why did you step in on the thread about takign custody?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think what you are failing to understand is that several of us who post regularly don't think your judgment about what is valuable or worthy of posting is trustworthy. Many of us think your professed ownership of the thread and all its contents is damaging to the value of the topic to the whole community. You only value very specific responses to your question. Which is fine...but selfish to the rest of the community who value the contributions of the critical thinking posters who questioned your base assumptions.

Now, it is true that you appealed to the moderator and he apparently agreed with you and you are now here, and on at least one other thread, championing him and your particular view that you, as the OP, should have the ultimate say in what is useful on "your" thread. I said in another thread and I will say it here. I think Jeff was wrong (even to delete a single post) and that he could very well grow to regret giving individual users such power over the content of a thread. That said, I respect him and the work he does here and will follow his rules. I'm posting now just because I'm really tired of your self righteous defense of something that is, at best, a murky area of internet etiquette.

Oh. BTW, OP of the guardianship thread, tell me this. If you are being intellectually honest and really only wanted to know *how* to do something...why did you even post it on the board? Clearly, you need a lawyer to really help you with the process and that lawyer would surely have your answer. Even you acknowledge needing to contact a lawyer. Why post it here in the first place? I suspect you did want more than the direct answer, you just didn't like what you got.

Of course I only value posts I find helpful and responsive to my query. What's the point in posting if you're not looking for something you will find useful? I never professed to 'own' the thread, those are your words, the site owners own the thread which is why I had to appeal to them. But, if the purpose of this website is to provide information to those seeking it, then I am entitled to request assistance from the moderators if others are getting in the way of what I'm looking for. I'm selfish for not allow people like you to contribute but the topic you wished to discuss wasn't the topic of the thread. Why do YOU get define what I'm looking for? None of the posts questioning "whether" we should offer to keep the girls was deleted so if someone else is looking for information regarding it, those objections are still there. If you feel you're being shut out and have more of value to contribute to the community on 'whether' it should be done, why not start your own thread. No one is stopping you from making "valuable" contributions. Also, this issue has nothing to do with internet etiquette. It's about what the owners of this site feel is appropriate. What you call the "contributions of critical thinkers", some might call the narrowmindedness of those with limited life experience.

You are obviously reading the various places I've posted regarding this and I'm surprised that you think my only interest was in "how" to do something. I've been very clear that I was looking for the information about temporary guardianship or people who had experience with it. There are a lot of things involved that I may not be aware of or have considered. One poster to the original thread cautioned me about the impact of us having temporary guardianship and the misperception of the mother not being interested, unfit or unable to care for them. I hadn't considered that aspect and although that poster may not have had personal experience with temporary guardianship, she did have information that was important for us to consider if/when we did it. Prior to that post, we hadn't considered consulting an attorrney. That was the sort of information and insight that I was looking for. The poster who lived with her aunt after her parent's divorce added little value. Yes, it was traumatic for her but she offered no insight as to how we might avoid the problems she had. Still, I had no problem with that particular post, it was the continuation of the debate regarding the merits of our offer that I had a problem with as it diminished the value I received from my post and the tone discourages others from posting. One of the benefits a friend mentions, which I'm surprised no one on DCUM suggested, was that temporary guardianship may allow the girls to be covered under my insurance which would then allow us to arrange for private therapy for them. I know there's no way they could recieve that if we continue our informal arrangements. Perhaps someone would have posted about that and other useful things had the so many posts in the beginning not been so negative. I know I'm turned off when I see a thread start to turn nasty and am less likely to engage at any level. Call it selfish if you wish but I really don't care if anyone else finds that thread useful. Better yet, why don't you start a thread discussing whether posts for the benefit of the OP or for the benefit of the community?

Wow, PP, you are seriously rude. I'm the one with the aunt, and although I told Jeff I wasn't going to keep fighting for the last word, WTF is wrong with you to say my post had no value? I can't tell you how you should separate the kids from the mom in a way that will be less damaging, because I don't believe that option exists. In fact, I explained in subsequent posts on other threads that my parents and aunt were very loving when it happened and very well-intentioned. Therapists generally counsel that, even when mom is homeless it is almost always better (emotionally speaking) for the kids to remain with their family, especially during traumatic, life-changing events. So what exactly did you want from this post? You can get the straight logistics on temporary custody by googling. I just found the time it took me to type "temporary custody DC" into google. What you get on DCUM is different, and I daresay better (usually), because google doesn't have an opinion (yet). I'm a real person with real experiences, and I answered your question. So what - I provided more info than you wanted? What I provided was information. But I'm REALLLLLY starting to think what you wanted was more like a pat on the back. No thanks.

BTW, PP, what is YBM?

WTF is wrong with YOU to tell the OP where she finds value?? SHE DIDN'T FIND ANY VALUE IN YOUR POST. Get over it. She asked a question, and she didn't feel that your reply was valuable TO HER. The person asking the question. You can't shove information at someone that they didn't ask for and then cry foul that they didn't find it useful.
You are so full of yourself. It's people like you that are turning this website into crap.

