PDA

View Full Version : Conflict



concerned dad
12-24-2009, 08:50 AM
Conflict: A strange title for a post, huh?
This morning I was thinking about the last year and what I have learned. My love and devotion to my daughter compelled me to try to understand the issues surrounding scoliosis; in particular, the issues surrounding scoliosis bracing.

I haven’t participated much recently in the forum but I do check in and read up from time to time. I see there is still some “conflict” and occasionally people contrast this forum with SSO where the focus is more on support.

But this is the thing: when it comes to trying to understand an issue I want (need) to hear BOTH sides of an argument elucidated. You really don’t get that in a “support” type of environment. You need to have people passionate about their views, respectfully presenting and supporting them. The “respectful” part becomes a challenge, especially if one is “passionate” about their viewpoint. Personally, I would prefer both, but given the choice, I would choose the passion over the respect.

So, at the end of the day, this being the holiday season and all, I would hope that people on both sides of various debates recognize the contributions that each opposing side has made to support our understanding of the issues. Hopefully we might work to enhance the “respect” part without dampening the “passion”. I am certainly grateful for everyone here and I wish you all a joyous holiday.

I will leave you with a gift: Here is a link to an excellent 500 page online book about “Clinical Trials”. It touches on many relevant topics, including issues related to RCT’s, medical ethics, preference trials, biostatistics etc. It is very readable and you might consider bookmarking or downloading it (http://www.ebm-syria.com/images/choose/949767.pdf).


Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah – in our house we are fortunate enough to celebrate both the miracle of the Hanukkah lights and the miracle of the virgin birth. No conflict, just understanding and respect: the only challenge is making sure the menorah doesn’t catch the Christmas tree on fire.:eek:

Pooka1
12-24-2009, 01:54 PM
CD,

Thanks for the link.

In re the conflict here, I see it not as "passion versus respect." I see it as "factual versus counterfactual" and "skeptical versus credulous" and ultimately "science versus faith" which are not compatible in other than a trivial sense.

I disagree that there is much actual "debate" when a debate requires two sides of some same thing. There are no two sides of many things discussed here just as evolution versus creationism isn't a debate because science and religion are not the same thing. It's why Dawkins refuses to debate creationists... what could possibly be the point? What is believed on no evidence can be dismissed on no evidence. That isn't a debate; it's a rout.

Either the literature exists or it doesn't. Either something is known or it isn't. There is plenty of grey area and plenty that isn't known which can be debated and we have seen some of that here. Some here have asked some very pertinent questions that have made me think and especially rethink certain things. To participate and indeed to ever learn, you have to be open to new ideas. You have to be open to new evidence at all times. There are advocates here who don't appear to be open to other ideas. Dogma has no place in discussing medical conditions. And you have to actually understand what you are discussing. For example, creationists by definition don't understand any geological and biological evidence they present to support a 6,000 year old earth because a few billion year old earth and evolution are facts.

But I don't see any of that as being "conflict." I see it as misunderstanding the process of how people actually know things.

hdugger
12-24-2009, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure. Going back through the old posts, I saw someone pretty much chased off who was reporting on results of their spinecor brace (a young skater). That discussion didn't seem to involve fact vs. faith. Or, maybe, it was mostly faith on both sides.

But I do think the exercise and scoliosis discussions have been more passion and less heat recently. That's been extremely helpful, for me, as I work through some complicated issues.

Pooka1
12-24-2009, 06:12 PM
I'm not sure. Going back through the old posts, I saw someone pretty much chased off who was reporting on results of their spinecor brace (a young skater). That discussion didn't seem to involve fact vs. faith. Or, maybe, it was mostly faith on both sides.


That was yet another case of belief vice evidence. And it had identifiable counterfactual elements. That helps nobody who is interested in factual matter. That said, I acknowledge there are plenty of people here who are not interested in the facts, when known, for various reasons.

Would you disagree with an alchemist being pretty much chased off from a group about chemistry?

How about a young girl threatening other children on a group with ignorant robotically programmed rants about fire and brimstone?

Are there really two sides to these things?

I suggest most of the conflict is between factual and counterfactual material which is misinterpreted as "debate" just like creationists think they are actually debating something when they are not.

concerned dad
12-24-2009, 06:26 PM
hdugger is correct.
Sharon, you are mistaken.

hdugger
12-24-2009, 06:47 PM
I'm not sure I see that. If someone has a better experience with one brace over another, I think that's a fact, even if a limited one. There was "faith" on the other side that she was a shill, but I don't believe that was based on fact. She seemed to be mixed up about surgery, but my similarly-aged son is equally mixed up about the facts of surgery.

