How does this help educate DCUM posters looking to learn information?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people need to create adversity. Just as she misstates Dr. Greenspan, she also mistates other posters. OP was the one who recited the list of her DS's problems and struggle for diagnosis. What is one to think after reading of her arduous ordeal - that the challenges weren't any more significant than a hangnail? You can't have it both ways OP. There's a reason we want you to stay away from our threads and it has nothing to do with Dr. Greenspan.

Just what were you expecting Jeff to do?

Oh my God, this is really ridiculous. The reason so many professionals were having a hard time dx'ing my child is not because his issues were so serious, it's because they did not know what a sensory regulatory disorder is. All they could say with certainty is that he was not on the autism spectrum at all. Children's Hospital said it was MILD ADHD. Several people said that, but they knew they didn't have the whole picture. Now we finally know - it's not just mild adhd, it's mild sensory regulatory disorder. The reason we sought the opinion of so many professionals before Greenspan is also - well frankly, because we can afford to and we were interested in hearing who has what to say and compare their perspectives.

I do not want to debate my 'misinterpretation of Greenspan' here on WebFeedback. I will be happy to debate this point on the other special needs forum. Just go back to that forum, list precisely HOW I misinterpreted Greenspan and I will clarify everything for you.

And by the way, it's not YOUR threads. Last time I checked the threads belong to everybody.

[Anonymous]

If you don't think people have already pointed out how you're misinterpreting Dr. Greenspan, you've turned a blind eye. In fact, quotes that you posted yourself say his approach isn't evidenced based and until there's more testing of more diverse, larger study group (as well as testing by professionals other than Dr. Greenspan's group) it's use is limited.

[Anonymous]

OP, did you read the post a few back on this thread? Why the need to continue? To what end?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't think people have already pointed out how you're misinterpreting Dr. Greenspan, you've turned a blind eye. In fact, quotes that you posted yourself say his approach isn't evidenced based and until there's more testing of more diverse, larger study group (as well as testing by professionals other than Dr. Greenspan's group) it's use is limited.

This has already been answered. Reread the spec needs post. Not debating that here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, did you read the post a few back on this thread? Why the need to continue? To what end?

Well as you can see, I'm not addressing the childish or mean comments anymore (I don't want to sit next to you in an airplane, you're a fanatic, your kid must have some serious issues, you're a hijacker, etc..etc..). I'm also ignoring the digging up of old, unrelated threads I wrote on in an effort to discredit me. I realize it's all an effort to shut me up so they can continue to get parents to think social skills groups are all great for our kids (or perhaps because they will feel bad if the evidence does show social skills groups are not good for our kids). I continue to talk about social skills groups though in a analytical and informative way. I publish reputable articles. I address misinterpretations of studies. I address perceived misinterpretations of Greenspan's treatment program. This is all so information about the shortcomings of social skills playgroups is memorialized and parents even five years from now can hopefully search this topic and have information on which to make a good decision for special needs children. I do believe it will be persuasive for SOME parents out there who are wondering whether they should do structured playgroups or whether there are better choices for their kids.

So I will continue if I find add'l resources for people to read or if somebody wants to debate a related point with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP- I hope you read what I am going to say. And if you don't, maybe that is good as well, because it means you have left this behind you. I think everyone's frustration (including yours) boils down to a difference between intent and impact. [b]Your intentions are well meaning for the most part.[/b] (Although you have made some uncalled for swipes at people, and that is not nice.) But the impact of your posts is alienating and troublesome for people.

In my opinion, your inability to listen to and reflect on the impact people are expressing is a problem, and suggests something you might need to think about.

You are clearly at Greenspan fan(actic.) You are perceived as someone who absolutely believes in one scholar, and suggest that others who don't are short changing themselves and their children. You repeately suggest that we revisit his articles. OP, some people may not share the same faith in this individual, and that is okay. YOU aren't okay with it, and I think this baffles people.

You repeatedly say that people are bringing your child into this. They aren't. One comment was made that your child might have issues. No one ever said (as you quote), that your child is "messed up." YOU know your child. We don't. So don't dwell on this. Let it go.

You say you want dialogue and debate, but what we see is behavior on your part that is almost evangelical for your savior. It is wasted energy to convince people of ideas that people might have already considered and rejected. To suggest that they are wrong is not in the spirt of dialogue. It is off putting and disrespective of people that hold views different than your own.

At the end of the day, you are devoting lots of time and energy to this, and it is probably sapping energy you might need for your family. It might be helpful for you to take a step back, and instead of dismissing everyone as out to get you, think about what you might be doing that is eliciting such a visceral response. This introspection might be helpful beyond your contributions in this forum.

OP is hopeless. Turning a blind eye and ear to feedback. She will continue to post away. When met with resistence, she persists. I am curious as towhen she has time for all of the activities with her child that are ostensibly important to her.

[Anonymous]

And she wonders why she's called a troll.....a hijacker......maybe it's her red badge of courage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, frankly, OP needs to get over it. This is DCUM not Hallmark. People are going to disagree, be rude, be supportive, be bitchy, be whatever. You have to take things in context. I get into arguments all the time with people on the nanny board (yes, I am the educated militant nanny, not the crazy nanny or the troll nanny or the LP nanny). I argue on here but when I walk away from my computer I don't take it with me. I love the Seinfeld show, but I don't believe I'm Elaine in real life. Keep things in context and always focus on the big picture. There's lots of ignorant assholes on the beltway to whom I'd like to flip the bird (well, truth be told, have flipped the bird) but once I get where I'm going and get out of the car, I forget about it. There's so much else to do right in front of me.