But the responses had value to others who were reading the thread, especially those who might have been forced to take a different perspective to the question being posed. THAT is why it was wrong to delete them. It was entirely legitimate to question the OP's premise, and entirely within the scope of this site, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Oh, right. All of vast thongs of people seeking temporary guardianship in the DC area. OK, PP. Whatever.
The value you think your posts have is based on the fact that you have something to say, and dammit, people are going to listen to you. Well, not everyone thinks you are all that. And they have the right to say it. And people have the right to come on here asking questions and getting answers, not commentary. But if you're going to play it that way, then OP has just as much a right to say you suck as you did to her.

[Anonymous]

PP, do you know that 18:18 is not the same poster as the one whose post the OP thought had no "value"?

Before you go around insulting people, remember you might just be talking to more than one person. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Which is why I responded to 21:15. Even bolded the statement I took issue with. In 21:15's post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, right. All of vast thongs of people seeking temporary guardianship in the DC area. OK, PP. Whatever.
The value you think your posts have is based on the fact that you have something to say, and dammit, people are going to listen to you. Well, not everyone thinks you are all that. And they have the right to say it. And people have the right to come on here asking questions and getting answers, not commentary. But if you're going to play it that way, then OP has just as much a right to say you suck as you did to her.

You're addressing two different people. I think you are directing your comments at me, the person who called the temp guardianship OP "rude." However, 18:18, who responded to you, is someone else. Do you know what they say about ASSuming?

[Anonymous]

Wow, PP, you are seriously rude. I'm the one with the aunt, and although I told Jeff I wasn't going to keep fighting for the last word, WTF is wrong with you to say my post had no value? I can't tell you how you should separate the kids from the mom in a way that will be less damaging, because I don't believe that option exists. In fact, I explained in subsequent posts on other threads that my parents and aunt were very loving when it happened and very well-intentioned. Therapists generally counsel that, even when mom is homeless it is almost always better (emotionally speaking) for the kids to remain with their family, especially during traumatic, life-changing events. So what exactly did you want from this post? You can get the straight logistics on temporary custody by googling. I just found the time it took me to type "temporary custody DC" into google. What you get on DCUM is different, and I daresay better (usually), because google doesn't have an opinion (yet). I'm a real person with real experiences, and I answered your question. So what - I provided more info than you wanted? What I provided was information. But I'm REALLLLLY starting to think what you wanted was more like a pat on the back. No thanks.

NP here - while your FIRST post might have had some value - "Hey, OP, this might not be the way to go" - your 57 subsequent posts, on multiple threads, were repetitive, hostile (when OP didn't immediately agree with you) and whiny (once Jeff stepped in). Moreover, you appear to have WAY too much time on your hands, and are far too invested in DCUM and having your own point of view heard and given the credit you believe it deserves. If you don't think OP deserves a pat on the back, don't give her one. But your continued ranting makes you seen unhinged, and reinforces the perception another PP expressed that you are just working through your own issues at the OP's expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, right. All of vast thongs of people seeking temporary guardianship in the DC area. OK, PP. Whatever.
The value you think your posts have is based on the fact that you have something to say, and dammit, people are going to listen to you. Well, not everyone thinks you are all that. And they have the right to say it. And people have the right to come on here asking questions and getting answers, not commentary. But if you're going to play it that way, then OP has just as much a right to say you suck as you did to her.

You're addressing two different people. I think you are directing your comments at me, the person who called the temp guardianship OP "rude." However, 18:18, who responded to you, is someone else. Do you know what they say about ASSuming?

Well, you share a brain, so it's really not that big of a deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
But the responses had value to others who were reading the thread, especially those who might have been forced to take a different perspective to the question being posed. THAT is why it was wrong to delete them. It was entirely legitimate to question the OP's premise, and entirely within the scope of this site, IMO.

Yet another poster here. You seem to value your own unsolicited and off-topic advice more than anyone else does. You offered advice that should appropriately been offered to the mother of the children, not to the OP and then took umbrage when the OP said that it wasn't helpful and had no value. The OP was doing a good deed in offering an option to a possibly overwhelmed mother undergoing divorce. While I understand why you were so adversely affected and I sympathize with your situation and how you felt, the point is that the OP is doing a GOOD THING by learning how to give the mother an option. Your advice would be useful for the mother to consider when making her decision, but not for OP when making her decision whether to offer aid and how to do so.

As for posts being deleted, Jeff has pointed out that there was exactly ONE post that was deleted and it was about someone who objected to his stepping in to ask posters to keep the topic back on track based on the original question. It was not a different perspective on the topic at hand. Your comment in the original thread and your protestations in other threads are all there. Jeff hasn't deleted your commentary, inappropriate as it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But the responses had value to others who were reading the thread, especially those who might have been forced to take a different perspective to the question being posed. THAT is why it was wrong to delete them. It was entirely legitimate to question the OP's premise, and entirely within the scope of this site, IMO.

