Answer to Bean's questions

[Dr. Richard Grossman]

Hi Bean,

I thought I would answer your questions in a new topic so that it doesn't get erased.

Why address your post (first)?  You were suggesting that I was being dishonest with the Board and you had private evidence to prove it.  Such allegations strike at the heart of board safety and need to be addressed immediately.

I discussed my role as moderator in a previous post:  http://www.voicelessness.com/disc3//index.php?topic=5697.0

But let me add a few additional points.  There is no perfect way to moderate a forum such as this.  Some people will like the way the board is moderated, some people will not, and others will go back and forth depending upon current issues.  There are people you will like on the board and people you won’t, people who will deeply offend you and who you wished would be booted off.  Furthermore, different members will have different ideas about who should be booted off.  The VESMB will never be a cozy place or a refuge, but I do hope it will be a place people can learn.  Especially about themselves.  That, to me, is the most important thing.  IMO, without the conflicts, even at their current levels, people would have much less opportunity to learn about themselves.  One other point: time is also an important factor, overlooked in the heat of the moment.  Another person’s perception that is impossible to hear in the present because of the need to defend the self, may suddenly make sense down the road.  This may take place one, two, or even three years later.  Obviously, one of the first tasks of a therapist is to learn to be patient!  I hope this helps. 

Best,

Richard           

[Ami]

Dr G
 I agree that Bean was NOT striking at the Boards safety, but trying to MAKE it safe(IMO)
 Bean has tremendous courage to stand up to an "authority" figure, you, Dr G, who is our symbolic parent. It must have been very hard for her to   send you and the board those PM's.Also, she got many people's posts and expressed their sentiments  to you  and asked you for an answer.
Dr G, Bean did what few of us in life WOULD do, to stand, Dr G, to stand with the truth, in a public format.
Bean would be one of the 30% on the Milgrim experiment who did NOT shock the man to death.
  Bean is s/one I could only HOPE to emulate,in my greatest of days.      Ami

[Ami]

Dr G
 I think it would be fair for people to know, more definitively, when they come on the board, that it IS an "enter at your own risk situation. I understand that it is and I do agree with that concept, in theory. However, any person who IS  bullied wants to cry 'Uncle".
 It would be nice to know that help WILL come ,but not until you are near the end(cyber death)                 Ami

[CB123]

courage to stand up to an "authority" figure, you, Dr G, who is our symbolic parent.

(Good to remember that this is Ami's analysis of what is going on, but may not be Bean's take on it--even though Ami is talking about Bean's behavior.  Wanted to make that clear before I continued-- and not put words in Bean's mouth)

It has occurred to me that this--standing up to an perceived authority figure--is what is going on on many fronts.

I had a little one that used to stamp his foot at me and say "you are not the boss of ME!"  I see a lot of that here.

This is a universal stage of healing--to find someone who can stand in for the abuser and can take all the whacks that the victim wishes he/she had the courage to inflict on the real perpetrator. 

The problem is--good people would never gleefully whack an innocent by stander.  And I believe that we are good people (not sociopaths, in other words.)  The fact that this kind of whacking is going on is evidence of how deep the pain is and how very unresolved it still is.  I don't think that the whacking we are seeing on the board is even a conscious decison by the whackers.

Co-N's tend to listen to what people say instead of what they do--if a perpetrator says they are normal, we scratch our heads and try to figure out why in the world they don't LOOK normal.  When someone on the board says they are healed, that they have gotten to their inner child issues, that they no longer have parent issues (or husband issues, or whatever)--that doesnt mean that they are or that they don't. 

Sometimes just knowing that explains a lot.

CB

[Gaining Strength]

It's certainly a matter of perspective.  The people you identify as "whackers" are in my view people who are standing up to the "whackers" and not willing to take it any more.

[CB123]

GS,

I didnt identify any whackers.

CB

[Leah]

A lot depends on an individual's choice of words (and behavior) toward another, in any situation.


10. Passive-aggressive:  (Anger Expressed Inappropriately)

    * Put-downs
    * Sarcasm
    * Insults
    * Rudeness
    * Sabotage
    * Intimidation
    * Belittling Remarks


Leah x

[tayana]

I just want to point out one thing regarding the idea that some posters are using sock puppets to post. 

I work in the computer world, and there is a simple way to find out if the suspected posters are one and the same.

First, each time someone logs onto this board, the server where it is housed logs an IP address.  Ip addresses carry lots of information.  I don't know what sort of management software is being used here, but there is a good chance that location is also logged with the IP address.  Please remember this is a world wide board, and if Dr. G has looked at the IP addresses and locations, then there is no sock puppeting going on.  Unless all of the locations are close to one another or the poster has some very good computer hacking skills, I don't think that's what's going on here.  Similarities between posts is not good enough evidence to make such an accusation.

