Reminder about the purpose of the Kids with Special Needs Forum

[Anonymous]

If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You could just start your own thread, or discuss it in a non-confrontational way.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

Whether or not something exists (or does not exist) as a diagnosis in the DSM-5 is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

I’m a long-time consumer of this board as a source of information. If you censor factual information I’m not sure that does a great service.

But it’s your board and you set the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

Whether or not something exists (or does not exist) as a diagnosis in the DSM-5 is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

I’m a long-time consumer of this board as a source of information. If you censor factual information I’m not sure that does a great service.

But it’s your board and you set the rules.

+1.

People need to be constructive in tone. But this board is most valuable when people with knowledge and experience are able to share it. I have seen threads where people get upset that some posters are pushing back on OP’s expectations or views of what someone (such as a school) has done. But OP’s expectations (about the chance of a private placement, for example) were not remotely realistic.

It does OP little good for people to just cheer her on and agree that the school system is wrong. Maybe it makes her fee better, but I think it is much more valuable to provide a reasoned, POLITE explanation of why her expectations are off and what might be more realistic or what steps she would need to take to get where what she wants might be possible.

I also worry that if the countervailing view is not allowed, other posters reading the thread may develop unreasonable or unrealistic expectations. I don’t think that serves the community well and defeats much of the purpose of this board.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

Whether or not something exists (or does not exist) as a diagnosis in the DSM-5 is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

I’m a long-time consumer of this board as a source of information. If you censor factual information I’m not sure that does a great service.

But it’s your board and you set the rules.

Whether someone is "shopping around for a diagnosis" could only be an assumption unless the poster specifically told you that's what they are doing. I think parents deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to do the best for their children. Similarly, forum moderators who have long track records of maintaining popular forums should not cavalierly be accused of censorship. You may want to give a bit more thought to your language choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

Whether or not something exists (or does not exist) as a diagnosis in the DSM-5 is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

I’m a long-time consumer of this board as a source of information. If you censor factual information I’m not sure that does a great service.

But it’s your board and you set the rules.

There is a particular poster on this board who assumes that every who disagrees with him is avoiding an autism diagnosis. If you agree that your child has autism, he assumes you don't realize how serious your child's condition is.

Good post: X isn't in the DSM, but it could be autism, so please consider having your child tested.

Bad Post: Your kid can't have Y because he really has autism.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

Whether or not something exists (or does not exist) as a diagnosis in the DSM-5 is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

I’m a long-time consumer of this board as a source of information. If you censor factual information I’m not sure that does a great service.

But it’s your board and you set the rules.

+1.

People need to be constructive in tone. But this board is most valuable when people with knowledge and experience are able to share it. I have seen threads where people get upset that some posters are pushing back on OP’s expectations or views of what someone (such as a school) has done. But OP’s expectations (about the chance of a private placement, for example) were not remotely realistic.

It does OP little good for people to just cheer her on and agree that the school system is wrong. Maybe it makes her fee better, but I think it is much more valuable to provide a reasoned, POLITE explanation of why her expectations are off and what might be more realistic or what steps she would need to take to get where what she wants might be possible.

I also worry that if the countervailing view is not allowed, other posters reading the thread may develop unreasonable or unrealistic expectations. I don’t think that serves the community well and defeats much of the purpose of this board.

Well, since you find push back to be helpful, allow me to push back and say that your post is almost entirely irrelevant to this discussion. In no way have I implied that a "POLITE explanation" would not be allowed. What I am not going to allow any longer is the constant hijacking of threads by posters who repeat the same arguments that have already been repeated multiple times -- generally about whether or not something is ASD (though there are other cases).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am likely an offender- although I don’t care about MERLD vs. ASD. The perspective I bring is that if a special education teacher and SN mom. Sometimes I see the school blaming/teacher shaming as a defense mechanism that not only hurts the kid (I see this play out daily!!) and stops the parents from addressing core issues. It’s hard for me to remain objective.
For my part I do try to steer clear on reading others posts, although I do post new topics. There is just a lot of damage done by scared parents who refuse to accept the fact that their kids disability isn’t the schools fault. IMO

I'm an offender because I live in a county where the school system has abused kids with special needs for so long and it is hidden and the teachers are allowed to ignore ieps and nothing is done. I will always speak up when someone shushes a parent who is speaking about what they and their family have been through.

[Anonymous]

Any reason registration isn’t more appropriate for this forum?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Any reason registration isn’t more appropriate for this forum?

Yes, I think anyone talking about very personal issues involving their children will generally want as much privacy as possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any reason registration isn’t more appropriate for this forum?

I have wondered this, too

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

Whether or not something exists (or does not exist) as a diagnosis in the DSM-5 is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

I’m a long-time consumer of this board as a source of information. If you censor factual information I’m not sure that does a great service.

But it’s your board and you set the rules.

+1.

People need to be constructive in tone. But this board is most valuable when people with knowledge and experience are able to share it. I have seen threads where people get upset that some posters are pushing back on OP’s expectations or views of what someone (such as a school) has done. But OP’s expectations (about the chance of a private placement, for example) were not remotely realistic.

It does OP little good for people to just cheer her on and agree that the school system is wrong. Maybe it makes her fee better, but I think it is much more valuable to provide a reasoned, POLITE explanation of why her expectations are off and what might be more realistic or what steps she would need to take to get where what she wants might be possible.

I also worry that if the countervailing view is not allowed, other posters reading the thread may develop unreasonable or unrealistic expectations. I don’t think that serves the community well and defeats much of the purpose of this board.

Well, since you find push back to be helpful, allow me to push back and say that your post is almost entirely irrelevant to this discussion. In no way have I implied that a "POLITE explanation" would not be allowed. What I am not going to allow any longer is the constant hijacking of threads by posters who repeat the same arguments that have already been repeated multiple times -- generally about whether or not something is ASD (though there are other cases).

Except I have seen such posts deleted. And if you are now going to monitor the board with greater diligence, it is reasonable to assume more such posts will be deleted. So I disagree it is off topic.

More fundamentally, I am really disappointed in your tone to me and the other PP. We have each offered constructive insights into what we believe will make this board more valuable. You have responded with snark and hostility -- on a topic that was started for the express purpose of fostering civility no less.

Of course, you are free to disagree a with us, both generally, and because (as you love to point out) it is your board. But there seems to be no reason for your attitude here.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If somebody is shopping around for a formal diagnosis that does not exist in the DSM-V, why is it offensive and inappropriate to point that?

You are making assumptions that I am not sure you are in a position to make. In any case, such posts have disrupted many threads without yielding any observable benefit. Please refrain from posting them.

Whether or not something exists (or does not exist) as a diagnosis in the DSM-5 is not an assumption. It’s a fact.

I’m a long-time consumer of this board as a source of information. If you censor factual information I’m not sure that does a great service.

But it’s your board and you set the rules.

Whether someone is "shopping around for a diagnosis" could only be an assumption unless the poster specifically told you that's what they are doing. I think parents deserve the benefit of the doubt that they are trying to do the best for their children. Similarly, forum moderators who have long track records of maintaining popular forums should not cavalierly be accused of censorship. You may want to give a bit more thought to your language choices.

Case in point. Somebody recently began a thread titled “auditory processing disorder,” and in the very first line of her thread she said she was seeking somebody who could test/diagnose auditory processing disorder.

Fact one: That person was seeking somebody who could test for/diagnose auditory processing disorder. She said so explicitly in the beginning of the post.

Fact two: Auditory Processing Disorder is NOT a diagnosis in the DSM-V.

Fact three: You removed my posting that noted APD is not a diagnosis.

[Anonymous]

^^^ I think we found the problem.