OP here. By all means, let the ideas flow free and unfettered. A free exchange of ideas means some will be supportive and some will disagree. Opinions can be expressed strongly. Sarcasm may be used at times too. Coloful language such as F$#@, AS%$#@, and SH!@ can probably be used too if you just can't seem to find better words to help punctuate your expression or language. But when people make personal attacks, start bringing up things that have nothing to do with the issue or topic, try to get digs in to escape the more difficult task of having to argue on the merits (and in my case they used my child who has some minor developmental problems to get a dig into me - totally beneath contempt) do you not think that crosses the line between debate and discourse to indecency? Really? If someone said that about your kid you'd just ignore it? Where exactly should that line actually be drawn in debates? Can I say 'oh they're just loser parents who don't deserve special kids'? Or is it really okay for them to tell me my child must be so messed up with serious challenges? Is it okay for anyone to try to track the history of all their posts and then publish all of them in an attempt to discredit me to the public to detract from my message? I wrote on the Special Needs forum, I was totally blasted there by these few posters. So I wrote to Jeff on the WebFeedback forum. They followed me there to interject there too. Then they go back to the Special Needs forum and post my WebFeedback complaint to Jeff to show everybody I complained. Then they create a new post on the Special Needs forum titled, "Social Skills Playgroup - hope this doesn't get hijacked too" in reference to me, their accused hijacker. But it doesn't stop there! They create this new forum, presumably to get away from me or my message, but they don't stay put there. No, of course not. They come back to the original contentious thread and keep taking further whacks at me. It still doesn't stop there. Then they go to the WebFeedback forum once again and create yet another post in reference to me, titled, "Can we have a debate forum" so people like me don't hijack legitimate information threads. Yikes, I feel like the drop of blood in the shark infested waters off the Florida coast. The daggers are out and they're out for blood all in an effort to shut my mouth. Just how far can posters go without somebody stopping them? Too much permissiveness comes with a cost in my opinion. It detracts from important discussions. It disgusts some people. It disuades people from sharing important knowledge.

None of that seems inappropriate to me at all. (BTW, NP here.) If you wrote those posts, why would you mind if someone posts links to them? Don't you stand by your words? And as for people begging for ways to avoid having posts hijacked by people like you--well, if the shoe fits. And people "following you" to other forums? This is a public forum and people can post anywhere they wish. Frankly, you sound paranoid.

[Anonymous]

Because we were debating one topic, social skills playgroups. And my opinion on a wholly different topic from months ago has no bearing on this topic at all. It's apples and oranges. It's designed to paint a picture of me as a militant special needs poster here to detract from the real debate - which is and should remain, "Are social skills playgroups the answer for our special needs children?"

Someone asked what I expect Jeff to do. He once wrote in a thread regarding "A simple Jew question"when a few people were upset with it:
"I have also, on occasion, removed specific posts within a thread, generally posts that were personal attacks or not germane to the discussion at hand."

Well, numerous posts have been published and remain published on the special needs forum on this thread though they are indeed personal attacks and not germane to the subject of social skills playgroups. They should not be allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because we were debating one topic, social skills playgroups. And my opinion on a wholly different topic from months ago has no bearing on this topic at all. It's apples and oranges. It's designed to paint a picture of me as a militant special needs poster here to detract from the real debate - which is and should remain, "Are social skills playgroups the answer for our special needs children?"

Someone asked what I expect Jeff to do. He once wrote in a thread regarding "A simple Jew question"when a few people were upset with it:
"I have also, on occasion, removed specific posts within a thread, generally posts that were personal attacks or not germane to the discussion at hand."

Well, numerous posts have been published and remain published on the special needs forum on this thread though they are indeed personal attacks and not germane to the subject of social skills playgroups. They should not be allowed.

Enough.

[Anonymous]

OP, I'm on your side and I don't even go on the Special Needs Forum. Really, the only thing worth reading on any of these posts is to not let these posters bother you. They can make a point without being mean and degrading and insulting but they choose not to. Just ignore them and keep getting your message across if that's important to you. Good luck with your DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I'm on your side and I don't even go on the Special Needs Forum. Really, the only thing worth reading on any of these posts is to not let these posters bother you. They can make a point without being mean and degrading and insulting but they choose not to. Just ignore them and keep getting your message across if that's important to you. Good luck with your DC.

Yeah, but the point is OP wants to debate the merits of various issues, but becomes outraged and downright strange when it happens? You are on her side before even reading the mayhem and craziness she pollutes legitimate threads with?

[Anonymous]

The only thing that stood out for me in this whole thing was the suggestion that any good parent would raid their 401K for any child -- special needs or not. That is just all kinds of crazy.

[Anonymous]

You must have missed where she said our children's lives are more important than our lives. How messed up is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You must have missed where she said our children's lives are more important than our lives. How messed up is that?

I happen to agree with that. When your children are born, your turn to be the center of the world is over.

And the last couple of insulting posts are more examples of why I am on OP's side. If I had to be stuck on a deserted island with one of you, I'd rather listen to someone talk ad nauseam about their theories than watch any of you others try to tear someone apart like a wild dog. That's just me.