Us against Them: The "Victim" Thread

[Granville57]

Here’s an idea!

Since there seems to be a continuous wave of posters who are convinced that they are unjustly shut-down or shut-out, why not have ONE thread where all their concerns can be voiced WITHOUT derailing their thread of choice where an existing topic is already struggling to stay on point?

(If the full title of this thread is deemed too condescending, then by all means, Moderator intervention should come into play.)

When a new member announces their arrival by offering their own assessment of the climate of the forum (usually The Clinic), and what they perceive to be the prevailing attitude of the forum itself, could we not immediately shift the conversation here with the hopes of preserving the original thread that they so eagerly and rudely interrupted in the first place?

Or whenever the regular trolls feel the need to unleash their own insistence that they are treated unfairly, could that not also be hashed out here?

Since these same "members" would appear to be obsessed with the notion that they are singled-out for not sharing the exact same view as "the rest of us," let this be a place for all grievances to be aired and for that particular topic to be discussed.

I just don’t see the need, reason or justification to tolerate the I'm-here-to-tell-you-what-I-think-about-all-of-you derailments.

Call me crazy.

 

[skippythepinhead]

It just might work--

as long as you promise if one of my posts gets sent here that you won't report it to my boss and try to get me fired.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Your proposition gives oxygen for crazy ideas to breed. What you'll get is an Anti-Clinic where Ricco's failed transfusion is actually an Internet hoax and similar junk.

What's needed is a way for posts to be moderated up. The software powering the forum doesn't appear to have it. Few do.

Part of the job for some is to repeat this stuff. Sometimes people have a hard time wrapping their brains around the obvious. I want a hall of shame for some of these geniuses.

Start a hall of shame thread. Similar to your victim thread only much improved!

 

[Benotti69]

how about they píss off back to livewrong hq

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I like the idea of a 'victim' thread, although I can't see it working out.

Imagine the Orwellian screams of , "...you just think your argument is more equal than my equally valid argument!". I think we just went through that on the french rider thread...

The argument from the sophists is ridiculous. From what I've seen here, the pro-LA group bases a lot of what they argue/believe on faith; whereas the contra-LA group seems driven to find imprical evidence one way, or the other.

Good luck reining in those who are chock-full of furvor on either side. You can argue an opinion ad-infinitum (there are plenty of attempts in the Clinic), since an opinion is just that. An opinion.

These clowns want to be heard. Sending them to another thread is a great idea, but I have no faith in anyone sticking to it.

Maybe they just like reading their own words to themselves...

 

[Granville57]

As I stated in the OP, I fully accept that the title of this thread could be taken as condescending, so maybe we can use this to further discuss just what type of thread might best serve the intended purpose.

It just seems that when someone comes storming (or slithering) in with statements not far from, "I see what goes on here, and you guys all think you're so smart, special and blah, blah, blah..." that there should be somewhere for the mods to redirect the rant rather than having to delete it or watch it derail the subject at hand.

For that matter, with a thread setup expressly for the purpose of allowing people to vent, what very well might be, legitimate concerns over too much of a one-sided debate, then there would be no excuse for not taking those concerns to the appropriate thread to begin with. And I don't accept the sometimes-offered argument that relegating a topic to the "About" forum means that the topic will get ignored. In fact, I suspect that the very people most eager to jump into the debate will do so regardless of its location.

If someone wants/needs a platform to enlighten "the rest of us" with their "view from the outside," then let's give them one. Better here than in the middle of an existing thread with a topic all its own.

 

[Race Radio]

TFF might post here often, but he mostly says he fully deserved his suspension and he will never do it again......until he does it again.

 

[Francois the Postman]

a) I can see what you are trying to do BUT

b) the whole premise and tone is that people who are bringing this stuff up are wrong or trolls. I get you are trying to phrase it so it is not judgmental, but it is. The reason why I am saying that is that

c) you are not arguing that people should then also shut up about "you all can only have this opinion if you are paid, a troll, deranged, drunk, mentally ***, etc. Posts that are equally annoying and derailing in the [Clinic] threads, and frequently chicken-and-egg counterparts to the "you lot are all...." posts.

d) arguably, this thread could even serve to (unintentionally) shut one "side's" opinion out of threads, but keeping the other ones firmly in threads. Which would, ironically, mean that this is another illustration why some people feel that their genuinely held opinion just doesn't get room to be taken seriously here.

