Attacking the President & CEO

[Lorraine 1966]

Writer, you have been a member of this forum since 2004 and only written what was it 133 posts, so that shows you really don't put a lot down in words eh.
Then out of the blue comes this thread. Were you having a bad hair day???

Attacking Linda of all people, she is a big girl and can stand up for herself, and she has helped me no end, I haven't seen you send me any messages of encouragement like she has and so have others you have criticized. She is an excellent moderator who does her best on a huge forum so for crying out loud get onto things that actually mean something, instead of stabbing people in the back.
Those of you who believe in alternate treatments get so upset when we don't agree with you. What upsets me more than anything and I have said it before. It is not right to state on here that this alternate treatment works, and that does and this does and so on and so on. People like Pam and Sharon( where on earth you ever got Karen Ocker into all this Dingo I don't know, as Karen is hardly around here posting any more,) anyway people like I have mentioned just state the facts, not things that have not yet been proven to work.
Now surely that is a good thing as young people who have scoliosis read all this and surely you don't want them to be mislead.
Debate is good, has always been good, is good to read so are the facts that debate brings out.
Anyway that's it from me and I am sorry for the people who have actually been named in my post, I meant nothing derogatory against them I was just trying to point out a few things.

I am still trying to work out how mamamax got a copy of a visitors message to Joe O"Brien, forgotten which post it said it on now, thought that should have been private. You don't have to watch Days of our Lives, just lets all get on NSF!!

Lorraine..

[Sherie]

Ladies and gentlemen...

Can we agree to not call alternative treatments things like "woo woo" or other terms that are dismissive?

Thanks.

Regards,
Linda

Thank you, this is very demeaning and exactly the point trying to be made.

[Sherie]

Again, if you see something that you feels is outside the limits of decency, PLEASE REPORT IT~

I will, from this point forward, though I'm not one to jump on everything someone says to suit my taste. I would hope that as adults, we can all play be the same rules and censor our own comments. Throwing in a little compassion and humanity doesn't hurt either.

[LindaRacine]

Betty

Your post was there, I read it. Mine, yours and whoever else mentioned the "R" word were deleted.

Linda

I do respect your opinion and have more than once sought out your advice, but I too get the feeling there is favoritism here. You had previously banned anyone from discussing religion a while back, yet I've seen Pooka rant on about young creationist since that time. Why is she allowed to get away with this? Since we are censoring the content of this forum, does that mean we're not allowed to discuss anything outside of scoliosis? That's the implication I'm getting, yet, I just saw 1/2 a page on horses, had absolutely nothing to do with scoliosis. Is that ok? Where do we draw the line?

I don't have time to read every post. If you see a post about religion, please report it.

If I recall correctly, Pooka's posts had to do with balance. There are plenty of posts that are not scoliosis specific. Religion is different, because people have such diverse opinions, and may get offended by other's views.

Again, if you see something that you feels is outside the limits of decency, PLEASE REPORT IT~

[Sherie]

This is the second time I'm writing this, as it appears that my post did not actually post....argh....so here's another version of what I tried to post earlier.
-

Betty

Your post was there, I read it. Mine, yours and whoever else mentioned the "R" word were deleted.

Linda

I do respect your opinion and have more than once sought out your advice, but I too get the feeling there is favoritism here. You had previously banned anyone from discussing religion a while back, yet I've seen Pooka rant on about young creationist since that time. Why is she allowed to get away with this? Since we are censoring the content of this forum, does that mean we're not allowed to discuss anything outside of scoliosis? That's the implication I'm getting, yet, I just saw 1/2 a page on horses, had absolutely nothing to do with scoliosis. Is that ok? Where do we draw the line?

[LindaRacine]

Pooka pontificates about science as though she were Einstein. But she does not write with the precision of a top scientist.

And... that's respectful?

[LindaRacine]

To be fair to txmarinemom she's not the only one who resorts to personal attacks and bullying. PNUTTRO, Karen Ocker and LindaRacine do the same thing. Pooka1 argues A LOT but I can't remember her throwing too many direct insults.

