Posted by jussayin on June 16, 2011, at 23:24:06
In reply to Re: Definitely down in my opinion » Phillipa, posted by floatingbridge on May 11, 2011, at 12:53:11
Could be that. We could rule out a few other things. Couldn't be anything to do with a site owners persistent efforts to use the site to elevate his own stature. Nothing to do with letting the New York Times publish an article in which a psychiatrist takes credit for writing a now obsolete open-source software that anybody with any knowledge of the open source software movement knows was written by someone else.
Couldn't have anything to do with trying to use Wikipedia to promote his site as the most popular mental health site on the Web when there are hundreds of mental health groups, many of which offer more comfortable and safe environments. Couldn't have anything to do with refusing to remove people's posts when they realize they've shared a bit too much information. And couldn't have anything to do with refusing over a period of several years to remove posts that assert one religion has more merit than another even though one member of the group persistently discusses how the inconsistency correlates with his discomfort. and it couldn't have anything to do with a moderator asserting that such discomfort is somehow therapeutic, even though the moderator has asserted his role is not to engage in online therapuetic practices.
Let's see, we ruled that out. What else can we rule out. Couldn't have anything to do with moderating in a way that favors a clutch of mostly female regulars. Nope, not that. Nor with letting one regular consistently over a period of several years fawn untoward affection toward the doctor-not-practicing medicine here. That never happens.
Nor could it have anything to do with publishing "studies" in peer reviewed literature when the subjects of those studies had not been advised they were participating in a study, and the study had not been reviewed by the docs IRB at the university that employes the doc.
What else might it not be? Couldn't have anything to do with a doctor posting pictures of his tot child in bath clothes as the only image on the site. Nope, people do that on social networks all the time. I mean, parents own children and their childrens image, and it's okay for a psychiatrist to post pictures of his tot child in bath clothes on a mental health forum. She's sure to appreciate that when she's old enough to know what happened.
And it couldn't have anything to do with an arbitrary administration of rules that virtually prohibited skeptical discussion of the efficacy of psych meds. I mean, books like the Emperors New Pill are just frauds, and anyone who brings that to a mental health forum is probably trying to make trouble.
With all that ruled out, that leave nothing but misuse of the admin page by people who have the audacity to think an administrative forum on a mental health site is to be used for discussing how administrative approaches might cause harm. That kind of discussion most likely ruined it for everybody. We've seen it happen before - free, liberal discussion of ideas brings good nations like Germany and Darfur to their knees, just when a great leader is trying to lift up the best stock among those nations. Yep. That has to be it. People running their mouths when they should be, uh... what was it we were supposed to be doing?
poster:jussayin
thread:984958
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/988465.html