There is something about this thread and the angle that I am really not happy about. There is no officially sanctioned superior opinion here, posters who are right 100% of the time, or know for sure for starters. I have followed the clinic for years now, and I think it is fair to say that although most of us are pretty informed, we are all speculating to varying degrees, even the stuff we are really really sure about. [I know you are not saying that, but the "they are wrong" tone lingers firmly in the background for me]

I do genuinely think that several of the people who are quickly painted as trolls here still raise very valid points from time to tome, which are easily, often, and conveniently ignored and brushed away as they are "coming from a troll".

I know you are trying to help, but I really want to think this through, before it becomes yet another way to batter one type of opinion with, unintentional as it might be.

 

[The Gnome]

"The argument from the sophists is ridiculous. From what I've seen here, the pro-LA group bases a lot of what they argue/believe on faith; whereas the contra-LA group seems driven to find imprical evidence one way, or the other."

So it is kinda like the age old Science Versus Religion boxing match?

I like that description...very eloquent and pretty much nails the jist of the thing.

 

[JPM London]

While I appreciate and fully support the wish for and ideas that can help maintain a well functioning discussion forum, we also need to remember what the whole idea of a discussion forum is - Discussion...

I also completely agree w the good Postman that this could have some very undesired effects. It's basically akin to setting up an actual thought police (albeit with the intention of underlining the fact there is none!) and I see vivid pictures of people running around crying wolf all the time and other people having stars affixed to their jackets.

 

[Granville57]

I can see what you are trying to do BUT...
the whole premise and tone is that people who are bringing this stuff up are wrong or trolls. I get you are trying to phrase it so it is not judgmental, but it is.

I freely admit to it being judgmental which is why I quickly shifted from trying to create a thread that I had in mind, to one of discussion about the possibility of such a thread. I could've been more diplomatic about the way I raised this issue but I didn't want to come across as too disingenuous either. I'll try to offer a more balanced perspective from here on out.

Is there a “tone” to my OP? Absolutely. It was emotionally motivated and not nearly as neutral as it would have to be in order to actually become the corner stone of what I am hoping to achieve.

you are not arguing that people should then also shut up about "you all can only have this opinion if you are paid, a troll, deranged, drunk, mentally ***, etc.

Perhaps I didn’t argue that explicitly, but the implicit part was my suggestion that the ones that tend to do that the most would, more than likely, be more than happy to continue those accusations even if the discussion were shifted somewhere else—thereby leaving the original thread as intact as possible. Both sides are disruptive. Agreed.

There is something about this thread and the angle that I am really not happy about.

I completely understand the concern. Had I originally approached this topic more judiciously, I never would’ve used words such as “their,” which immediately puts up a fence between opposing sides, and plants a flag, of sorts, on "my side." I'm not looking to be the sheriff in town nor am I suggesting that we start "burning posts" so to speak.

we are all speculating to varying degrees...

Absolutely, and this is a point that both sides need to remember. Just as when someone starts screaming that there is “no proof that [insert favorite target] cheated, etc” they always seem to forget that we don’t actually need proof. This isn’t a court of law. It’s a forum and speculating makes up most of what goes on here (this obviously doesn’t apply to instances of links to validated facts and such).

I do genuinely think that several of the people who are quickly painted as trolls here still raise very valid points from time to time, which are easily, often, and conveniently ignored and brushed away as they are "coming from a troll".

This definitely happens, but those are usually within the context of the thread itself. I am only referring to those instances where someone feels the need to discuss whether or not an unfair bias exists or whether “group think” has replaced legitimate and useful debate. It just doesn’t seem to benefit anyone if that particular discussion overtakes an already existing topic.

While I appreciate and fully support the wish for and ideas that can help maintain a well functioning discussion forum, we also need to remember what the whole idea of a discussion forum is - Discussion....