I think people need to remember that this is an internet forum.  It is not therapy.  It is not really a support group.  It is a discussion board, and it cannot take the place of sitting in a therapists office or in a 3-D support group.  This medium limits the ability of people to see body language and facial expression, hear voice inflection, see tears.  It limits the ability to touch and comfort.  No internet forum can be truly safe, no matter how stringent the rules regarding posting.

[Certain Hope]

Bean,

I'd like to ask you a sincere question here. If it turns into a blow-up, I'll walk away from it instantly, but I hope that you'll take this in the spirit in which I'm asking.

Seriously - I am not understanding this - -

How is it that you seem to think it's appropriate for you to be asking these things of Dr. Grossman?

You want him to examine whether he's being honest with himself, because.... why?

Is it because you don't want to participate on this board without that assurance?

Or is it because you became so deeply invested in your suspicions that it's just so difficult to let it go?

Please, Bean, understand that I am not being smart-aleck about this.  I've felt deeply invested in some stuff that was only leading me into misery.
I'm not saying that's the case with you, just wondering.

What does all of this represent to you?

Thanks.

Carolyn

[Leah]

I just want to point out one thing regarding the idea that some posters are using sock puppets to post. 

I work in the computer world, and there is a simple way to find out if the suspected posters are one and the same.

First, each time someone logs onto this board, the server where it is housed logs an IP address.  Ip addresses carry lots of information.  I don't know what sort of management software is being used here, but there is a good chance that location is also logged with the IP address.  Please remember this is a world wide board, and if Dr. G has looked at the IP addresses and locations, then there is no sock puppeting going on.  Unless all of the locations are close to one another or the poster has some very good computer hacking skills, I don't think that's what's going on here.  Similarities between posts is not good enough evidence to make such an accusation.

I think people need to remember that this is an internet forum.  It is not therapy.  It is not really a support group.  It is a discussion board, and it cannot take the place of sitting in a therapists office or in a 3-D support group.  This medium limits the ability of people to see body language and facial expression, hear voice inflection, see tears.  It limits the ability to touch and comfort.  No internet forum can be truly safe, no matter how stringent the rules regarding posting.

Thank you so much, Tayana

for explaining so clearly.

Leah x

[Certain Hope]

hi Carolyn,

I'm not offended that you asked in the least.  The reason I asked Dr. G if he was being honest with himself about his limitations is that I care about him and the posters on this board.

Secondly, it can be incredibly healing when a person in a position of authority takes the time to listen to me, I've found.  It validates that my perspective is worthwhile and as valid as theirs.

I know this board is not therapy, but through my own therapy I've found that the process of trusting others is difficult, but worth it.  Because I trust Dr. G, I offered some of my thoughts to him, for him to consider.  If he had chosen to accept them for what I intended them to be - mutually beneficial - then it would have increased both of our respect for one another and others would have seen it too.  No risk, no gain.  But with risk there is always the possibility of being let down, which I feel now.  I'm not saying one shouldn't risk for the reason they may be let down, I believe it is absolutely necessary to risk establishing trust with others for healing to begin and continue for a lifetime.

bean

Thanks, Bean.
I really appreciate your kind reply and the opportunity to understand your thoughts and feelings better.

Sincerely,
Carolyn

[lighter]

Leah.... are you talking about the sock puppet allegations, referencing tay's post, when you refer to "mind games rolled out onto the board>?"

Or something else?

Asking for clarity, here.

Lighter

[CB123]

Bean,

I was speaking to Ami's comment that you were standing up to Dr. G as a surrogate parent.  I don't know that you were actually doing that--but her analysis gave opportunity to bring up that I think that that happens a lot on the board.  Sometimes confusing conversations that seem to go far beyond the issue at hand can be explained by that dynamic. 

I have been surprised at some of the venom directed at Dr. G in the last week.  I have a lot of respect for him, personally, but I also am probably old-school that you don't speak using those kinds of terms to someone who is in some position of authority (as he is on this board--that is the reason he has been appealed to over and over in the last week).  I guess I see that the authority of the position deserves respect.  That's me.

I wasnt speaking at all to your conversation with Dr. G--only to Ami's characterization of the dynamic.  Sorry if that was confusing.

CB

[Leah]

I do apologize, Lighter

as I had simply withdrawn (as in a delete action) my discernment and thought, personal opinion, just prior to your request.

I don't want to go down that road, upon consideration.

Leah x

[lighter]

I appreciate your withdrawl, if you aren't going to clarify.

Thanks, Lighter