Reply to S/O - not agreeing on ADHD Medication

Forum Index » Kids With Special Needs and Disabilities

Reply to "S/O - not agreeing on ADHD Medication - uncensored "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=jsteele][quote=Anonymous]
WTF is up with you, Jeff? Is there something particularly offensive about what I wrote that you need to call me a zealot or say I personally felt "my own need to confront another poster" to be more important than her desire to get info? First of all, I didn't realize the two things were mutually exclusive. Second, I didn't even say anything on that post - I just pointed out that you censored it. So why not go ahead and look and see how I did NOT confront her. I confronted you, for censoring. This response is defensive and uncalled for, completely. Way to stoop to name-calling as a response to what I thought was a fairly thoughtful post. Oh well. I guess you're allowed to have bad days too, but this is disappointing. [/quote]

[b]If your post in the other thread was removed, it was because it did not address the topic of the thread. Moreover, your post would have to have been posted following two separate posts from me asking that posters stay on topic. If you choose to ignore two warnings, you really have no grounds on which to complain. 
[/b]
I am not sure what is difficult to understand about this. Certain topics have a propensity to turn into endless arguments. Those arguments -- every side of which most have us have read many times -- drown out more specific information that is actually being sought after. It's a pretty common cycle here:

a) user posts a question on a "sensitive" topic; 
b) big fight starts; 
c) original poster gets frustrated because her question is not being addressed; and
d) everyone complains that DCUM is full of jerks and is completely useless.

In this case, I was essentially asked by a user (who, btw, I don't think was even the original poster), to interrupt that cycle. If you wanted to express your view about medication, you could do that in a separate thread such as this one. If you wanted to confront me about my "censorship", there is the Website Feedback forum. I would have happily explained the difference between censorship and moderation and explained my rational.

[/quote]

Let's get something straight. You did NOT remove one of my posts. You did not warn "me" about anything. I didn't post anything at all, (let alone anything offensive), to that first thread! My only post was the one where I asked why you were treating this thread differently than you treat other threads. I was objecting to the censorhip in general, not to some censorship of ME, because that did not happen. I essentially saw a thread where you were telling people they could only respond within very specific parameters and admonishing others who were taking the husband's POV. I simply advocated that this was legitimate and germane to the conversation, and made the MIL example where others might conceivably challenge the OP to think outside her question. Subsequently, I discussed how I've learned a lot from answers to questions I didn't actually ask. Nothing in that was offensive or "zealot" like.

I guess you, and several other posters, can only imagine someone would object if their own posts had been removed. Maybe I overestimated you, in that I'd think you'd take the time to check to see if I was causing a problem on that thread (I wasn't) or if I actually WAS producing anti-med, zealot posts (I wasn't) before calling me those names.

Or that just because I wanted open discourse on the subject, it automatically meant I was an anti-medication zealot? I've already made clear several times that I am NOT the person who was posting mean things or anti-meds things. I posted NOTHING. Yet still, you are asking me why it's so hard to understand your point. I get your point. Do you get that you're barking up the wrong tree? It's possible to have a philosophical objection to what I view as stifling discourse even if it's not your own posts being removed.

It would be nice if you could admit you were wrong for name-calling and assuming I'd written objectionable posts or that I'd failed to heed your "warnings." Again, you're mistaking me for someone else, which is too bad considering I'm sure you could just take a second to see what I'd posted before name-calling based on an inaccurate assumption you made. Boo. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics