jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, some of this is persuasive, but you think, with everything that gets discussed here and the way it is discussed, that allowing an off-topic thread to stray further off-topic is what's going to get you badmouthed? And that worry that people will badmouth it is what causes you to interfere? Meantime, you've got black women actually saying that the sheer number of racist posts on here make them feel unwelcome. Plus, okay, this guardianship post is quite specific. But the ADHD was more of an open ended question, if I recall correctly. Like, has anyone had luck getting their four year old diagnosed with ADHD (I can't remember exactly). So then the conversation turned to medicating, and the pro-medication stuff stayed and the anti-medication was clipped. It skews the conversation. I guess a spin-off thread is the consolation prize. I think I remember that the ADHD thread in question stopped moving once the debate was quashed, though. And I don't see the temp guardianship moving, either. Maybe both OPs didn't think about the fact that the debate was keeping their post at page one, where more people (eventually someone with straight info) might see it.

Oh well. Your site, not mine. Just sharing my thoughts. Appreciate all you do to keep this going.

Since you have brought the issue of racism up more than once now, I want to address that topic specifically. I have been taking steps to combat racist posts of all types. I view operating this site as more of an art than a science. Hence, I don't have one strategy for every problem. Rather, I address different issues in different manners depending on what I believe will work best. Simply because you are not aware of my actions doesn't mean there are no actions. Racism online is a huge problem everywhere. Check out the comment section of almost any newspaper (except those that closely monitor the comments). DCUM is quite tame in comparison. But, the reality remains that if I don't know about something, I can't do anything about it. So, use the "report" button.

Anonymous wrote:
I do use the report button. You seem to be getting really annoyed with me for disagreeing with you. I appreciate that you are taking steps to combat racism. It was just one example of the many ways threads on any anonymous website get out of control. You've made a really visible move in stepping in on threads like this one and the ADHD thread, and I haven't seen the same visibility on other things (such as not just racism, but the thread where people are blaming a mother who lost her child for her child's death on the epi-pen thread). We let that stay, but micromanage threads so that the OP doesn't have to listen to anyone else's view on a hot topic. Okay. Like I said, it is your website. I am a pretty long-time user and I think I nearly always have advice or something positive to say. I go out of my way to help people on this thread. If, sometimes, my desire to help means pointing out another way to look at the problem, I think it is valid. My parents divorce was completely devastating to me. My time with my aunt was horrible. They loved me so much, but I kept feeling like unwanted baggage. It is a proven fact that most children believe they are to blame at least in part for a divorce. So when dad skips off to another country and mom moves to be closer to family but does not take her children, that makes me think of how I felt as a kid. OP could explain the situation but she didn't want to. She just covered up her ears and said "I'm not listening, la la la" and you institutionalized that by meddling on the thread. PLease don't take my comments personally. If you trace my IP address you can see who I am, we've agreed on 99 percent of issues. I like you and like this website. I just think this practice of shutting off alternate POVs is not cool. I guess now I'm just being a pain in the ass about it. You've made your decision and it's not like I can really change your mind by badgering. I'm simply defending my point of view at this point, because your'e making me feel like I'm some kind of bully who shuts down threads with vitriol and mean-spirited replies when I feel I'm one of the posters who goes out of her way to be thoughtful and kind to others on this website most of the time. Like anyone, I definitely have my moments where I get frustrated or angry with another poster, but I'm not derailing threads with vitriol by any means. Oh well. I've said what I need to say now. I'm not going to keep fighting for the last word. Just hope you'll consider what I and others are saying about this with an open mind.

Anonymous wrote:
If, sometimes, my desire to help means pointing out another way to look at the problem, I think it is valid. My parents divorce was completely devastating to me. My time with my aunt was horrible. They loved me so much, but I kept feeling like unwanted baggage. It is a proven fact that most children believe they are to blame at least in part for a divorce. So when dad skips off to another country and mom moves to be closer to family but does not take her children, that makes me think of how I felt as a kid. OP could explain the situation but she didn't want to. She just covered up her ears and said "I'm not listening, la la la" and you institutionalized that by meddling on the thread. PLease don't take my comments personally. If you trace my IP address you can see who I am, we've agreed on 99 percent of issues. I like you and like this website. I just think this practice of shutting off alternate POVs is not cool.

Anonymous wrote:Here's a benign example of allowing a post to veer off course a bit: OP asked for restaurant suggestions for a 40th bday party. Many offered suggestions and a discussion debated whether a particular restaurant was good or awful. At least one poster suggested that OP cater the party, suggested a caterer and listed many reasons why catering may be better than a restaurant. 2 pages later, OP comes back and says, "hey thanks for the Ridgwell's suggestion, I hadn't considered catering." I warned that it was a benign example, but I've seen some "off" responses that are way more on target/useful/informative than the choices OP offers.

I'm the OP of the temporary guardianship thread. I don't think the example you offer is an appropriate analogy to my thread. Suggesting a party be catered and offering reasons why it might be better is still within the topic of celebrating a 40th birthday party with food and the OP didn't request responders stick to restaurants. On my thread, I would have been fine with responses suggesting alternatives to temporary guardianship other than "don't do it" and a number of responses weren't 'benign'. Even the title of this thread misconstrues my post, my intention was not to "take custody", my intention is to offer to be "temporary guardian". Big difference. I would have been receptive to suggestions or alternatives that would have given my friend more options than what she has right now, things that I might not have thought of. None were offered and I felt the thread was degenerating, the helpful responders were being drowned out by the unhelpful ones so I asked Jeff to intervene. If the OP from the 40th birthday party had come back and said her house was too small to have anything and wanted only restaurant options yet people still insisted on talking about catering, I think it would be appropriate for the Jeff to intervene. It boils down to "is this thread helpful to the OP?".

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the OP of the temporary guardianship thread. I don't think the example you offer is an appropriate analogy to my thread. Suggesting a party be catered and offering reasons why it might be better is still within the topic of celebrating a 40th birthday party with food and the OP didn't request responders stick to restaurants. On my thread, I would have been fine with responses suggesting alternatives to temporary guardianship other than "don't do it" and a number of responses weren't 'benign'. Even the title of this thread misconstrues my post, my intention was not to "take custody", my intention is to offer to be "temporary guardian". Big difference. I would have been receptive to suggestions or alternatives that would have given my friend more options than what she has right now, things that I might not have thought of. None were offered and I felt the thread was degenerating, the helpful responders were being drowned out by the unhelpful ones so I asked Jeff to intervene. If the OP from the 40th birthday party had come back and said her house was too small to have anything and wanted only restaurant options yet people still insisted on talking about catering, I think it would be appropriate for the Jeff to intervene. It boils down to "is this thread helpful to the OP?".

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.

I said it on another thread and I'll say it here (in case you missed it). If someone starts a thread asking how to make an explosive device, I'm going to ask whether they should be making an explosive device. I don't think that is remotely off topic.

(I won't be posting about this topic again, so feel free to have the last word.)

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.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with pp that the op of that thread was seeking validation and praise and got huffy when she didn't receive it.

I disagree with Jeff's censorship. Frankly, it doesn't make me want to participate in this site so much. I may be spending more time at YBM instead.

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?

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?

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?