BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Noticed given to you all about a thread that may cause upset

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Ria
15:05 / 30.08.04
I sent some abusive e-mails to Ganesh earlier this year over frustration going on in my own life.

he answered back, I answered back and he then ignored me (a wise thing for him to do) and I stopped bothering him.

one of the threads he has contributed to also rankled. not just because of his contribution also. I thought that I would post a statement that says that when I have my say on that thread I will not use the thread as a way to cause upset. some of the comments bother me very much and all the more so that a professional in his field would post those comments.

okay?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:53 / 30.08.04
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that you are going to post something in a thread that may cause offence, or that you are going to start a whole new thread that may cause offence, and in either case that you wanted to provide advance warning, with the aim of not having your comments deleted, say?

If so, thanks for the heads-up, but without an idea of which thread youa re talkign about it's going to be hard to tell. Assuming you don't launch a threadrotting personal attack on Ganesh, there shouldn't be a problem. If you *do*, then I guess we'll have to work out how to deal with it. I have to admit that, if you are telling us that you sent abusive emails to Ganesh and are about to post abusively to Ganesh in a thread, then maybe you should think about how to make your comments in the thread *less* abusive?
 
 
w1rebaby
16:22 / 30.08.04
You can colour me with the "puzzled" crayon too.
 
 
Grey Area
16:45 / 30.08.04
So...what...you're...trying to say, is that (and please do stop me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here):

a) you have sent abusive e-mails to a board member, who then ignored you when you replied to his replies.

b) you are going to reply to a number of comments he has made in a thread, in a manner which is not, by you, designed to cause offence but is meant to challenge his assertions.

Leaving (a) aside for a moment, where exactly is the problem in (b)? Surely that's how debates get started? Or are you planning to reference (a) in order to get a rise out of Ganesh? Are you planning ahead in case Ganesh mentions material mentioned during (a) and to which you will respond with vigour and vitriol?

I also wrinkle my forehead in puzzlement at this point. Isn't it the case that a troll is a troll, even if he walks around wearing a sandwich board with the word TROLL painted on it under an arrow pointing up?
 
 
Ria
19:25 / 30.08.04
Haus and others, I mean comments to a thread which already exists though I had contemplated starting a new thread in Head Shop. (not that the topic has not come up before.)

Grey Area, I thought that I would bring up my plan in case Ganesh believed that I started the thread as a way to get at him in public.

a troll gets off on the negative emotion. I don't care about that.
 
 
Ria
19:27 / 30.08.04
and, BTW, Grey Area, you understood both a) and b) correctly.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:50 / 30.08.04
Out of curiosity, what thread is this?
 
 
Ria
01:31 / 31.08.04
the "Little Lady Fauntleroy" thread in TV and Movies.
 
 
Grey Area
07:55 / 31.08.04
[Off Topic]

I couldn't find the Little Lady Fauntleroy thread so I did a google search for: www.barbelith.com "little lady". The results were the thread and...well...see for yourself. Is the fact we're being linked to from a porn site something we should be worrying about?

[/Off Topic]
 
 
Jub
09:47 / 31.08.04
I couldn't find the Little Lady Fauntleroy thread so I did a google search for: www.barbelith.com "little lady". The results were the thread and...well...see for yourself. Is the fact we're being linked to from a porn site something we should be worrying about?

Hi GA, - the thread in question is this one. Not Sure we're actually being linked to though since you can see the url in the search results as opposed to a link. Either way, not really sure being linked from a porn site is anything to be too worried about since most pornseekers are going to be fairly bored with Barbelith's lack of teenhotsexcumslutstockingleathersexbukkake, or whatever floats their boat. Since the link on the above thread (the one they're linking to) has remained (as opposed to them linking directly to that site, I don't see it as much cause for concern.

In future try searching like this. It's much better way to search!

(Btw - the little lady fauntleroy thread is here.)
 
 
Grey Area
10:32 / 31.08.04
teenhotsexcumslutstockingleathersexbukkake...well if we weren't showing up for searches before, we're sure showing up now.
 
 
Ganesh
21:34 / 31.08.04
Ria, if your criticism/ire is focussed upon the argument I've made (as opposed to your surprise/outrage that a "professional" could've made it) then feel free. If, on the other hand, having your say is essentially you having a pop at me in-thread, then I'm going to take it as such - however many disclaimers you state here.

I'm only going to take it personally if you get personal with me. Engage with the discussion itself, and all will be fine.
 
 
Ganesh
22:13 / 31.08.04
It also occurs to me to point out that the thread in question was started to discuss a specific television documentary. If your concerns are more general ones, Ria (about issues of gender or psychiatry, say), and don't relate to Little Lady Fauntleroy, you might want to consider cutting & pasting the relevant stuff into a new thread elsewhere.
 
