Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 11:57:49
In reply to Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition, posted by IsoM on January 11, 2002, at 1:33:48
> DR.BOB - HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO LET PEOPLE WITH NO BACKGROUND IN PHYSIOLOGY OR PHARMACOLOGY PRINT OBVIOUSLY FRADULENT CLAIMS LIKE THIS? How are people going to know what is science and what is pseudo-science? Check MEDLINE yourself and try to find any validation of Dolphin's misinformation.
Are you saying the board should be restricted to people with a background in physiology or pharmacology?
Maybe people can be taught the difference between science and pseudo-science? Regarding checking Medline myself, please see my other post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2636.html
> I also do not see why [you] make us posters defend "real" science against the snake-oil salesmen.
Who else is going to do it?
> Wouldn't it be more prudent to teach those who have chronic mental disorders to live within the parameters of their affliction
>
> Cam W.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89687.htmlIt's a tough one sometimes, whether to fight against those parameters or to try to live within them...
http://recovery.hiwaay.net/jtr/serenity.html
> Think of a law court where one person is raving at the judge, always interupting & speaking out of term while the other side keeps calm & unruffled. Which side seems to others to be the sensible side & who gets the judge's & jurors' sympathy. Remember, the old tired cliché "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is really true.
>
> it is imparitive that someone at times play big brother. Be it others on this board trying to debunk these supposed methods of treatment, or better yet, Dr. Bob reining in these claims. How he does that, I am not quite sure
>
> akc
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89700.htmlExactly! How would I would do that? :-)
> it is about attraction rather than promotion -- I share MY experience, strength and hope. I don't try to tell you what to do.I agree, that's the ideal, but not very easy to enforce...
> The board is not safe right now, given that there are obviously some folks with an agenda. I am rational and can differentiate between that which may be harmful and that which is not. But I am uncertain on the goal of having a place that is not safe.
>
> akc
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89723.htmlMaybe think of it not as unsafe, but as free?
http://www.bartleby.com/66/93/15593.html
> I do see Dr. Bob's problem, though, with running an open board. When a post obviously seems out of a marketing brochure, perhaps it is time to step in and delete it, but the free expression of opinions is what this board is about. And the opposing points of view to a post is what gives people the information to make a decision. For example, we are allowed to post "Effexor sucks" or "Effexor is fabulous" or "Psych meds have ruined my life and I'm going off them" or "Psych meds are the entire answer to depression and no one needs therapy." Either view might lead someone to make the wrong decision on medications, but taken all together the posts balance each other out.Thanks! See also the section of the FAQ on trust:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
> I know that you probably feel that you and St James and a few others are forced to do too much of the balancing act, and maybe the rest of us could try to help out on that, so that you could feel free to ignore those posts.
>
> Dinah
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89730.htmlI agree, it might help a lot to share the responsibility.
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:2609
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2639.html