I guess I felt that there were facts on her side, and it would have been possible to get to them with a gentler approach. Instead, the conversation was pretty much shut down without learning anything.

That's just not how I see science working. Science is inquisitive, not adamant. It wants to learn new things. This discussion, OTOH, seemed adamant and not inquisitive.

Pooka1
12-24-2009, 06:59 PM
This discussion, OTOH, seemed adamant and not inquisitive.

Similarly, Dawkins is routinely accused of being strident when he is simply trying to make sense.

Apparently some things simply can't be criticized not because they are right but because people won't have it.

That is the essence of not being inquisitive.

There is science and there is everything else when it comes to ways of knowing things.

Pooka1
12-24-2009, 07:01 PM
hdugger is correct.
Sharon, you are mistaken.

Well I guess that's put to bed then!

Ballet Mom
12-24-2009, 07:14 PM
Merry Christmas and Hanukkah, CD. Nice to hear from you and thanks for the gift. Maybe someday I'll get through it. Best to you and yours. Hope you have a wonderful New year.

Snoopy
12-24-2009, 07:19 PM
I am certainly grateful for everyone here and I wish you all a joyous holiday.

Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah Ė in our house we are fortunate enough to celebrate both the miracle of the Hanukkah lights and the miracle of the virgin birth. No conflict, just understanding and respect: the only challenge is making sure the menorah doesnít catch the Christmas tree on fire.:eek:

I wish you and your family a safe and happy holiday season. Keep that menorah away from the tree! ;)

Mele Kalikimaka! (that's the way you say "Merry Christmas" in Hawaii; sorry I don't know how you'd say "Happy Hanukkah" in Hawaii)

Mary Lou

LindaRacine
12-24-2009, 10:28 PM
Well I guess that's put to bed then!
LOL

Happy holidays everyone!

concerned dad
12-25-2009, 07:25 AM
Well I guess that's put to bed then!

Sorry I didnt have time to elaborate.
Yes, I feel the issue is indeed put to bed.

See my post in the thread here (http://scoliosis.org/forum/showpost.php?p=75305&postcount=23) where I note:


Danielle pleads in her last post


I am real, the post is real, my results are real, and don't call me a liar!!!
Do we know that she is not Dr Deutchman pretending to be an ice skater scoliosis patient? No, but you donít know that Iím a concerned dad. Letís give folks the benefit of the doubt. You could have helped educate her and she could have helped educate us.

And, by the way, it looks to me like Danielle is real, her post is real, her results are real (at least she thinks they are) and she is not a liar. I suppose she could be a paid actor, but I like to believe in the goodness of humanity (noticeably present on the surgery threads but largely absent on the non-surgical threads).

You tube testamonial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYYuBQ8isFA)

Further on in that thread I dispelled some of the critisism (http://scoliosis.org/forum/showpost.php?p=75330&postcount=33)leveled against her regarding the "measuring Cobb to 10's of a degree". I showed two xrays published in the European Spine Journal showing Cobb measured to the tenth's.

So, yes, I feel Hdugger is right. I feel that intimidating this girl (using what people believed was good science) was a very dark moment in this forums history.
When Hdugger notes:
That discussion didn't seem to involve fact vs. faith. Or, maybe, it was mostly faith on both sides.
She nailed it.

Merry Christmas to all:cool:

Pooka1
12-25-2009, 09:03 AM
CD,

Happy Holidays!

I'm going to agree with you that the skater and some others should have been "ushered back into reality" in a less jarring fashion let's say.

My take on that thread is that people were just fed up with the sheer mass of chiro nonsense that makes its way onto the group through the mouths of innocent patients like that skater. In that case, it seems impossible that she dreamed up 12 rods all by herself. It seems more likely the chiro was ignorantly trying to scare her about surgery. We see numerous examples in real time of this on Fixscoliosis's web site. It is the rule rather than the exception with non-evidence-based chiros it seems which is the vast swath of them as far as I can tell.

