Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact four: many don’t GAF if Auditory Processing Disorder is a diagnosis in the DSM-V.

Perhaps. But insurance companies and school systems care, as they won’t recognize and provide services for conditions that aren’t in the DSM-V.

I don’t personally think that noting this is hijacking a thread or unhelpful.

The reason the DSM is on version V is because it is continually being revised based on greater research and experience. If the OP is not asking about insurance coverage, it doesn’t matter what the diagnosis code ends up being.

jsteele wrote:I am not going to respond to every post, but I will use the example of the Auditory Processing Disorder thread to help clarify my position. The OP of that thread very specifically requested a recommendation for an audiologist who could test or diagnose for APD. Posters jumped into tell her that there is no such thing as APD while others said that their children had such a diagnosis. Some posters suggested that a neuropsych exam should be done instead, while others argued this was a waste of money. Then posters who apparently recognized each other from previous threads engaged in what appear to be long-running arguments with each other. The OP was essentially forgotten. At some point I am pretty sure the entire thread turned to discussion of someone else's kid. This sort of thing has happened repeatedly and I will no longer tolerate it. If it means removing posts and blocking posters, that's what will happen.

You can sit around trying to think of the worse case scenario involving what I am saying or you can simply try to be helpful to future posters and avoid more threads going off-topic in this manner. I would prefer the second alternative, though I have plenty of experience with the first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact four: many don’t GAF if Auditory Processing Disorder is a diagnosis in the DSM-V.

Perhaps. But insurance companies and school systems care, as they won’t recognize and provide services for conditions that aren’t in the DSM-V.

I don’t personally think that noting this is hijacking a thread or unhelpful.

Anonymous wrote:Fact four: many don’t GAF if Auditory Processing Disorder is a diagnosis in the DSM-V.

Anonymous wrote:I am the SN teacher/mom. I have directly benefitted from the tough love posters at various parts of my journey. It is part of the reason I come to this board. I know where to go for an echo chamber & I come here for the range of ideas.
I hope we can tolerate that range. Sometimes speaking the truth does change outcomes. I’ve benefitted from posters on this board breaking through my denial

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep, and I hope that you have learned from the experience or you will find a lot more of your posts getting deleted.

In response to the OP you could recommend someone to do the evaluation or you could shut the hell up. Starting an off-topic hijack was not among the appropriate responses. It was exactly that thread that triggered this post.

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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.