If I have ever been disrespectful of someone's personality or character, I apologize. I try very hard not to do that (even though I may occasionally think it). Please note that I did apologize the one time that I stepped over the line Dingo. If anyone finds such posts, please report them.

--Linda

[LindaRacine]

Here is a gem from PNUTTRO.

#111 from this thread



Check out what set PNUTTRO off in the first place. I posted a simple chart on Polio. How does this atmosphere help parents or children with Scoliosis?

This board is not well moderated.

When you find specific posts that you feel are out of bounds, please report them by clicking on the white triangle with red outline. Please do not report posts just because you don't agree with the logic (not-mentioning-any-names-MM... oops).

[Writer]

Thanks for the excellent advice, Betty. That is a profoundly insightful post. I'll henceforth pay no attention to those who deserve no attention.

[betty14]

My suggestion to solve this problem...

This is the second time I'm writing this, as it appears that my post did not actually post....argh....so here's another version of what I tried to post earlier.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot change anyone. I can only change the way I respond. I could never "win" an arguement with a person who is hostile, arrogant, and has a rabid desire to be right all the time.

In fact, trying to argue with such a person literally feeds his or her need to be superior. Continuing to respond to that person actually gives the aggressor permission to continue. It is, in fact, positive reinforcement.

I suggest a technique that I, and perhaps you, have found useful when training dogs or children:

Reward good behaviour (informative, thoughtful posts or constructive critique delivered with respect) with "thank you for your input, you helped me understand that better"

Do not reward bad behaviour (insults to your intelligence or beliefs, suggestions that you don't want to know facts) with a response at all. Or reply once alone to inform the person that you will not be drawn into a fruitless arguement.

If you do not reply, the aggressor will have no one to talk to, and will lose his or her power. (and really, is there not more to life than being the alpha dog of a web forum?). Take back your power folks, by changing your strategies to get the outcome - a useful non-surgical forum - you desire.

[LindaRacine]

Ladies and gentlemen...

Can we agree to not call alternative treatments things like "woo woo" or other terms that are dismissive?

Thanks.

Regards,
Linda

[Pooka1]

Nobody needs to lecture me about evidence and facts. Pook and tx keep asking who I am. I am a PhD from a top-five research university, have held postdocs, published widely, and edit an academic journal.

1. Which field are you in? Social science or humanities?

2. How many of the three pages of Weiss pubs constitute good evidence for Schroth permanently reducing curves or preventing progression?

3. How many of the pubs actually are studies designed to test the efficacy of Schroth exercises in doing the above?

4. Are you Weiss? I thought you might be a while back but when I realized Weiss was an orthopedic surgeon I thought probably not.

[LindaRacine]

Sharon, et. al...

Discussion of beliefs is now banned, and all posts that discuss the topic have been/will be removed if found.

--Linda

[LindaRacine]

Writer,

Cheers to you for your inception of this thread! Your introduction is very well stated, and I applaud you for bringing this to the forefront. I am particularly disturbed over the sarcastic insults flung at Joe O’Brien along with the threat of legal action. And Linda, while I appreciate your day-to-day involvement as moderator, I have to agree with Writer that you do show favoritism, at least toward Pooka1. Yesterday, I noticed that it wasn’t until Ballet Mom (whose posts I find very insightful) countered Pooka1 on some of her statements, that you said “OK, enough on religion.” I don’t know of anyone here who has brought up religion more often than Pooka1, slamming it at every opportunity. She has mocked my faith on numerous occasions, but instead of firing back, I quietly say a prayer for her, because what I really see in her posts is a good-hearted person with a restless soul that is searching. Nonetheless, you have never reprimanded her for keeping her thoughts to herself regarding religion. How many people who have religious beliefs may have been turned away from this forum on that alone?

Quite frankly, I’m really surprised why those who think they know it all have not started their own forum by now.

You might want to check all the threads. Pooka1 and I don't always agree, nor do Txmarinemom always agree. Quite the opposite much of the time. And, I will agree that there are some (including a few who are on the alternative side), who could do a much better job of choosing their words. I don't want this to become a site where everyone has to be politically correct in everything they say.