 
Ria
12:33 / 01.09.04
yeah, the fact that you do what you do and professionally and still have those opinions...

I will only say this about it. print up the thread and show it your bosses at work. explain that "Ganesh" means you and observe what happens in the outside world rather than an online forum in which you have alpha male all-the-kids-dig-him status.

for that matter show it to some of your clients. hey, some of them will agree with you. others will most definitely not agree and I would love to see your face as you try to defend the comments you made anonymously on some messageboard. I would really like to see it.

anyway, now I have just gotten the "personal" stuff out of the way out of the way.

(if you ask me, personal means anything that I do...)
 
 
Ria
12:38 / 01.09.04
I did, BTW, phrase the previous as politely as I could, believe it or not.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
13:11 / 01.09.04
So... has there been either a post to LLF, or a new thread? I'm not sure I exactly see what this thread is achieving. Ria is calling "shame on you!" to Ganesh, but none of us know wherefrom or wherefore.

Ria: I'm sympathetic to your feelings. However, Ganesh gets to make statements on Barbelith under protection of anonymity, as do you. That may give him freedoms to say things he would not say to his employers, or indeed to his mother. I'm also not currently seeing anything here other than a personal attack, which is not appropriate to the Policy unless it is based on somebody's abuse of Barbelith. I don't see that being the case here. If we are going to the Head Shop, you need to talk about the issues, not about Ganesh. If this is about transitioning or gender realignment issues, there is in fact a thread in the upper reaches of the Head Shop on a very similar topic...
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
14:13 / 01.09.04
I would love to see your face as you try to defend the comments you made anonymously on some messageboard. I would really like to see it.

Haus has kind of covered this already, but surely the whole point of Barbelith is that nobody has to defend anything they say here to their bosses, or indeed to anyone else. If you choose to make your government name known here, or to mix socially with other people who post here, then you might find yourself challenged in a different context on the basis of something you've posted here, but that's a choice we all make. I'm sure a lot of us would lose our jobs if our bosses read everything we write on the internet: that doesn't mean we should.

Otherwise, all we have to worry about when we write something on Barbelith is whether it will make people less inclined to give credit to what we write in future. It's up to you, Ria, if you decide that what Ganesh writes about a television show discredits his posts elsewhere. It's also up to you if you want to make a case for that, so long as you keep it relevant to a discussion: there are hypothetical instances in which views someone's posted in a thread in the Spectacle might affect the credibility of something they write in the Head Shop, but you would need to make such a case carefully, logically and above all explicitly in order to retain credibility yourself...
 
 
Ganesh
15:26 / 01.09.04
I will only say this about it. print up the thread and show it your bosses at work. explain that "Ganesh" means you and observe what happens in the outside world rather than an online forum in which you have alpha male all-the-kids-dig-him status.

for that matter show it to some of your clients. hey, some of them will agree with you. others will most definitely not agree and I would love to see your face as you try to defend the comments you made anonymously on some messageboard. I would really like to see it.


So, essentially, you don't feel I'm entitled to any sort of professional/personal separation in terms of my worldview or my life in general - certainly not with the same anonymity granted to anyone else who uses Internet message-boards. That much is clear.

I do not post here in a professional capacity (although my work obviously informs a certain amount of what I say). I would no more present my Barbelith posts to my employers or patients than I'd offer up any other aspect of my personal life. The fact that, for you, everything is personal does not mean other people do not draw a distinction.

This is pretty much why I took to ignoring your PMs, Ria. I'm not your punchbag, and I won't be used as such. Lay off the personal attacks. Please.
 
 
Ria
16:58 / 01.09.04
no worries. I decided to get out a somewhat self-censored sample of my thoughts just now and I won't go farther or bring it up a second time and when I actually get around to discussing reactions to the documentary I will not single anybody out in particular.
 
 
Ganesh
17:42 / 01.09.04
That's a relief. I guess now's the time to admit I'm bemused but flattered that you see me as an "alpha male all-the-kids-dig"...
 
 
Ria
01:57 / 02.09.04
(continuing from my previous thought...)

Cameron Stewart draws comic books at DC.

when the topic of DC comic books comes up we might expect his name to come up or for people on the board to maybe even comment or ask questions.

no has a problem with that do they?

no ISTR also had a problem with chastising the police chief (this happened in Switchboard or maybe Head Shop) for declaring himself "un-PC". off the job.

while Ganesh has not made his real name publically available he has revealed what he does for work.

the topic of his work comes up in the context of the thread if not indirectly... it does come up... and originally he himself brought them up. he talked about his work and took his to the board.

if this thought remains incompleted here it has not in my head.