There has always been a conflict between the reality and the wish and this group is no exception. Life can be tragic and people cope as they can. There is no a priori reason why life should be fair and, as we see, it isn't.

mamamax
12-25-2009, 01:44 PM
Count me in among those who learned much this year. Thank you for the posting CD - a valuable and treasured one. And at the end of the day, I have learned that we all really do have more in common that we may have once imagined. My father passed away on the 18th. Such making me far more sensitive to these things than I may otherwise have been. Wishing all sincerely, one of the happiest of holidays, towards a collectively desired & shared relief.

jrnyc
12-25-2009, 05:11 PM
Hi Mamamax
condolences on your loss...i know the feeling...may you carry his memory in your heart...

jess

Pooka1
12-25-2009, 05:13 PM
I'm very sorry to hear about your father, Maxine.

Losing a parent is so hard.

Thinking of you and warm regards,
Sharon

mariaf
12-25-2009, 08:49 PM
My sincere condolences on your loss, Maxine. My thoughts are with your family.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 10:27 AM
[...]and occasionally people contrast this forum with SSO where the focus is more on support.

Here's another "contrast" for you... although I haven't posted over on SSo other than to send a greeting to Mark after his surgery, I see they have now removed my PM function. So I lost the PMs I sent and received from friends on that group.

What could be the reason for doing that?

ETA: Not to mention that I was put on permanent moderation on SSo NOT for something I said on that group but for something I said on this group. If you can believe it. And what was the "horrible" thing I said here that triggered the permanent moderation on SSo? Was I trashing SSo? No. It was my stating I had voluntarily stopped posting over there. If you can believe it.

Beyond that, it is fair to say that on SSo, patent nonsense that is civilly stated will stand and factual material that is strongly worded will not.

I understand some call that support. I wonder how many here would.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 11:04 AM
That's not factual. You were put on moderation over there for posting over there, mid-fight with Dingo, that you still had posting rights over there. It was a factual post, but not factual about anything that anyone not concerned with the inner dynamics between you and Dingo might be interested in. And it was jarringly unpleasant in the midst of what's supposed to be a support site.

Likewise, for the initial discussion that put you on moderation, noone ever asked you to stop posting facts. They asked you to stop wrapping your facts in very bitter personal back and forth. I think that's a reasonable request, if not for the unpleasantness of the personal back and forth than at least in respect to the caliber of the fact. Solid facts are in no way benefited by acrimonious personal exchange - it just obscures things.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 11:08 AM
None of that is correct.

I was NOT put on moderation on SSo for anything to do with Dingo.

I was NOT on any type of moderation when I posted on HERE that I voluntarily stopped posting over there.

I was put on permanent moderation on SSo IN DIRECT RESPONSE to posting that I stopped posting on SSo.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 11:12 AM
That's not factual. You were put on moderation over there for posting over there, mid-fight with Dingo, that you still had posting rights over there. It was a factual post, but not factual about anything that anyone not concerned with the inner dynamics between you and Dingo might be interested in. And it was jarringly unpleasant in the midst of what's supposed to be a support site.


That post was in the appropriate forum, civilly stated, and therefore violated no rule of SSo.

You are wrong.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 12:25 PM
Yes, on point 2 and 3, and not in disagreement with anything I wrote. Additionally, point 3 misses my correction, which is that you said you were moderated for something you posted here and I corrected to state that you were moderated for something you posted over there.

An emphatic no on point 1. You were put on moderation because you carried a fight with Dingo over there.

Here's the thread in question:

http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showthread.php?p=144143#post144143

You:

" Post proving Dingo is WRONG that I can't post here
Please see subject.

Dingo does not believe I voluntarily stopped posting here (except for Mark's thread).

Dingo is wrong about more things than he is right about."

Titch:

"titch

Re: Post proving Dingo is WRONG that I can't post here
Oh for goodness sake.

STOP bringing external arguments across here. I will not tolerate it. I do not care who said what, or did what, or who stole whose toys or who threw their toys out of the pram. You may have been voluntarily not posting until now, but henceforth you will be moderated permanently so that only reaonable messages are allowed through, as I've had quite enough of this."


None of that is correct.

I was NOT put on moderation on SSo for anything to do with Dingo.

I was NOT on any type of moderation when I posted on HERE that I voluntarily stopped posting over there.

I was put on permanent moderation on SSo IN DIRECT RESPONSE to posting that I stopped posting on SSo.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 12:34 PM
Here's why the content of my SSo post is almost certainly not relevant (besides not violating any posting rules)...

If I had posted "test" over on SSo to make the point, the other posters there would assume I was testing my computer connection - no problem. But the moderator, because she read NSF, would know the actual purpose of that post.

I claim I still would have been put on permanent moderation for posting "test" despite any actual disruption of the peace over on SSo.

