Low carb brainwashing???

[Sid Bonkers]

Yet another example of a post we are not allowed to reply to.

Here's a few definitions for you Admin/Mods

FORUM - Definition = a public meeting or assembly for open discussion

CENSORSHIP - Definition = Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

BRAINWASHING - Definition = Brainwashing consists of any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge.

Can you really say their is no brainwashing on a forum that keeps a section of its posters effectively censored?

 

[cugila]

Sid.

If this isn't a reply ? then please tell me just what it actually is ?

Ken.

Oh, BTW. Love your signature. So true.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Sid.

If this isn't a reply ? then please tell me just what it actually is ?

Ken.

Yes but its like a game of Chinese whispers , not being able to answer directly to a thread

Oh, BTW. Love your signature. So true.

Thank you, its because I have an open mind that I read mr Bernstein's book but I felt I couldn't cope with all that fat for the rest of my life. A personal decision of cause :wink:

 

[cugila]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Sid. I'm off out now. Speak later.

Ken.

 

[Administrator]

sid if you wish to debate something, please do so in the open forum. This forum was set up (at the request of non low-carbers) as a place for non low-carbers to discuss in peace. At this juncture the low-carb forum was designated as a place for low-carbers to discuss in peace. I don't really see the mental block some people have with this? There is no brainwashing, just a place in which all people can discuss.

 

[Administrator]

CENSORSHIP - Definition = Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

I've heard it all now. We are being accused of censoring low-carbing because it goes against the NHS. Now we are being accused of censoring non low-carbing... When we censor absolutely nothing within the ground of common decency and debate...

 

[Dr H]

Who's being accused for censoring low-carbing?

As far as I can tell, the site propagates low-carbing (whether intentionally or not) and censors other opinions. Although to be fair, I think this boils down to a few posters being a bit evangelical about their views. Actually, it's more like the Jehovah's Witness who won't get off your doorstep until you've converted to their cult.

I suggest different usergroups to see various forums. For example, when people first arrive they should label themselves as either low-carb or non-low-carb and that would lead them to only being able to post in that forum.

However, I told Cugila this when I posted in the low-carb forum. If somebody asks a question and posts it in the low-carb forum. They're going to get low-carber's answers. No balance.

Especially when people could see where the woman's friends were coming from.

In conclusion, censorship and propaganda are prevalent on the board. Like I mentioned before, this may be entirely deliberate or it may be coincidental. However, it is unavoidable. I honestly don't believe that there should be arguments on the subject of diets or medications or even the physiology behind diabetes.

People should be given ALL the facts and left to decide their own fate.

 

[cugila]

Hi Doc.
You stated(quote)
I suggest different usergroups to see various forums. For example, when people first arrive they should label themselves as either low-carb or non-low-carb and that would lead them to only being able to post in that forum.

However, I told Cugila this when I posted in the low-carb forum. If somebody asks a question and posts it in the low-carb forum. They're going to get low-carber's answers. No balance (unquote)


Doc.
You did state that, however it is disingenuous to also not state that I didn't agree with you.

Ken.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

I've heard it all now. We are being accused of censoring low-carbing because it goes against the NHS. Now we are being accused of censoring non low-carbing... When we censor absolutely nothing within the ground of common decency and debate...

I think you have misunderstood me Admin, I was only trying to make the point that having boards which exclude percentages of the members means that whatever is posted on one board can not be brought in to question by someone from the other camp, that is effectively censoring any views not in keeping with those held on that board, and of course it works both ways. You say above "we censor absolutely nothing within the ground of common decency and debate" But censoring debate is exactly what you are doing by splitting the forum. It seems ridiculous (to me) that I have to post here in answer to something posted on another board within the same forum.

The 'brainwashing' thing for example, wasnt started by me but was mentioned in another thread that has since been moved elsewhere. So the thing I was posting about from another board has now been moved to yet another board, I'm starting to confuse myself now LOL. It would be much simpler if there was only one diet board, that is what I have been trying to say.

 

[mullaneder]

Hi sid, i think that you make some very good points but personally i think it is the lesser of two evils having seperate forums.I think that the low carbers are too vocal and would drown out any points that would be made by non low carbers.All you have to do is look through the ask the experts and the greetings sections to see the way that the low carbers pounce on them.I think that you need a section where someone could go if they look at the low carb section and have tried it and dont like it ,or just dont like it just by seeing what they eat.I too get frustrated when i see some of the low carb forums and it also drives me potty when they post in this section.Also if there was only one section i think that all the debates that would happen would overpower any newbies coming on for advice.
Dermot

 

[mullaneder]

Hi ian if you have a specific question you can put it in the "ask the experts" section.However when it comes to diet i dont think that you would get any neutral answers.