And that’s exactly what I’m trying encourage. But when someone comes on and claims things like, “I’ve been lurking for some time now, and let me tell you what I think of this place,” that never seems to lead to any “discussion.” I do think it’s a valid and important discussion to have, but attempting to have that discussion in the middle of an entirely different one has yet to be very effective—for either side.

In the end, that’s all I’m suggesting: A place to have that discussion.

In much the same way that diverting a thread about Wiggins with talking points about Lemond (unless of course they apply directly to the conversation) would be discouraged, or redirected, or deleted, it seems that at least one reason that the debates about “group think” go on for so long, and become so vitriolic, is that there is nowhere to actually have that debate.

Can we give that debate a home all its own?

 

[Granville57]

As a follow up to my previous post, something else just occurred to me:

Since this really does seem to be an issue unique to The Clinic, perhaps the most effective way to encourage a debate about whether or not some opinions are “overruled,” would be to have such a thread in The Clinic itself as opposed to the “About” sub-forum. That way, whenever a particular topic comes along that is most likely to ignite the “Us against Them” debate, the dedicated thread would naturally jump to the top and everyone could “have at it” to their hearts content and no one would have to feel ignored or slighted by having their opinions moved to an entirely different sub-forum.

The one problem I could foresee, however, is that it would only take one member to make a daily post along the lines of, “You people are all crazy in here!” to keep that thread at the very top of the listings, which could easily become tiresome.

But, I suppose that’s why we have moderators!

I also happen to think that a good deal of the success of such a thread would depend upon its title. Maybe we could toss around a few suggestions here.
I’ll start.

The right to be heard: Is The Clinic too one-sided?

 

[Granville57]

I also completely agree w the good Postman that this could have some very undesired effects. It's basically akin to setting up an actual thought police (albeit with the intention of underlining the fact there is none!) and I see vivid pictures of people running around crying wolf all the time and other people having stars affixed to their jackets.

I wanted to address this concern specifically by explaining one thing. I'm going to assume that what may have set off some alarm bells for JPM London & Francois was this part of the OP:

Or whenever the regular trolls feel the need to unleash their own insistence that they are treated unfairly, could that not also be hashed out here?

Since these same "members" would appear to be obsessed with the notion that they are singled-out for not sharing the exact same view as "the rest of us," let this be a place for all grievances to be aired and for that particular topic to be discussed.

Let me just clarify that was thinking specifically of those people who have, in fact, proven themselves to be repeat trolls and have ended up being banned, sometimes permanently. So it's not like I'm imagining things. If they had something deemed to be worthy of a contribution, they'd still be around. I wasn't the one handing out bans, after all.


One final point:

I know you are not saying that, but the "they are wrong" tone lingers firmly in the background for me

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the part below didn't help. I'm finding this to be a rather difficult topic to fully articulate.

If someone wants/needs a platform to enlighten "the rest of us" with their "view from the outside," then let's give them one. Better here than in the middle of an existing thread with a topic all its own.

Hopefully all my previous ramblings have better illustrated the idea I was trying to get at, as opposed to the above remark.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

a) I can see what you are trying to do BUT...

I know you are trying to help, but I really want to think this through, before it becomes yet another way to batter one type of opinion with, unintentional as it might be.

Glad to see a mod chimed in here. Gran's idea is not a bad one. Maybe give it a try and if it doesn't work out then can't the proposed "victim" (or whatever it's called) thread just be closed?

 

[pmcg76]

All I will say is that the most recent poster banned never made any effort to actually discuss the subject of threads. Instead they chose to criticise other posters for putting forward their judgements and opinions on the subjects being discussed.

This is a forum for putting forward opinions and ideas, no matter how ridiculous, its just up to them to justify their position, right or wrong. So for someone to sign up and criticise those for doing so is just ridiculous.

The poster has been banned for a week, yet will come back and do exactly the same thing. They claim they are being victimised but if you dont want to discuss the subject, then what can you expect.

 

[Cobblestoned]

This is just (fun?) to cool it down and not meant bad.

