Posted by Lou Pilder on June 18, 2011, at 14:41:22
In reply to Re: Lou's response-lohndizntr » Lou Pilder, posted by 10derheart on June 17, 2011, at 18:40:05
> >>What is important to me is that someone other than me has posted about some of my concerns.
>
> Naturally.
>
> Something else in the post was important to me. Naturally.
>
> >I do not see how anyine could know who the tot is.
>
> They could ask instead of assuming. Or, choose to keep up with this board, The picture was put up 4 months ago and I posted who it was:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/979448.html
>
> >>And IMHO,some could reasonably think that since the owner of the site has posted his pic before, that the pic of the tot was in some way possible to be a child that the owner chose in some way.
>
> Dr. Bob chooses all the photos - it is his site. It has not been unusual over the years for them to be submitted by Babblers. As I said, all jussayin had to do was ask.
>
> >>Now as to if the posting of the tot's pic could have repercussions to the tot in the future, there are child psychiatrists that could answer that.
>
> I don't think that's necessary.
>
> >>I do not see the poster implying anything by asking if the picture is related to the thread's question.
>
> I do.
>
> >>Since there is not an explanation of the pic,
>
> But, there was. Jussayin could have opted to try and discover the explanation with one simple question.
>
> >>then there could be projection by viewers.
>
> Yes, clearly.
>
> Lou, if you do not find any negative implications in statements about "owning" our children and choosing to use a term such as "bath clothes" and speculate that she is sure to "appreciate" "that" when she's old enough to "know what happened," then perhaps you are a far better person than I - good for you. If you truly believe posting a beautiful child's picture because I love her and love for others to enjoy the beauty of all children because they **are** children, and you want to link it somehow to why posting is down on Babble, that is your prerogative. I don't understand the connection.
>
> You be well, Lou. We all have our priorities and lens through which we view everything.
>
>
10,
You wrote,[...they could ask instead of...Or, choose to keep up with this board...pic was put up 4 months ago...could have opted to try and discover...].
The members here are not requierd to read all the posts going back 4 months before they post about something. As to the photo in question of the child with a towel draped over her, the photo does not have a {caption}. Without a caption, the interpretation of anything concerning the photo could be left to the viewer.
Now tthe photo of the child could be different to different people here in relation to what they feel when they view the photo of the child. The towel is something in the photo and could conjure up to different people different meanings and feelings. Since there are members here taking mind-altering drugs that have conditions listed in the manual of psychiatry, and there are conditions that people have in that manual that receive sexual stimulation from viewing photos of children even if the photos are non-provocative. I think that the poster of the post in question could have deep feelings about a psychiatrist allowing such a photo without a caption to be prominatly posted at the top of each of the forums here. There could be IMHO, the potential of others having the potential ofthinking as to why the photo is placed there and with the towel draped over the child. Without a caption from the poster of the photo, the towel could represent possibly something to a pedophile, if one views the photo of the child.
Now if someone has a great understanding of pedophilia, IMHO there is the question as to if that person could have the potential to want to leave this community after seeing the photo of the child on the top of all the boards here.
Then there is incest as a condition listed in the manual of psychiatry. If we have a viewer here that has a great understanding of incest, could there be the potential for that person to want to leave this community after viewing the photo of the child with a towel wrapped around her? The person could wonder what the psychiatrist that posted it without a caption had in mind.
Then there is the facial expression of the child to be considerd. This is the part about projection. Different people could think different things when the view the facial expression of the child. And that there are many members here disclosing their psychiatric conditions, the taking of mind-altering drugs by them could have the potential IMHO to induce a mind-alterd state that could be dangerous, to think different things when they view the photo of the young girl. And then why have the picture at all if that could be dangerous?
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:984958
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/988671.html