Sparkly I am really confused. On the now closed thread you said
and now you are suggesting that the thread be re-started? And forgive me, but it seems to me that you are being deliberately provocative towards HKFooey, one might almost say, “Nasty”. What is your game?
The original thread was a genuine debate about an issue that would be of interest to most people with MS yet your responses on this thread appear to be of a tit for tat nature contributing nothing. Why do it? Or is your MS playing you up causing you “Inner conflict”?
It is a shame- I was learning lots- I am not on dmd’s but it may be a decision i have to make in the future and as a person that is completely baffled by it all i was finding it very useful-
The information people like Karen give to these forums are invaluable. It is more of a worry posts like Davids, who are misleadin, are not deleted. New people to the forums could be easily scared off trying DMD’s purely by reading posts that contain fiction, not fact. Another thing…if you don’t like something, don’t continue to read it and end up complaining. -Kare
I wasn’t angry, I just wondered why a valuable post had been shut down based on someone finding the debate within it ‘distressing’.
So I’ve no idea why you’ve posted hairi
[/quote] Sorry, I wasn’t directing the quote towards you. I was also finding the thread interesting. I just wondered if too much anger had contributed to it being closed down. The quote applies to all of us generally, myself included. Take care.[/quote]Hear,Hear, I think that sums it up perfectly,
I’ve not been on the site much recently, so I don’t suppose anyone could point me to the post in question (assuming it’s still available to be read and hasn’t been deleted completely)?
Thanks
Dan
(And the whole freedom of speech v being offensive debate is always going to be a tricky one to answer. Just ask the government
Right, so I’ve finally read through all the comments on the original post (took me a while!). To be honest, I can sympathise with the person who found the thread distressing. They later qualified their original post - it wasn’t the debate side of it they found distressing, a debate which, as lots of people have said, was genuinely informative. But it was the personal nature of some of the posts that was causing distress and, considering the terms & conditions of this forum, I think they’ve got a point. Correcting misinformation is extremely important, and I reckon the scientific research papers quoted were doing the job comfortably enough. Attacking bad science is one thing, attacking a person is another and often just gets people’s backs up and causes hurt.
I find it interesting that a common response to those offended in situations like this is to essentially imply they’re being oversensitive and too easily offended, but then they themselves seem to get offended by (and be ‘oversensitive’ to?) someone saying they found certain elements of an argument unnecessary. I wonder if it doesn’t seem a little bit hypocritical. But then maybe that’s just me, so I’d be interested to know what anyone else thinks about that…
But going back to the original thread, I wonder if a slightly more diplomatic response would have been for the mods to remind people of the terms & conditions and that, whilst healthy debate is to be encouraged, personal attacks aren’t. Then, if they deemed that the posts were still being too personal, they could close the thread rather than just closing it down without any warning. But what would I know (other than that the mods do a pretty thankless task - thanks mods!)
Right, so I’ve finally read through all the comments on the original post (took me a while!). To be honest, I can sympathise with the person who found the thread distressing. They later qualified their original post - it wasn’t the debate side of it they found distressing, a debate which, as lots of people have said, was genuinely informative. But it was the personal nature of some of the posts that was causing distress and, considering the terms & conditions of this forum, I think they’ve got a point. Correcting misinformation is extremely important, and I reckon the scientific research papers quoted were doing the job comfortably enough. Attacking bad science is one thing, attacking a person is another and often just gets people’s backs up and causes hurt.
I find it interesting that a common response to those offended in situations like this is to essentially imply they’re being oversensitive and too easily offended, but then they themselves seem to get offended by (and be ‘oversensitive’ to?) someone saying they found certain elements of an argument unnecessary. I wonder if it doesn’t seem a little bit hypocritical. But then maybe that’s just me, so I’d be interested to know what anyone else thinks about that…
But going back to the original thread, I wonder if a slightly more diplomatic response would have been for the mods to remind people of the terms & conditions and that, whilst healthy debate is to be encouraged, personal attacks aren’t. Then, if they deemed that the posts were still being too personal, they could close the thread rather than just closing it down without any warning. But what would I know (other than that the mods do a pretty thankless task - thanks mods!)
Dan
[/quote] Hi Dan without wanting to start the raging all over again, I think you have summed up the situation perfectly and fairly, the debate in itself was informative and interesting but the few people (myself included) who commented on the general tone of some posts which felt snide and nasty were jumped upon and battered down with comments like dont read if you dont like. i luckily dont take to much to heart although im not made of wood, still thanks for your unbiased and fair response xx