After watching Big Lebowski (again) last night, I got the feeling that the so called haters, especially the hardcore-haters and trolls are obviously like Walter Sobchak. Of course just from my POV.
They act, behave, think and talk like him. Not only in case of HWSNBN.
I really LMAO all the time now, when making that references and watching Walter.
Of course you need some fantasy and it might not all fit perfectly.
Most fanboys here are more dude-ish, smokey, Donny or others.
And No, I am not one of ze Nihilists.

I edited some of the quotes, so that they match better and you see what I mean.


for example:
Walter's vietnamstorys = Lance pee and other doping storys (of other riders) always repeated in special situations and regular cycles, even in racingforum


Walter Sobchak: Those fast shacks! This whole ****ing thing... I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this ****ing strumpet...
The Dude: I don't see any connection to Doping, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection.

Walter Sobchak: Fanboy, I got Floyd's face down in the muck so that you and I could enjoy cycling!

The Dude: God damn you Walter! You ****in' hater! Everything's a ****in' travesty with you, man! And what was all that **** about doping? What the ****, has anything got to do with hookers? What the **** are you talking about?



Shabbos+bowling = cycling

Walter Sobchak: Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Greg LeMond...
You're goddamn right I'm living in the ****ing past!


Walter Sobchak: OVER THE LINE!
Smokey: Huh?
Walter Sobchak: I'm sorry, Smokey. Lance was over the line, that's a foul.
Smokey: Bull****. Mark it 7, Dude.
Walter Sobchak: Uh, excuse me. Mark it zero. Next.
Smokey: Bull****, Walter. Mark it 7, Dude.
Walter Sobchak: Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is cycling. There are rules.

The Dude: Walter, ya know, it's Lance, so his toe slipped over the line a little, big deal. It's just a sport, man.
Walter Sobchak: Dude, this was a bikerace, this determines who enters the hall of fame. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
Smokey: Yeah, but he wasn't over. Gimme the marker Dude, I'm marking it 7.
Walter Sobchak: [pulls out a gun] Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
The Dude: Walter...
Walter Sobchak: You mark that a 7, and you're entering a world of pain.
Smokey: I'm not...
Walter Sobchak: A world of pain.
Smokey: Dude, he's an idol...
Walter Sobchak: [shouting] Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a **** about the rules? Mark it zero!
The Dude: They're calling the mods, put the piece away.
Walter Sobchak: Mark it zero!
[points gun in Smokey's face]
The Dude: Walter...
Walter Sobchak: [shouting] You think I'm ****ing around here? Mark it zero!
Smokey: All right, it's ****ing zero. Are you happy, you crazy ****?
Walter Sobchak: ...It's a bikerace, Smokey.



Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to SI's story, flicker?
Polish: Walter...
flicker: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to SI's story?
flicker: I was watching cycling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, flicker. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
Polish: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no ****ing reason why...
flicker: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?




other matching (edited) quotes, no order:

Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?

Walter Sobchak: An Olsen twin, Dude.

Walter Sobchak: fanboy, you're out of your element!

The Dude: Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, hater.

Walter Sobchak: ...I did not watch Simeoni's face down in the muck so...

Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: No you're not wrong.
Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: You're not wrong Walter. You're just a hater.
Walter Sobchak: Okay then.


Walter Sobchak: Also, let's not forget - let's *not* forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either.
The Dude: What are you, a ****ing park ranger now?
Walter Sobchak: No, I'm...
The Dude: Who gives a **** about the ****ing marmot!





Just try it.
I know most of you won't agree, but sometimes it really looks like that around here. Many, many parallels....

 

[Granville57]

This is just (fun?) to cool it down and not meant bad.<snip>

Just try it.
I know most of you won't agree, but sometimes it really looks like that around here. Many, many parallels....

In the spirit of this thread, I took Cobblestoned off my ignore list to read his post.

I haven't the slightest idea what he just said.

Where's that button again?

 

[blutto]

This is just (fun?) to cool it down and not meant bad.

After watching Big Lebowski (again) last night, I got the feeling that the so called haters, especially the hardcore-haters and trolls are obviously like Walter Sobchak. Of course just from my POV.
They act, behave, think and talk like him. Not only in case of HWSNBN.
I really LMAO all the time now, when making that references and watching Walter.
Of course you need some fantasy and it might not all fit perfectly.
Most fanboys here are more dude-ish, smokey, Donny or others.
And No, I am not one of ze Nihilists.