Yet another poster here. You seem to value your own unsolicited and off-topic advice more than anyone else does. You offered advice that should appropriately been offered to the mother of the children, not to the OP and then took umbrage when the OP said that it wasn't helpful and had no value. The OP was doing a good deed in offering an option to a possibly overwhelmed mother undergoing divorce. While I understand why you were so adversely affected and I sympathize with your situation and how you felt, the point is that the OP is doing a GOOD THING by learning how to give the mother an option. Your advice would be useful for the mother to consider when making her decision, but not for OP when making her decision whether to offer aid and how to do so.

As for posts being deleted, Jeff has pointed out that there was exactly ONE post that was deleted and it was about someone who objected to his stepping in to ask posters to keep the topic back on track based on the original question. It was not a different perspective on the topic at hand. Your comment in the original thread and your protestations in other threads are all there. Jeff hasn't deleted your commentary, inappropriate as it was.

You are talking to a different person than the one you think you are addressing. So is the PP above. There are at least three and probably many more people annoyed by the handling of that post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But the responses had value to others who were reading the thread, especially those who might have been forced to take a different perspective to the question being posed. THAT is why it was wrong to delete them. It was entirely legitimate to question the OP's premise, and entirely within the scope of this site, IMO.

Yet another poster here. You seem to value your own unsolicited and off-topic advice more than anyone else does. You offered advice that should appropriately been offered to the mother of the children, not to the OP and then took umbrage when the OP said that it wasn't helpful and had no value. The OP was doing a good deed in offering an option to a possibly overwhelmed mother undergoing divorce. While I understand why you were so adversely affected and I sympathize with your situation and how you felt, the point is that the OP is doing a GOOD THING by learning how to give the mother an option. Your advice would be useful for the mother to consider when making her decision, but not for OP when making her decision whether to offer aid and how to do so.

As for posts being deleted, Jeff has pointed out that there was exactly ONE post that was deleted and it was about someone who objected to his stepping in to ask posters to keep the topic back on track based on the original question. It was not a different perspective on the topic at hand. Your comment in the original thread and your protestations in other threads are all there. Jeff hasn't deleted your commentary, inappropriate as it was.

You are talking to a different person than the one you think you are addressing. So is the PP above. There are at least three and probably many more people annoyed by the handling of that post.

The voices in your head don't count as separate people.

[Anonymous]

Wait, I can't keep track. Are the "voices in your head" and "share a brain" the same poster? Funny stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
But the responses had value to others who were reading the thread, especially those who might have been forced to take a different perspective to the question being posed. THAT is why it was wrong to delete them. It was entirely legitimate to question the OP's premise, and entirely within the scope of this site, IMO.

Yet another poster here. You seem to value your own unsolicited and off-topic advice more than anyone else does. You offered advice that should appropriately been offered to the mother of the children, not to the OP and then took umbrage when the OP said that it wasn't helpful and had no value. The OP was doing a good deed in offering an option to a possibly overwhelmed mother undergoing divorce. While I understand why you were so adversely affected and I sympathize with your situation and how you felt, the point is that the OP is doing a GOOD THING by learning how to give the mother an option. Your advice would be useful for the mother to consider when making her decision, but not for OP when making her decision whether to offer aid and how to do so.

As for posts being deleted, Jeff has pointed out that there was exactly ONE post that was deleted and it was about someone who objected to his stepping in to ask posters to keep the topic back on track based on the original question. It was not a different perspective on the topic at hand. Your comment in the original thread and your protestations in other threads are all there. Jeff hasn't deleted your commentary, inappropriate as it was.

You are talking to a different person than the one you think you are addressing. So is the PP above. There are at least three and probably many more people annoyed by the handling of that post.

Perhaps my first paragraph was directed at the wrong person. However, the second paragraph applies directly to the person I quoted. The person contends that there were multiple opinions/comments that were deleted (wrong to delete them). However, Jeff has mentioned that he did not delete any posts prior to the request to refocus on the original question. The only question deleted was a comment reacting to Jeff's comment and he removed it because it should have gone here, to web feedback and was not germane to the topic/thread. There are at least two people who have brought up deleted posts more than once and they need to be corrected that there have not been deleted posts, but one single deleted post and one that did not contain different perspectives on the OP's situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, I can't keep track. Are the "voices in your head" and "share a brain" the same poster? Funny stuff.

Nope. See, not so easy to keep track of, huh?

[Anonymous]

Surprisingly enough editing and censorship are not the same thing.

I would like to thank Jeff for the moderating he does, I posted a thread once that was very personal. All the responses were negative in nature, but some were still extremely helpful. The ones that weren't were just hateful and mean and thankfully were removed by the next morning. I never complained, they were just gone. I can't tell you how much better it felt to know that someone was on my side and keeping things from getting out of control.

Jeff isn't stopping you from having an opinion or a place to vent, he is just keeping the self-important bullying in check cause it is his job. And he even made a place here for you to complain about how he does his job, seriously get over yourselves people, I really isn't free speech issue. When you post something that isn't constructive or necessary it hurts the whole system and when it gets edited out you shouldn't jump down the moderators throat about censorship. Just start your own thread where you can be abusive if that is what gets you off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wait, I can't keep track. Are the "voices in your head" and "share a brain" the same poster? Funny stuff.

Nope. See, not so easy to keep track of, huh?

Why so smug? All I said was that they were funny.