would probably be a nightmare to set-up and manage, but that's the idea I liked best. I would personally find both locations of interest to myself.
Posted by JohnL p.s. on October 31, 1999, at 3:31:48
In reply to Re: Rating System?, posted by JohnL on October 31, 1999, at 3:03:37
Just a followup to my previous post. It falls under the category of participants self-policing. I liked the suggestion of starting a new thread in the current month rather than reviving an already long thread from a previous month. That wouldn't require any formal changes to the site. Just awareness among regular visitors.
Posted by Noa on October 31, 1999, at 6:58:58
In reply to Re: Rating System?, posted by JohnL p.s. on October 31, 1999, at 3:31:48
Phil R., there have been lots of other disorders discussed here--social phobia, ADHD, bipolar I, Bipolar II, Cyclothymia, etc. etc. I am with ABD Bob in not wanting to divide this board up. I also like John L.'s suggestion not to bring forward long threads from the archives. However, sometimes, you want to respond to a previous post. Dr. Bob, is there anyway it could work so that you could respond to an archived post without bringing forward the entire thread? Otherwise, I would agree with the idea of starting a new thread and referencing the post you are thinking about (from the archives) that you are responding to. It doesn't actually bother me much to have those archived threads forward, but it clearly bothers some other folks here, so I would be willing to make this change, as suggested by John L. Other than that, the mix of pharm talk and support talk, etc. doesn't bother me. I like the diversity. I pick and choose sometimes what I want to read based on what my particular interest is at that time.
Posted by Janice on October 31, 1999, at 12:28:30
In reply to Re: This is a bbs for mutual education & support, posted by Phil R. on October 30, 1999, at 23:29:52
and the people who have it (the Wearies, I believe) seem to be more likely to think they are going to get better from a pill; thus all the interest in pharmacological treatment of unipolar depression on this board. And it is a worthy topic of conversation, but only one.
Go for it Phil. I welcome diverse topics, enjoy making contact with people who have similar experiences as I do, learning from them (I go to my doctor for the scientific part of my healing), and sometimes just expressing myself. I have exactly 0 people (outside my doctor) to talk to about my disorders at the moment. And I, for one, haven't gotten to where I am by taking pills - although they have helped significantly.
Please submit your posting, I would enjoy it. Janice.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 1999, at 3:05:50
In reply to Suggestions, posted by Weary on October 26, 1999, at 23:40:53
Hi, everyone,
Posted by saint james on November 2, 1999, at 15:29:46
In reply to Re: Suggestions [long], posted by Dr. Bob on November 2, 1999, at 3:05:50
> Hi, everyone,
>
> I'm going to try to deal with some of the issues that have been brought up separately.
>
James here....First lets all be blessed that Bob donates his time to allow this forum to exist. Here Here, Bob ! We need to remember that many of the really useful sites on the net are free (for the user) and the owner gets paid none or little. It is a labor of love on both parts.
I like 3 of the sugestions, 2 we can do and 1 Bob can do.
make better use of the subject line, either moving to a new thread or at least changing the subject line w/i a thread.
Not quoteing all of the original post (and all the replys) in your posts. You wanted to do something about post length ? YOU CAN ! This is your big chance to "make a difference" hehe
All you have to do is highlight (Rt. click, drag)
and hit delete key, on the sections you don't want. The idea is to leave enough of the original post so we know what you are refering to.Btw, text compresses very well under v.34 and v.90 modem protocals, generally 2X to 3x above your connection speed. Text downloads to me at effective speeds above 100 kbs, very fast.
I like to idea of an search tool; there is a lot of good info stored at this site. A search interface would put this info into a more useful form.
j
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 1999, at 23:32:45
In reply to Re: Suggestions [long], posted by saint james on November 2, 1999, at 15:29:46
> I like to idea of an search tool; there is a lot of good info stored at this site. A search interface would put this info into a more useful form.
OK, there's now a link to one at the top of the main page. Let me know what you think...
Bob
Posted by dove on November 6, 1999, at 9:04:11
In reply to Re: Suggestions [short], posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 1999, at 23:32:45
Thank You Dr. Bob, you're the greatest!
dove
Posted by Deb R. on November 6, 1999, at 9:20:06
In reply to Re: Suggestions [short], posted by dove on November 6, 1999, at 9:04:11
In a word - fantastic!!
Kind regards to Dr Bob,Deb.