I edited some of the quotes, so that they match better and you see what I mean.


for example:
Walter's vietnamstorys = Lance pee and other doping storys (of other riders) always repeated in special situations and regular cycles, even in racingforum


Walter Sobchak: Those fast shacks! This whole ****ing thing... I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this ****ing strumpet...
The Dude: I don't see any connection to Doping, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection.

Walter Sobchak: Fanboy, I got Floyd's face down in the muck so that you and I could enjoy cycling!

The Dude: God damn you Walter! You ****in' hater! Everything's a ****in' travesty with you, man! And what was all that **** about doping? What the ****, has anything got to do with hookers? What the **** are you talking about?



Shabbos+bowling = cycling

Walter Sobchak: Three thousand years of beautiful tradition, from Moses to Greg LeMond...
You're goddamn right I'm living in the ****ing past!


Walter Sobchak: OVER THE LINE!
Smokey: Huh?
Walter Sobchak: I'm sorry, Smokey. Lance was over the line, that's a foul.
Smokey: Bull****. Mark it 7, Dude.
Walter Sobchak: Uh, excuse me. Mark it zero. Next.
Smokey: Bull****, Walter. Mark it 7, Dude.
Walter Sobchak: Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is cycling. There are rules.

The Dude: Walter, ya know, it's Lance, so his toe slipped over the line a little, big deal. It's just a sport, man.
Walter Sobchak: Dude, this was a bikerace, this determines who enters the hall of fame. Am I wrong? Am I wrong?
Smokey: Yeah, but he wasn't over. Gimme the marker Dude, I'm marking it 7.
Walter Sobchak: [pulls out a gun] Smokey, my friend, you are entering a world of pain.
The Dude: Walter...
Walter Sobchak: You mark that a 7, and you're entering a world of pain.
Smokey: I'm not...
Walter Sobchak: A world of pain.
Smokey: Dude, he's an idol...
Walter Sobchak: [shouting] Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a **** about the rules? Mark it zero!
The Dude: They're calling the mods, put the piece away.
Walter Sobchak: Mark it zero!
[points gun in Smokey's face]
The Dude: Walter...
Walter Sobchak: [shouting] You think I'm ****ing around here? Mark it zero!
Smokey: All right, it's ****ing zero. Are you happy, you crazy ****?
Walter Sobchak: ...It's a bikerace, Smokey.



Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to SI's story, flicker?
Polish: Walter...
flicker: What?
Walter Sobchak: Were you listening to SI's story?
flicker: I was watching cycling.
Walter Sobchak: So you have no frame of reference here, flicker. You're like a child who wanders into the middle of a movie and wants to know...
Polish: (interrupting) Walter, Walter, what's the point, man?
Walter Sobchak: There's no reason - here's my point, dude, there's no ****ing reason why...
flicker: Yeah, Walter, what's your point?




other matching (edited) quotes, no order:

Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?

Walter Sobchak: An Olsen twin, Dude.

Walter Sobchak: fanboy, you're out of your element!

The Dude: Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, hater.

Walter Sobchak: ...I did not watch Simeoni's face down in the muck so...

Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: No you're not wrong.
Walter Sobchak: Am I wrong?
The Dude: You're not wrong Walter. You're just a hater.
Walter Sobchak: Okay then.


Walter Sobchak: Also, let's not forget - let's *not* forget, Dude - that keeping wildlife, an amphibious rodent, for uh, domestic, you know, within the city - that aint legal either.
The Dude: What are you, a ****ing park ranger now?
Walter Sobchak: No, I'm...
The Dude: Who gives a **** about the ****ing marmot!





Just try it.
I know most of you won't agree, but sometimes it really looks like that around here. Many, many parallels....

...OK, that may be the long way around the block, but that just about nails it...brilliant!...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Boeing]

OK OK I'll take ozpsychofan69 off ignore. my bad

 

[auscyclefan94]

I wish I found this thread earlier.

