Psycho-Babble Administration | about the operation of this site | Framed
This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | List of forums | Search | FAQ

re: hoover man's block

Posted by spoc on May 28, 2004, at 10:18:53

In reply to re: hoover man's block, posted by Dr. Bob on May 28, 2004, at 1:43:51

> > How about if I reduce his block from 6 to 4 weeks?
> FYI, those with a minority opinion who would rather not express it here should feel free to email me...
> Bob

<<<<< I obviously can't know everything about why anyone would object, and don't mean to advocate disregarding views of any others. I just wanted to express some thoughts on specific reasons anyone may object, from what I can conceive of. Since it's hard for me to imagine that Larry's presence could be seen as genuinely disruptive or hazardous, I can only guess that any objections would be based on whether or not others have had the same opportunity. That could lead to citing of technical evidence regarding "offenses," but is circular because one of his own issues is equal application of rules and whether consideration was given to relative seriousness of offense.

And I am hoping that historical equal opportunity is not now being seen as relevant -- that the day has come in which alternatives and mitigating factors will indeed start to be entertained on a wider scale.

If that sounds like a time-consuming and complicated change, and further assistance would be needed to review data, we all know there are other unbiased, intelligent, critical thinkers with good judgment out there who could help. Even beyond those already present at and/or involved in running this site. It isn't reasonable for us to get stuck at concluding that "you can't find good help anymore." And the effort is justified on its face by the fact that while this not group therapy, there are crucial minumum standards that scream out to be observed when dealing with this particular population. Anything else is unnecessarily risky and cold, and destined to stigmatize if not traumatize some.

Slight sidebar on that note: One admonishment has been that people registering should keep in mind that they need to be at a certain level of recovery, functionality, strength, comprehension, etc. to be here in the first place. But I doubt it's possible to mandate an accurate assessment of that by individuals coming in; and feel certain that people coming in can't be fully aware of how they could end up being impacted, and the various ways in which it happens.

In setting up a site that specifically wants to attract this demographic, how can it be required that in order to be here, people must agree not to have the very weaknesses or challenges or deficits to evaluation capabilities that *make* them the very demographic being sought? If we could turn those things off at will and/or have the keen foresight to know what will end up hurting us or not being in our best interests, we would! And probably wouldn't be here. How can the abilities found in the "normal" world be mandated and required for participation here? We can't necessarily use our previous experiences and reactions to base the decision on -- I think many would agree that this place feels much more real and has much stronger implications to real life than they ever would have guessed coming in. It's almost "blindsiding," and doesn't compare to other experiences.

Anyway -- are any potential objections based on previous equal opportunity indeed going to play a part in this decision? That doesn't seem relevant because the consideration at hand is a new area, which goes beyond and may help address that very argument. Again, I can speak only for myself, but I think there has been agreement that blocks such as those Larry has received should only be reserved for clearly heinous crimes against humanity and spirit. No one is ever going to *like* everyone, and we are all subject to personality clashes (sometimes emanating from our own arbitrary preferences and subjective histories). But it's hard to fathom that Larry could be seen for any legitimate reason as any of the things that meet the criteria for being a negative presence (e.g. mean-spirited, volatile, misleading, untruthful, alarmist, threatening, vulgar, etc. etc.) Assessing that much about his contribution would almost seem factually possible, rather than being a murky and subjective matter of opinions only.




Post a new follow-up

Your message only Include above post

Notify the administrators

They will then review this post with the posting guidelines in mind.

To contact them about something other than this post, please use this form instead.


Start a new thread

Google www
Search options and examples
[amazon] for

This thread | Show all | Post follow-up | Start new thread | FAQ
Psycho-Babble Administration | Framed

poster:spoc thread:346427