Cobra3164 said:I understand where you are coming from Gracek. As adults we can make that choice based on knowing ourselves and what we want to know, but that can be the opposite for minors. It is not a case of burying things in the sand but of allowing people to make an informed choice given the knowledge that some articles posted may be more blunt than on the general forum, upon knowing that people can choose if they want to read that or not, therefore adults are given the choice. I still think an over 18 or some kind of area would be welcome by most.
Best wishes
Simon aka Cobra3164
Giverny said:You won't get banned! We welcome opinions from users on ways we can improve the forum experience :thumbup:lucylocket61 said:I am worried and frightened about taking part in your poll, in case i get banned.
Pneu said:Perhaps then you would also un-ban those members and rescind the warnings that were given yesterday to those who expressed openly what 95% of the voters in this poll have shown their support for?
phoenix said:Unbeliever,
I don't believe that there has ever been any censorship of your many posts discussing retinopathy nor those of any other people discussing complications . Indeed those discussions have shown how people can support each other.
As far as I can see the original problem was nothing to do with such discussion, more to do with almost throw away comments which were perceived to be (and I agree) scaremongering.
That's my only comment here or on any of the other similar threads that have appeared this morning.
I haven't voted either since I don't think the ability to discuss complications has ever been in question( and unless things have changed since my test on AM Brennan's poll any results meaningless)[/quote
I think removing an entire thread on which I posted might be considered censorship. You may well be right Phoenix but as we don't know the details -it was removed without warning - we won't know.
From comments mde by moderators and admin since then It has become apparent that discussion of complications is frowned upon.
I do wonder Phoenix , how you could know if any of my posts have been censored or not, but I m not aware that they have {although I possibly might not hve been able to see if that had been the case]
I agree that people have been able to support each other. My fear now is tht with changes to the policy of moderation then
such matttters are going to have to be sanitised and played down - when most people want the truth
I have no personal ae to grind except that I am tired of seeing threads deleted or discussions stopped for no good reason.
I have alwys admired your posts as well as those of others - and I have learnt a great deal from them aand from your discussions with others. It is not necessary for people to agree to make the discusssions useful to others.
I m sure none of you highly intelligent people whom I much admire would bother o post on a bland , PC forum - as we are hreatened with his becoming.
phoenix said:Unbeliever,
I don't believe that there has ever been any censorship of your many posts discussing retinopathy nor those of any other people discussing complications . Indeed those discussions have shown how people can support each other.
As far as I can see the original problem was nothing to do with such discussion, more to do with almost throw away comments which were perceived to be (and I agree) scaremongering.
That's my only comment here or on any of the other similar threads that have appeared this morning.
I haven't voted either since I don't think the ability to discuss complications has ever been in question( and unless things have changed since my test on AM Brennan's poll any results meaningless)[/quote
I think removing an entire thread on which I posted might be considered censorship. You may well be right Phoenix but as we don't know the details -it was removed without warning - we won't know.
From comments mde by moderators and admin since then It has become apparent that discussion of complications is frowned upon.
I do wonder Phoenix , how you could know if any of my posts have been censored or not, but I m not aware that they have {although I possibly might not hve been able to see if that had been the case]
I agree that people have been able to support each other. My fear now is tht with changes to the policy of moderation then
such matttters are going to have to be sanitised and played down - when most people want the truth
I have no personal ae to grind except that I am tired of seeing threads deleted or discussions stopped for no good reason.
I have alwys admired your posts as well as those of others - and I have learnt a great deal from them aand from your discussions with others. It is not necessary for people to agree to make the discusssions useful to others.
I m sure none of you highly intelligent people whom I much admire would bother o post on a bland , PC forum - as we are hreatened with this becoming.
phoenix said:Unbeliever,
I don't believe that there has ever been any censorship of your many posts discussing retinopathy nor those of any other people discussing complications . Indeed those discussions have shown how people can support each other.
As far as I can see the original problem was nothing to do with such discussion, more to do with almost throw away comments which were perceived to be (and I agree) scaremongering.
That's my only comment here or on any of the other similar threads that have appeared this morning.
I haven't voted either since I don't think the ability to discuss complications has ever been in question( and unless things have changed since my test on AM Brennan's poll any results meaningless)[/quote
I think removing an entire thread on which I posted might be considered censorship. You may well be right Phoenix but as we don't know the details -it was removed without warning - we won't know.
