Posted by shelliR on June 3, 2001, at 20:14:56
In reply to Re: Please be supportive, posted by Dr. Bob on June 3, 2001, at 10:40:19
Okay, so I just picked out one comparison (Nikki, I'm not trying to pick on you, just happened to fit the bill).
deemed non supportive:
> > > all these people that say they love effexor xr, will reach a point where they think they don't need it anymore, try to go off and ... hate it then. < < < < <deemed supportive by omission of response of "please be supportive"
..... Cos Effexor doesn't give you a high... You say
Methdone doesn't, but it does, else you wouldn't feel better for it. I just believe,
that by taking a drug like methadone,
Vicodin etc, you are simply "Putting" off the pain..I'm not exactly sure what kind of pain was being put off here, but one poster1 told anther poster2 that
(1) methodone did make her high (although poster2 had taken methodone for years and said, no it did not make her high),- -nonsupportive
(2) poster1 could not make distinction between being high and being not depressed--inaccurate information
(3) poster1 told postesr2 that her choice of treatment would lead to a specific consequence which poster1 could not know.--inaccurate, non-supportive.Okay. Maybe the posts are not exactly alike, but to me they have more similarity than difference.
"Please don't overgeneralize regarding the future of others or what they're trying to get
across."Dr. Bob, that is a really murky directive. You could response to at least 15-20% of the posts, please don't overgeneralize about something.
>
> I loved the idea of just needing one rule, but I think it turned out not to be enough. Yes, we lose something, too, so the issue is whether the trade-off is worth it. Do you think it would be a significant loss, posts like the above?No, losing that post would not be significant, however I believe the tradeoff is really becoming dangerously close to a free speech issue on the board . We know we must be civil. Civility is somewhat fuzzy, but not enormously, and it's your call. I say, okay, I am willing to give up some free speech for civility on the board, because non-civility is the type of issue that escalates and becomes ugly very quickly and counterproductive to both education and support.
Other than civility, the more you come on to the board for warnings, the more you are censoring the exchange on the threads. There I feel like the tradeup is not worth it. Inaccurate information and worst case senarios are just part of the process of the board. Checks and balances should be provided by the participants on the board. The more often you say in so many words, "no, you can not say that on my board because it's not true" or "you cannot say that on my board because it's not supportive" (which I take to mean, it's not helpful to someone else, in your opinion), the larger your role becomes and the smaller the group role becomes.
If someone is giving inaccuate information, or nonsupportive information, you always have the option of posting correct information, or being more supportive, as we all do. Why make these issues authoritative issues?
Respectfully, (but getting a bit uneasy)
Shelli
poster:shelliR
thread:1362
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20010315/msgs/1372.html