If that's the case then I would have been put on permanent moderation for what I wrote NOT on SSo but on another forum. Yes or no?

Also, there is no reason to remove my PMs unless they want to moderate those also.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 12:37 PM
And by the way, if showing that someone is wrong as I was doing with that post in uncivil then I claim we can all go home and science should be disbanded.

Just to be consistent.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 12:39 PM
That's not a right or wrong question - civility is subjective. I found it jarring and unpleasant in the context of the tone which they set in their support forum, and apparently the moderators did as well.


That post was in the appropriate forum, civilly stated, and therefore violated no rule of SSo.

You are wrong.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 12:48 PM
That's not a right or wrong question - civility is subjective. I found it jarring and unpleasant in the context of the tone which they set in their support forum, and apparently the moderators did as well.

Okay I agree it isn't right or wrong. I was wrong in saying that.

I have some sense of the civility rules having previously been on a one week moderation on SSo and I still typed that post the way I did. I thought it was within the rules and was blindsided by the moderator's response.

There are several unmoderated fora on the interwebs. One of the longest-standing newsgroups is unmoderated, well-populated, and very productive most of the time. I am not then concluding that moderated fora are unnecessary. I am saying unmoderated ones can be productive and you can never assume moderation is necessary per se.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 12:53 PM
You're reaching a conclusion based entirely on a string of conjecture and hypotheticals. That's not science or fact, and there's no way to discuss it as such.

As an ex-moderator, I can tell you that if that were the only post you had ever posted on my forum, and I knew nothing else about you or Dingo, I would have deleted the post and removed your account. That's fact, but maybe not very relevant. I'm just letting you know how moderators deal with posts which do nothing to further discussion and seem to be carrying over a personal dispute from somewhere else. If, instead, knowing everything that I do know, you had posted "test," I would have let that go.

I have no information at all about the PMs or how the software deals with such things


Here's why the content of my SSo post is almost certainly not relevant (besides not violating any posting rules)...

If I had posted "test" over on SSo to make the point, the other posters there would assume I was testing my computer connection - no problem. But the moderator, because she read NSF, would know the actual purpose of that post.

I claim I still would have been put on permanent moderation for posting "test" despite any actual disruption of the peace over on SSo.

If that's the case then I would have been put on permanent moderation for what I wrote NOT on SSo but on another forum. Yes or no?

Also, there is no reason to remove my PMs unless they want to moderate those also.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 01:02 PM
As an ex-moderator, I can tell you that if that were the only post you had ever posted on my forum,

But it wasn't. I had posted a few hundred at that point IIRC. One was moved to start a new thread as it was considered by the one of the moderators as being an important discussion.

I have always tried to contribute to that forum. Unfortunately my (many) contributions that pointed out counterfactual material were seemingly viewed as uncivil per se. These concerned bracing dogma and some folks (not the moderators) simply won't have bracing dogma questioned. It was like there was no correct way to point it out or that was my impression at least. That was going nowhere fast which is the reason I stopped posting there.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 01:10 PM
And by the way, if showing that someone is wrong as I was doing with that post in uncivil then I claim we can all go home and science should be disbanded.

Just to be consistent.

No, this has nothing to with science. It has to do with gossip. Both are involved in "facts," but one has to do with facts which are generally relevant and interesting, and the other has to do with facts which are only relevant if you're deeply interested in the personal goings-on of someone. If you don't believe me, try to get your "Dingo is wrong" experiment published in a scientific journal. I conjecture they'll reject it, not because it's not factual, but because noone cares.

This goes to the heart of the problem I have with some discussions here. What was it, exactly, that we were talking about when that personal side discussion came up? I suspect, given the players, that it was torso rotation, but it could have been something else. In any case, the side discussion was intense but, not to be too harsh here, profoundly uninteresting. Not to say that I don't care about anything that happens to you, but I really, truly do not care about the minutia of your disputes with Dingo. And it's a huge distraction from the more interesting discussions, to which you're a valuable participant.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 01:21 PM
Yes, you were a valuable participant there. That was stated again and again by both the moderators and the other participants.

I believe, though, that even on a support forum it would be possible to have a passionate (but not personal) dispute about bracing. You'd have to move it out of the main discussion area (for the reasons I stated here - you don't want research clouding up the support function of the forum), and you'd have to maintain a civil tone. Again, I disagree about the civility of your tone in the bracing discussion. I thought both sides were pretty uncivil. Again, it was jarring, given the general tone of the forum.


