Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: Mark Probert <mark.probert@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:21:33 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 21, 6:33 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter B." <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4a3dc846$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"PeterB" <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4e87fa37-9d07-42f9-9bdb-5368b6a5d324@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 20, 10:05 pm, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Peter B." <i...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4a3c4643$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"PeterB" <p...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:176c31e5-2924-412d-ae36-d8cbb629a767@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I realize it isn't news that a lot of OT posting takes place on mha.
But, are famous people secretly posting here? I would like to make a
few points about the use of peoples' names in subject lines. First,
this practice creates a cult of personalities from the ranks of
regular posters that I believe is inappropriate to the newsgroup.
This place should not be about us. As a health activist, I try to
walk a fine line between adding to the noise here and responding in a
substantive way to the comments (and shouts) of others. I don't think
readers visiting the newsgroup have any interest at all in our
personal histories, but if they do, they can ask. The purpose of mha
is to provide some sort of discussion about matters of personal
health, and it seems we are doing a great disservice to anyone coming
here for answers if all we provide them are flame wars. It's true
there are a number of agendas here, both professional and
philosophical, and such cross currents are not easily addressed. I
struggle with this, as well, and I'm far from perfect, but I do try to
ask myself whether my post will help, or will it not help. I would
also rather be challenged to think, and it's always true that you
learn more from your detractors than you do from your friends. Of
course, the lessons we learn from our detractors are not often what
our detractors intended, but it good to learn from everyone.
Note that my "Warning" post does not name names. I struggled with
this originally, but now it surprises me that I debated it. I made
the right choice. There is no one here waiting for me to tell them
what to think. All I can do is describe what I see, say what I think,
and express what I know.
May I suggest one day per week that we do not post using the names of
other posters in the subject lines? Let's make it every Monday,
starting 22 June. It's not a negotiated truce, or anything like that,
just one day per week that we give ALL readers a break and make an
effort to post topically. I think we deserve it.
Thanks to everyone.
PeterB
Not likely to happen given the history of this ng, but nice try.
That would be OK, Peter. I believe it is the responsibly to correct the
many lies here.
To do that posting names are necessary.
I don't know how to measure the success of that that approach, Jan,
but it seems limited to me. These exchanges are exactly the same as
flame wars taking place in other venues. For me, a post that is not
topical to the newsgroup belongs offline.
I diagree. Anything said hould be posted out in the open. That's why my
stardard practice is to not email me privately.
"hould" is properly referred to as a typographical error.
I find that threads devoted
to other posters, without any topical discussion, are completely
personal. I'm certain this has the effect of driving readers away. I
know that isn't your intention, but I believe that is what happens
when readers see flame wars and very little else. Since this is what
your detractors want, it is clear to me that you have been giving them
exactly what they want from you. They remain so sure of this
behaviour that they feel they have nothing to lose by trying to pit us
against one another. In order to avoid giving them a "win-win" in
case you disagree with my comments, I am asking that you NOT respond
to me on this particular matter. I would ask that you simply think
about it for a while and see where it takes you.
PeterB
===============================
Not only that but according to some poster here she is supposed to be a
religious person of sorts. Her actions belies her beliefs;
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: Jan Drew
- Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- References:
- MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: PeterB
- Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: Peter B.
- Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: Jan Drew
- Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: PeterB
- Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: Peter B.
- Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- From: Jan Drew
- MHA, a cult of personalities
- Prev by Date: Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- Next by Date: Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- Previous by thread: Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- Next by thread: Re: MHA, a cult of personalities
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