I did promise you no more attacks so I will bite my tongue and sign off.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
07:03 / 02.09.04
Um... Cameron Stewart chooses to post under his 'real'/professional name. That's his choice, and it makes a pretty big difference. Do you see?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:29 / 02.09.04
Hmmm... I think the anonymity of the message board works both ways. After all, if you had gone up to a psychiatric health professional and, face to face, shouted abuse at him, you would have been locked up. This way is easier and safer for everyone.

So... first up, accept that people have different personal and professional responsibilities. By posting in his own name, Cameron has mashed some of those together. Ganesh hasn't.

I think it's important to work out what constitutes acceptable behaviour here. "I disagree with this point of Ganesh's" - acceptable. "I find this opinion horrifying, becasue..." - acceptable, if a bit high impact. "Ganesh is evil and wrong and not fit to practise" - unacceptable. It's all about attacking the issue, not the person.
 
 
Cat Chant
11:24 / 02.09.04
we might expect his name to come up or for people on the board to maybe even comment or ask questions.

no[-one] has a problem with that do they?


Um... no. No-one has a problem with posters being asked questions about things which they are known to be interested in or to know about. People ask me about slash; people ask Anna de Logardiere about fashion, Cameron about DC comics and Kit-Kat about Chalet School books; I once asked Ganesh by name to contribute to a Head Shop thread about gender reassignment surgery.

There's a difference between "commenting", "asking questions" and accusing people of being unfit for their job or taking an abusive tone with them. That seems to me to be the crucial issue, not whether Ganesh is as entitled as anyone else on the board to bring skills and knowledge gained from off-line experiences to bear on the topics raised here. (He is.)
 
 
Ganesh
12:09 / 02.09.04
Admittedly I have little idea of the day-to-day workings of a comics artist, but I'm guessing the nature of my job is rather different from Cameron's - as is reflected in his choice to use his Real Life name. My work brings me into daily contact with a large number of people who, by dint of illness, personality or circumstances, have a skewed sense of boundary: what is and isn't acceptable within a professional setting. This means that, statistically, any psychiatrist can expect to be the victim of concerted stalking at least once in his career - and that's a conservative estimate.

While I've been lucky enough to avoid the experiences of some of my colleagues (one of whom was kidnapped and held at knifepoint for 48 hours; another of whom has been the subject of repeated death-threats, fire-bombs and is considering leaving the country), I have, on occasion, been stalked by patients and/or their relatives - continual threatening telephone calls, being paged out of hours, angry remonstrations in out-patient clinics and emergency services when they know I'm on, "I know where you live" warnings, etc., etc. - and I didn't enjoy it. I've also been stalked over the Internet, which was similarly unpleasant.

This is why I'm cagey about keeping my professional and personal lives separate. If my previous Real Life stalker had had access to me - and my personal life - via the Internet, she'd have had many more ways to make my life a misery. That's not something I'd relish.

And yeah, I the stuff I write here does include elements of my medical and psychiatric training, and I've (perhaps recklessly) made little secret of what I do for a living (initially, when I first started on the Nexus, I avoided talking about it, but my contributions to threads on psychosis, depression, etc. made it clear that I had some sort of specialist background). I've made little secret here of my sexuality either, although it's not something I'd generally discuss with patients - again, because it gives additional ammunition to that tiny percentage who go on to obsess about their doctor to the point of stalking them.

So... it's very clear in my mind that, while I'm the product of my experiences, including medical/psychiatric training, I'm not posting in a specifically clinical capacity. I don't mind answering questions with a clinical slant, but 'how dare you, as a doctor, hold that opinion' isn't especially pertinent. I'd also appreciate it, Ria, if you didn't (ab)use me as a receptacle for your own emotional baggage.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:35 / 02.09.04
Ria,

I've read the thread in its entirety, including your post, and also this thread.

Having raised the profile of the issue quite significantly you then, strictly as it appears to me, have entered a rather vague and unstructured damnation of everyone who has deigned to watch and then be possesive of an opinion on a documentary of which you haven't even managed to state that you have seen.

Furthermore to this you have openly accused Ganesh of being in some form of breach of both professional and ethical obligation without so much as stating what you perceive these obligations to be or what has constituted any such breach. It did seem at one stage you would make clear what caused you such offence in the thread but as the subsequent challenge indicates you haven't been particularly coherent.

Were I in Ganesh's position I would feel particularly offended by the manner in which you have conducted yourself. No so much by your objections to his comments but more so to you implications that he is unfit for his position without really saying why you feel this way. I am of the opinion that, if you are going to level accusations, have the good grace to be clear as to what those accusations are.