 

[Boeing]

I wish I found this thread earlier.

me too yup

 

[JA.Tri]

I wanted to address this concern specifically by explaining one thing. I'm going to assume that what may have set off some alarm bells for JPM London & Francois was this part of the OP:
Let me just clarify that was thinking specifically of those people who have, in fact, proven themselves to be repeat trolls and have ended up being banned, sometimes permanently. So it's not like I'm imagining things. If they had something deemed to be worthy of a contribution, they'd still be around. I wasn't the one handing out bans, after all.


One final point:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the part below didn't help. I'm finding this to be a rather difficult topic to fully articulate.

Hopefully all my previous ramblings have better illustrated the idea I was trying to get at, as opposed to the above remark.

I agree with the general sentiment of the thread and this post. However a worthy contributor may be banned for 1 inappropriate post...does this then qualify previously worthy contributor as being "unworthy"? Equally does an egregious troll have nil ability to post a "valid"/"worthy" thought??

*worthy, valid are relative, even "well reasoned" depends on perspective. I guess I intend "on point, respectful".

 

[Granville57]

...a worthy contributor may be banned for 1 inappropriate post...does this then qualify previously worthy contributor as being "unworthy"? Equally does an egregious troll have nil ability to post a "valid"/"worthy" thought?

You raise a perfectly good point and it only further illustrates how my word choice has not been ideal throughout this thread.

Without a doubt, some members who have received bans are also the same ones who contribute a wealth of very, very valuable and important posts.

And of course, even the most disruptive trolls can raise issues and questions that need to be considered. I chose to avoid calling people out specifically, but that line was really directed at the one entity that is on, shall we say, "permanent ban" yet keeps returning.

But nevertheless, whether a repeat offender or first-time poster—having a specific place for anyone's grievances about the "climate" of the forum itself could be useful so that those opinions can be expressed without the need to completely derail an existing topic.

That could be another possible thread title:

The Clinic weather report: What's the climate in here?

or

Checking the pulse of The Clinic

 

[Granville57]

I guess this stuff is still rattling around inside my skull.

Here are excerpts from some recent exchanges in the "Gilbert" clinic thread that illustrate what I'm talking about.

I wouldnt start this if his fanboys didnt get on other peoples backs for doping.

End this tread

Look, if you don't like such threads, stay out of the clinic...

I suppose it might be the time to point out that since there was a 200 + post thread about Cancellara doping, I am perfectly entitled to make the same thread about Gilbert.

You are entitled to question every rider who throws his leg over a bike. I'm not sure why you do though. I would find another sport.

Is that true? Because this thread was not started with a question, but with a statement. <snip>
There is freedom of speech, but there is also defamation. Without the slightest evidence, I think we are close to the second one here...

There often seems to be another issues simmering just beneath the surface that never really gets fully addressed. As a result, it always seems to come up. In the example above it didn't derail the thread, but those same questions always return. And let's be honest, none of the above posts are really about Gilbert. This is the same cycle that gets repeated over and over again.

Of course I could've just started a thread in The Clinic about this topic on my own, but I bring it here for a reason. I think it would be helpful to the overall discussion if instead of sometimes slamming the door on objections to the topic itself (as Barrus was doing, perhaps with good reason, in the above) why not let that opposing discussion (about the nature of the topic, as opposed to the details of it) develop on its own, in a different thread but still within the confines of The Clinic?

Mods would have to come to some agreement on this, like with the use of the "Lance," "Floyd" and "Contador" threads.

Here's another title suggestion:

Clinical or Cynical: What's in play here?

 

[JPM London]

Granville, as noted earlier I get the concern you're airing and I think we all - including the people who prefer to discuss form rather than content - want a well oiled forum. This is an immense challenge in the clinic it seems although the dirt slinging does seep over into some of the other less "dangerous" forums as well.

The quotes you selected here and posted are funnily enough some I also noted in there today and I do think they underline the fact that the clinic can be quite a battle ground.

Just to let you know I'm following the thread here, maybe not adding my own comments and thoughts for now, but definitely following it... At the moment I definitely feel that it's good to have a discussion about the discussion - so to speak.