But it wasn't. I had posted a few hundred at that point IIRC. One was moved to start a new thread as it was considered by the one of the moderators as being an important discussion.

I have always tried to contribute to that forum. Unfortunately my (many) contributions that pointed out counterfactual material were seemingly viewed as uncivil per se. These concerned bracing dogma and some folks (not the moderators) simply won't have bracing dogma questioned. It was like there was no correct way to point it out or that was my impression at least. That was going nowhere fast which is the reason I stopped posting there.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 01:27 PM
Well I'm coming to think the issue is my inexperience with moderated fora.

I have the experience of unmoderated fora with the inmates keeping the discussion on track in ways left to their discretion. And you might think there is a lot of swearing but I assure you there is almost none. I can't count all the things I have learned on these type of fora. The signal to noise ratio is usually high, at least in the groups I frequent. In general, I would characterize the signal to noise ratio for moderated fora as lower because the signal is low, not because the noise is high.

People migrate to moderated fora for a reason. Unfortunately that reason is not the same reason people post on unmoderated fora. Having seen the success of unmoderated fora, I have trouble seeing how moderating ones can possibly succeed in the same way to the same degree.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 01:41 PM
To avoid copying and pasting again from over there, can we look at this post:

http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showpost.php?p=133587&postcount=45

(and the post before it, which is also very uncivil and which I suspect set the tone for your response. That is, I don't believe you started the uncivil tone here.)

What's striking about it is what you're *not* saying - i.e, anything at all to do with the study at hand. This is a post solely about the other poster - the thing that I'm calling gossip. It does nothing whatsoever to advance *the ideas being talked about* It is meant solely to discredit the other poster's opinion. Again, in science the way we discredit is by going back to the facts of the study itself. "You're a big fat poo-poo head" is *not* reasoned scientific discussion, and is also considered uncivil.

Contrast it with this post

http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showpost.php?p=133567&postcount=42

which directly engages the facts, is interesting, advances the discussion, and gets a big shiny gold star from me.

As a moderator, you could go through removing all posts of the first type and it would not take away anything interesting or relevant. In fact, it would make it so much easier to get to the really great posts of the second type.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 01:49 PM
I moderated, and even I don't like alot of moderation in my forums. And I've also had the experience (as a participant) of talking exactly the way I'm talking now and being booted out because the *content* of my discussion was considered dangerous. So, I do see the problem.

The best moderation, always, is self-control, humility, and curiosity on the part of the participants, IMO.


Well I'm coming to think the issue is my inexperience with moderated fora.

I have the experience of unmoderated fora with the inmates keeping the discussion on track in ways left to their discretion. And you might think there is a lot of swearing but I assure you there is almost none. I can't count all the things I have learned on these type of fora. The signal to noise ratio is usually high, at least in the groups I frequent. In general, I would characterize the signal to noise ratio for moderated fora as lower because the signal is low, not because the noise is high.

People migrate to moderated fora for a reason. Unfortunately that reason is not the same reason people post on unmoderated fora. Having seen the success of unmoderated fora, I have trouble seeing how moderating ones can possibly succeed in the same way to the same degree.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 02:21 PM
The best moderation, always, is self-control, humility, and curiosity on the part of the participants, IMO.

I agree with that.

I, too, was booted of a moderated forum relatively recently for openly challenging the moderation as far as I can tell.

I started a thread (in the appropriate section) questioning the booting off of an expert. This was not the first expert to be booted off and I wanted to point out that one inmate at least doesn't agree. That thread was removed summarily and so I started another thread asking why the first thread was deleted. That was deleted and I started a third thread on the deletions of the previous two. That was deleted.

Soon after, I was booted for a form infraction that some other inmates publicly questioned as being the real reason. It was too minor and certainly not "special." It wasn't the real reason in my opinion. The real reason was the three deleted threads.

I can stomach a certain mass of moderation but anything along the lines of cutting off your nose to spite you face will eventually get me booted off for pointing out. You would be well into the thousands of dollars to get the advice one-on-one that these experts were freely giving out. It's shameful how they were treated especially since I would not say they were uncivil. But I think we have established i have a higher incivility threshold than most. :)

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 02:23 PM
And I've also had the experience (as a participant) of talking exactly the way I'm talking now and being booted out because the *content* of my discussion was considered dangerous.

Okay that takes the cake. It handily beats all my moderation complaints.

It's impossible to know what people are thinking.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 02:33 PM
Okay that takes the cake. It handily beats all my moderation complaints.