Dermot

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Hi sid, i think that you make some very good points but personally i think it is the lesser of two evils having seperate forums.I think that the low carbers are too vocal and would drown out any points that would be made by non low carbers.All you have to do is look through the ask the experts and the greetings sections to see the way that the low carbers pounce on them.I think that you need a section where someone could go if they look at the low carb section and have tried it and dont like it ,or just dont like it just by seeing what they eat.I too get frustrated when i see some of the low carb forums and it also drives me potty when they post in this section.Also if there was only one section i think that all the debates that would happen would overpower any newbies coming on for advice.
Dermot

Dermot, you make a lot of sense, and I share your frustration when I scan some of the low carb threads. I suppose a split forum is the only way forward, but I still don't like being told I can't do something, I guess its the rebel in me.

 

[Rev DCCaskie]

Perhaps it is no longer a forum. A number of others in this little group no longer bother visiting the site . Being subjected to slanted opinion to which they have no means of replying/disputing makes me wonder why I too bother to visit the site.

If things cannot be discussed and moderated sensibly it all seems very pointless.

Divide and rule anyone.

 

[sugarless sue]

makes me wonder why I too bother to visit the site.

As there are several off shoot diabetic forums on the net more suited to different opinions I to wonder why certain posters bother to come back,make negative comments and then go again!
However we will continue to give out help and support for all diabetics here no matter what their persuasion.

 

[Dr H]

Hi Doc.
You stated(quote)
I suggest different usergroups to see various forums. For example, when people first arrive they should label themselves as either low-carb or non-low-carb and that would lead them to only being able to post in that forum.

However, I told Cugila this when I posted in the low-carb forum. If somebody asks a question and posts it in the low-carb forum. They're going to get low-carber's answers. No balance (unquote)


Doc.
You did state that, however it is disingenuous to also not state that I didn't agree with you.

Ken.

Sorry about that, I missed that when I read my PMs. You did in fact disagree.

 

[Administrator]

People should be given ALL the facts and left to decide their own fate.

Which is exactly what this forum has always done, and will continue to do. Like it or not, post here or not, this forum will continue to be a great resource for people with diabetes to understand more about their condition.

Splitting the diet forums was done at the request of a number of regular posters, the aim being to make it easier for newcomers to see the debate from the outset, understand better both sides, and make their own minds up. Suggesting that it is a case of divide and rule is just shortsighted, and sells short the moderators who attempt to control this storm of opinion.

The idea of reuniting the diet forum into one seething cauldron of debate is under discussion. Anyone in favour say I.

 

[Celtic.Piskie]

Personally, yes.
At the moment, there is a very obvious, very nasty, them and us feel.

I'd like to know what and how the low carbers started, what they eat etc. But at the moment i just don't want to post there in case i'm unwelcome, or i start something.
I can see there are huge differences in opinion, but there is an awful lot of open hostility on here....
Having only the two forums is a line in the sand, forcing people to decide which one they are.

 

[inwales]

I

 

[bunty]

I dont feel brainwashed by the vociferous low-carb lobby group on this site.

I used to feel depressed and pressured by them until i took stock and decided to grow up and simply ignore most of them.

That meant i avoided the site but then the Admin opened this forum and i felt able to return to the site and contribute now and then. However, i tend to limit my responses to this forum because everywhere else the low-carbers have infiltrated with their group mentality and i cant be bothered to argue with the same lot over and over.

There IS a viable alternative to low-carbing and we are NOT all going to die early or lose our limbs and sight if we dont maintain non-diabetic levels. BUT we owe it to ourselves to do the best we can, one day at a time, to get a grip on our own disease and not to delude ourselves that we can carry on as we did pre-diagnosis.

I am expecting my next HbA1c to be higher than the previous one of 5.4, simply because for the past six months i have had a lot of issues and my way of dealing with issues is to eat - and i've been in pain from arthritis which has caused me to exercise far less. But i get up each day and try and i think that's what helps. I havent given up and i continue to monitor, work hard as i feel able and remind myself i can do better.

bunty

 

[bunty]

And i'm a NAY to joining the two forums - it'll be curtains for anyone not low-carbing who hopes to feel included and not alienated.

bunty