If you have a problem with specific things people are saying that are disrespectful, demeaning, or condescending, and I'll address those posts. But, I'm not going to ban anyone for their views.

--Linda

[Writer]

I will not undertake an extended argument with pooka about evidence and facts, because with her any discussion is futile. The reader of all these posts will note that she has prejudged the entire non-surgical section as "Emotional Support/Other," another attempt to disparage everything but the scalpel. With that prejudgment, she barges in and disrupts non-surgical area discussions, attempting to enforce her prejudgment. (But is not the entire forum here for emotional support, as well as information? Scoliosis can be very traumatic.)

Pooka pontificates about science as though she were Einstein. But she does not write with the precision of a top scientist. Compare with Betty14’s posts when she describes muscle or brace function. That is scientific authority, and I recognize it and suspect others do, as well. For instance: http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showt...?t=9000&page=7

Nobody needs to lecture me about evidence and facts. Pook and tx keep asking who I am. I am a PhD from a top-five research university, have held postdocs, published widely, and edit an academic journal. I’ve read a massive amount of published literature in all kinds of fields including several in biomedicine. Defining fact is not so simplistic as pooka and Linda imply. For one, today’s body of facts is tomorrow’s outdated paradigm: see Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I think SOSORT knows about tomorrow, though anybody would concede the need for surgery in some cases.

Interestingly, though, in this discussion we are accumulating evidence and facts. Here’s a tentative tally of indisputable facts:

-- Several people have testified that they feel intimidated here, don’t post for fear of being attacked. I know other examples. This is a result absolutely contrary to the express wishes of the NSF president.

-- The problem originates with a very few people, chiefly txmarinemom and pooka, who exasperate, badger, intimidate a large contingent of vocal and silent members, even though they may sometimes be appreciated by others.

-- The result is a board that is partly dysfunctional, and has been so for over a year. Some of people, number unknown, have disappeared because of it.

-- The problem is serious enough that the very president of the NSF has been subjected to obnoxious challenges by the primary offenders. The moderator states that she is disinclined to intervene.

On the basis of these facts, any reasonable person would conclude that something needs to be done. More FACTS:

-- The only person aside from the president who can correct the problem is the moderator.

-- The moderator is doing nothing visible to correct the problem. In the post directly above she implies that the problem is only mine and that I should leave to solve it. It is not only my problem -- it affects dozens at least.

-- The moderator *has* intervened recently in cases where she regards Ballet Mom or mamamax – both of them pursuing conservative treatment -- as stepping over the line. This gives the impression of favoritism.

-- The moderator has publicly defined her job as she sees it:

I feel it's very important for people to have the whole truth about all scoliosis treatments. When people come here and try to convince others to try some unproved treatment . . . . . . it's my job to make certain that these forums don't get inundated with false information. --Linda

--This job definition is found nowhere in the NSF forum guidelines. http://www.scoliosis.org/forum.php The guidelines imply instead that the individual should use his/her own judgment to separate wheat from chaff. Nowhere do the guidelines declare that this forum will permit only proven facts to be stated in a post.

CONCLUSIONS
-- A focus on their concept of "proven facts" or "evidence" and strong support for surgeons and surgery appears to be an obsession with pooka and the moderator. They summarily dismiss any possibility that exercise therapy could work, which is the party line of the SRS, an organization primarily focused on surgery.

I'm guessing that's because surgeons are used to dealing with tangible results, and so far, there is no definitive research that shows that any specific exercises help or hurt. --Linda

-- I conclude that the moderator is either unconcerned about maintaining the atmosphere specifically defined by the NSF and its president, or she is passively or actively encouraging her allies to pester members in the non-surgical section because it advances an agenda of disparaging conservative treatments. If that seems unfair, please prove my conclusions untrue by doing something constructive about the underlying problem, not just shooing complainers away.

-- I finally conclude that probably nothing will improve until we have another moderator to supplement or replace the current moderator, because Linda’s concept of the job is not the same as the NSF guidelines’ concept of the job, evidenced by both performance history and her own public statements.