It's impossible to know what people are thinking.

Oh, I have a better one (I've spent *alot* of time posting online).

In one forum, there was a mass uprising to boot me off (but I was eventually allowed to stay after the moderator quelled the uprising) because, and I quote, "your posts are too intellectual and they're hurting our heads."

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 04:55 PM
Oh, I have a better one (I've spent *alot* of time posting online).

In one forum, there was a mass uprising to boot me off (but I was eventually allowed to stay after the moderator quelled the uprising) because, and I quote, "your posts are too intellectual and they're hurting our heads."

I genuflect in your general direction.

You are my hero. :)

mamamax
12-26-2009, 05:05 PM
I think anytime there is more than one group under the same roof, that there will always be conflict of some kind. The thing is, here at NSF and SSO, we are all looking for the same thing - relief - albeit, the definition of relief/treatment may often vary among us. For certain though, none of us is an above anybody else expert in the treatment of scoliosis. How any one person can think themselves "factual" - and anyone who disagrees with them as automatically "counter-factual" can be truthfully seen as nothing more than a subjective interpretation perhaps born of a spirit to debate regardless of any yet to be identified "facts", or the feelings of others. A tone, and subjective interpretation that may not necessarily be appropriate among a group of adults looking for a place where they can share collective experience towards collective goals.

I find both support groups informative and comforting. I must say however, that here - the propensity for calling another a shill (fraud and/or liar), either through outright comment or innuendo, has in the past - occurred often and that such behavior has oftentimes been misplaced. And yes such is unsettling and at times downright offensive. I know because I have been on the receiving end. With time, and patience I find NSF far more comforting than when I first joined. This has taken a lot of work not only on my part - but the part of others as well. And I'm grateful for the progress that has been made (not just for myself, but also for others).

Because we never truly know who we are talking to (or who is watching us talk), it just seems prudent to exercise some diplomacy before launching a jolting offensive against another. And truthfully, what benefit is there in launching an attack on another simply because their viewpoint appears different? If someone truly is a liar and/or shill, or even just misguided - there are ways to handle this without overly colorful, jolting and/or verbal assassination. Exceptions to that may belong in a chat room - but not the kind of forum like NSF or SSO where we find adults with some serious dilemmas looking for serious answers vs frivolous off topic flaming and/or condemnation.

Just my two cents.

To those who have offered condolences to me here in forum and in private messages, concerning the passing of my father - Thank you. Regardless of how we agree, or disagree - we are like a family, and your thoughts bring some much needed comfort during this difficult time.

It occurs to me that we are all going through difficult times (with a difficult condition) and maybe, it would be best to be mindful of this and conduct ourselves accordingly? We'll never be perfect - we are human after all, but maybe such a guideline would make our days less - conflicted.

Dingo
12-26-2009, 08:21 PM
I think the Torso Rotation debate is fairly representative of the conflicts that bubble up on this board.

Here it is in a nutshell

Point:
Credible scientists have published studies that suggest that approximately 20 minutes of torso rotation strength training per week can halt progression or regress curvature in nearly all children with small and medium sized curves.

Counterpoint:
It may be effective in the short term but where are the large, longterm studies?

The reality is that this board is for discussing concepts that may by supported by the latest science but AREN'T fully understood. If 10 or 20 year studies on torso rotation were available doctors would be handing out pamphlets on it.

Pooka1
12-26-2009, 09:21 PM
And I've also had the experience (as a participant) of talking exactly the way I'm talking now and being booted out because the *content* of my discussion was considered dangerous.

I'm sorry but I just can't get over this... a substance comment that actually dared to speak its name. This is a very rare bird in my opinion.

Remarkable. Uncanny. Among adults. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

hdugger
12-26-2009, 09:59 PM
Sorry, my miscommunication. No, they didn't say "your posts are too dangerous." What they said is that I could no longer participate in the forum because of my opinions, and not because of the way in which I stated them.

The "too dangerous" is my take on that.


I'm sorry but I just can't get over this... a substance comment that actually dared to speak its name. This is a very rare bird in my opinion.

Remarkable. Uncanny. Among adults. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

Pooka1
12-27-2009, 08:23 AM
What came to my mind were the McCarthy hearings and other cases of attempted totalitarianism in public.

The hope of course is that unless you are ex-CIA revealing secrets or anyone yelling "fire" in a theater or something like that, then everything else is fair game.

Not everyone agrees but they are usually careful not to do it in public where they will lose credibility.