From comments mde by moderators and admin since then It has become apparent that discussion of complications is frowned upon.
I do wonder Phoenix , how you could know if any of my posts have been censored or not, but I m not aware that they have {although I possibly might not hve been able to see if that had been the case]
I agree that people have been able to support each other. My fear now is tht with changes to the policy of moderation then
such matttters are going to have to be sanitised and played down - when most people want the truth
I have no personal ae to grind except that I am tired of seeing threads deleted or discussions stopped for no good reason.
I have alwys admired your posts as well as those of others - and I have learnt a great deal from them aand from your discussions with others. It is not necessary for people to agree to make the discusssions useful to others.
I m sure none of you highly intelligent people whom I much admire would bother o post on a bland , PC forum - as we are hreatened with this becoming.
To clarify: as far as I know that hasn't been any but I have no insider knowledge . (I have in my memory only ever had 4 private communications with admin/mods in the time I've been here)I do wonder Phoenix , how you could know if any of my posts have been censored or not, but I m not aware that they have {although I possibly might not hve been able to see if that had been the case
DavideB said:Type2 WHY? because the majority of us are/where FAT and did not look after ourselves and did not take note of all the scaremongering/advice about healthy diets..
xyzzy said:I think being able to tell another member that diabetic complications are real and happen and why they occur is very important even if it worries or frightens another person.
GraceK said:Yes, complications DO happen. I don't think anyone is disputing that. I don't think anyone has advocated ignoring the fact either. I agree with the discussion of complications on the forum and I'm not advocating keeping anyone in the dark about anything.
But what I do disagree with is the assumption that all newbies will want to know IMMEDIATELY everything there is to know about diabetic complications. We have no right to assume what kind of information anyone is looking for when they walk through the door of a forum any more than we would know if they walked through a physical door of a meeting room. We also don't know what emotional or mental state they're really in or whether they can yet COPE with knowing.
If we were physically all in a meeting room would we all rush to the newcomer with stories of amputations, blindness etc and give them the impression this WILL happen to them IF they don't do this, that or the other? No, I don't think we would. I think we'd welcome the newcomer and allow them the time and space to ask questions IN THEIR OWN TIME. In a physical space a person can very quickly scan the environment and choose what and who to approach or avoid but cyberspace is different. We can sometimes move far too fast for our own good in cyberspace and we can also make far too many assumptions about what WE think others SHOULD know or SHOULD WANT TO KNOW.
When I joined the forum, I can honestly say that I wasn't scared and I wanted to STAY that way. Because if I had become bogged down with the complications side of things whilst in the early days I wouldn't have concentrated on the HERE AND NOW and got to grips with the basics of diet, testing etc before going on to the deeper aspects.
GraceK said:Defren ... there's a vast difference and even a legal implication between the word 'advice' and 'information'. No-one on this forum to my knowledge is qualified to give anyone else advice. Even professionals are simply giving 'professional opinions'. The reason I'm advocating being careful in this situation is because I was a counsellor of abuse victims for many years and I know the harm that can occur from being over enthusiastic and assuming that people want to know what WE (who know) believe they will also want to know.
Because you needed a kick up the rear doesn't mean another person will need the same thing, that's why personal choice comes into the equation were sensitive information is concerned.
We agree on so many things Defren and I really value your input and the information you've put forward but on this particular issue, I can't agree ... and hope we can agree to differ. :wink:
Defren said:GraceK said:Defren ... there's a vast difference and even a legal implication between the word 'advice' and 'information'. No-one on this forum to my knowledge is qualified to give anyone else advice. Even professionals are simply giving 'professional opinions'. The reason I'm advocating being careful in this situation is because I was a counsellor of abuse victims for many years and I know the harm that can occur from being over enthusiastic and assuming that people want to know what WE (who know) believe they will also want to know.
Because you needed a kick up the rear doesn't mean another person will need the same thing, that's why personal choice comes into the equation were sensitive information is concerned.
We agree on so many things Defren and I really value your input and the information you've put forward but on this particular issue, I can't agree ... and hope we can agree to differ. :wink:
Firstly, I have worked in law all my life, I am a highly skilled professional in my field and there is no legal implications in advice, good, bad or indifferent.
No, we are never going to agree on this, and other subject in the future I suspect, you have strong views as do I, certainly no hard feelings over the fact.
BioHaZarD said:I can almost feel the love