Posted by Bob on November 6, 1999, at 21:13:12
In reply to Re: Suggestions [short], posted by Deb R. on November 6, 1999, at 9:20:06
Nice feature -- tho here are a few ideas for fine tuning that search link:
1) Target the search link to a "_blank" page. Since it currently loads in the same window as Psycho-Babble, returning to Psycho-Babble causes a reload and erases any "new" tags for threads you haven't seen.
2) Since one of the big complaints from the web weary is bringing forward old threads with a couple dozen replies already attached, could all the archived threads be modified so that intead of getting the "Post a new follow-up" and its associated script, they would get a "Start a new thread" script instead? It could probably be scripted to automatically fill the subject line like the follow-up scripts do.
One other suggestion, not related to the search feature, that could cut the download time is the script that handles the cookie setting for whether the music is turned on or off. If it's read as being off, why not have the script branch so that the java applet and the music file do not load at all?
(Of course, Dr. B., I'm sure you could hop right on these in your copious free time ;^). Maybe, if you want, you can put it to the scripters out here in Babbleland to submit changes to your scripts that would accomplish these changes, *if* you want to make them. Like you said at B-fest NYC ... maybe you could spread the load a bit. =^)
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 1999, at 13:56:53
In reply to Re: Suggestions [short], posted by Bob on November 6, 1999, at 21:13:12
> 1) Target the search link to a "_blank" page.
OK, done. I hesitate to create too many windows, but that was a good point about the "new" flags.
> 2) Since one of the big complaints from the web weary is bringing forward old threads with a couple dozen replies already attached...
I'm just going to have it stop doing that (when I get a chance), that actually should be easier.
> the script that handles the cookie setting for whether the music is turned on or off. If it's read as being off, why not have the script branch so that the java applet and the music file do not load at all?
Because someone might not want the music to play automatically, but might still want to be able to do so manually?
The music file is only 27 K. The player is a different story, but it's already on your computer (ie, doesn't have to be downloaded from the server). If you don't want to be bothered with it at all, you can just delete it (or move it somewhere else).
From time to time, someone who's requested email notifications of follow-up posts gets overwhelmed with them and asks to have them stopped. Now you can do that yourself. I've added a link at the top of the main page. It's kind of involved, but hopefully it's better than nothing.
Bob
Posted by mary on November 8, 1999, at 17:46:32
In reply to Re: Suggestions + email notifications, posted by Dr. Bob on November 7, 1999, at 13:56:53
Thanks, Dr. Bob. In theory, this looks great. Other comments lead me to believe that is so. My trial search was not so successful (but none of my searches ever seem to be successful the first five times anyway. Nothing on earth is new and easy too). I must be doing something wrong. Do you have to select a time slot or can you leave it open?
Mary
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 1999, at 22:46:45
In reply to Re: Search + email notifications, posted by mary on November 8, 1999, at 17:46:32
> Do you have to select a time slot or can you leave it open?
You have to select a time slot.
Bob
Posted by mary on November 10, 1999, at 17:40:08
In reply to Re: Search, posted by Dr. Bob on November 8, 1999, at 22:46:45
Eventually, when i re-searched, the answer was there all the time. I just read it wrong. Thanks, Mary
> > Do you have to select a time slot or can you leave it open?
>
> You have to select a time slot.
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 1999, at 13:09:37
In reply to Re: Suggestions [short], posted by Bob on November 6, 1999, at 21:13:12
> 2) Since one of the big complaints from the web weary is bringing forward old threads with a couple dozen replies already attached...
OK, I've tried to have it stop doing this.
The main listing should from now on only include messages posted during that time period. Which means threads there may be incomplete (start with a reply, to a post in an earlier time period).
The complete thread, possibly including posts from different time periods, should still be listed with each post.
I agree that this should be an improvement. Let me know if it doesn't work or (heaven forbid) if you liked the old way better.
Bob
Posted by Bob on November 17, 1999, at 13:21:23
In reply to Re: Suggestions, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 1999, at 13:09:37
The first time I saw one of those "pulled-forward" threads, I couldn't believe my eyes (I hadn't read your last post). IMO, it's a miracle! It's soooooooo much better than not having this feature, particularly since the whole thread *does* show up when you actually click on the newer posts.
I can hardly wait to see how well it works after the next archive. A neat bit o' work. Is this one of your own modifications, Dr. Bob, or is it something from your source (Matt's Script Archive)? If it's your work, you really should post it back -- it's a significant improvement.
Cheers!
Bob
Posted by Weary on November 18, 1999, at 17:10:45
In reply to Re: Suggestions, posted by Dr. Bob on November 14, 1999, at 13:09:37
Thanks Dr. Bob. This enhancement will help a lot.
Weary
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.