Maybe I am taking this a little far but I feel mightily relieved that, as an employee and occasional policy developer of the British Government, you have not seen fit to rail so mightily against my very specific and clear legal advice and commentary on government or internal political developments. Some of which, if seen by my employers, might lead me to be in consideration of my future career. I suspect however this has more to with a lack of you personal involvement in the subjects concerned.

This is a discussion board, perhaps you might just consider discussing things. Ire is of no value without.

Incidently, I don't dig Ganesh, although I might lend him money if he asks nicely.
 
 
Ria
18:40 / 02.09.04
I never suggested that anyone reveal their actual names here.

the side-issue has come up so I will make an excuse to get into a digression in this post and in the next post I will dovetail back to talk about the actual issue.

the psychiatric interview and relationship has built-in inequalities. (and we won't even get into the topic of professionals who "abuse" their relationship in some way.)

what can the civilian do to restore the balance and restore some equality?

the civilian has a few options to pursue to regain part of their power.

one, to lie a lot for no reason other than to lie and amuse themselves with

two, to poke away at the professionals own weak spots and turn the experience into a game of sadomachism.

and let me just tell you, if you have spent time with psychiatric professionals you know how to fuck with people.

and the psychiatrists know how to fuck with civilians from the experience of dealing with the civilians.

I used the techniques used to disable me mentally taught to me by the therapists to bear on other kids and later on my little brother. it turns into an arms race. both sides dehumanize the other by turn.

the civilians and professionals may only realize it instinctively or they like it that way because the opponent doesn't have a chance.

ring any bells? sound like any of your colleagues?

three, you can take away that power by stalking them or by force.

in horror movie terms you stalk the vampire in hopes of breaking the spell. in real life terms Valerie Solanas shooting Warhol, saying he had too much control over her. inside her head, he did.

on a simpler level, you have no recourse to take back your life or the live of a loved ones from a powerful and faceless institution and you can do nothing except shout and threaten. I empathize with that position completely. your system drives many people into desperation.
 
 
Ganesh
19:09 / 02.09.04
Well, rather than discharge highly-charged 'issues' as personal attacks here, Ria, you might wish to start a Head Shop thread on the subject, or revive this one. Do try to engage constructively, though, rather than merely spewing bile at (that which you're projecting onto) me...
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
19:22 / 02.09.04
Tut tut. You don't *stalk* vampires. You *stake* vampires. Which is not to say that you should stake psychiatrists.

I'm sorry you have had bad experiences, Ria, and I'm sorry that you have decided that all psychiatrists are to blame, but I just don't see what Ganesh has to do with this. So far, you don't seem to have done much more than resurrect and rot a thread about a TV show you haven't watched. The Head Shop might be a better place for a discussion on gender and transgender issues...
 
 
Ria
21:05 / 02.09.04
I made no personal attacks in that last post.
 
 
Ganesh
21:40 / 02.09.04
And I didn't refer specifically to your last post in my last post. You're only advocating the SCUM-like stalking of psychiatrists generally therein, and making reference to my colleagues rather than me. So that's okay.
 
 
Olulabelle
23:22 / 02.09.04
Ria, look.

The trouble with a person knowing a lot about Psychiatry is that due to its very (assumed) nature others feel that its perfectly acceptable to relate it to anything that particular person says about ANY subject.

It appears to me that Ganesh cannot make a comment anywhere on this board without running the risk of someone assuming it's a professional opinion.

Which is upsetting.

And that's not his fault, it's the fault of the people who read what he writes. Just because a person knows a lot about a subject doesn't mean every comment that they make has direct relevance to their profession.

If I was a plumber would you apply every comment I make to that profession?

No.

So how is it acceptable in this instance, just because Ganesh's profession involves the human mind instead of horribly dodgy, leaky pipes?

Ganesh is entitled to post what he chooses to without anyone pulling him up on it (in job related fashion) regardless of whether IRL he is a Psychologist, Psychiatrist, Counsellor, Samaritan, Jehovah's Witness, Plumber, Carpenter, McDonalds Chef or just a plain old nosey neighbour.
 
 
Ria
23:31 / 02.09.04
I do not advocate stalking anyone any more than I celebrate Solanas' shooting of Warhol.
 
 
Ganesh
23:37 / 02.09.04
And I don't advocate myself having any further part in this conversation with you, Ria. So I won't.
 
 
Ria
23:40 / 02.09.04
Ottoline, when you a) use therapyspeak and b) comment on a matter you have made a head doctor specialty (transsexualism) I tend to weigh the matter as having a bit more significant.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply