But You Don't Look Georgian?

I was recently banned from the health support site http://www.butyodontlooksick.com. It all started when my husband, whom I met on that site, posted his feelings toward complimentary and alternative medicine practices (CAM) that were being asked about on the site. The administration warned him that if he continued to post in that fashion, he would be banned from the site. N doesn’t believe that it is better to hold people’s hands and support them rather than encouraging them to not pursue dangerous forms of alternative treatment (ie homeopathy kills babies; http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/homeopathy-kills/).

I will include what was said in the moderator forum, as through a recent email exchange with one of the administrators, it has been made clear that the owner of the site has the evidence of my posts in the mod forum. The tone of the email was to the effect of “we will use this against you if you don’t keep quiet”. Well, since I have already been banned, they can’t do much more than that. The point is that even if they did choose to use my posts as evidence of my treachery, I will not contest any of it. I freely admit that I stand by what I wrote, so using it against me would be an extremely weak tactic on their part; using it against me means that they think that exposing my words will unearth something about myself I don’t wish to see published. They are operating under the misapprehension that if they expose what I wrote, it will harm me. On the contrary, it can only help my case and hurt theirs.

When N was warned, another moderator posted in the moderator forum about it. I said in that private moderator forum that I would support N’s views, as they are similar to my own. Before this, I made it clear that I had avoided posting in the CAM forum, thinking it better to leave people to their ignorance, and if they came to harm because of it, it was no skin off my teeth.

I made it quite clear in the moderator forum that this was the reason I chose not to post often in the CAM forum, and I reminded the administration of this fact. I also explained why N’s views are what they are, and that I have an insight into his behaviour that nobody else on BYDLS does, because I live with him 24 hours a day. The response from Linda was that I was making excuses for N, and that excuses and explanations were one and the same. The logical conclusion to draw from this is that no explanation whatsoever could meet with their collective approval.

Carolyn, another moderator, also expressed the belief and hope “that I could remain neutral” – which in this case means siding with the hearts-and-flowers mentality of BYDLS. That is an extremely naive position to take. In response, they could say “Oh, no, we mean TRULY neutral.” Such a position is an impossibility.

Another question was asked – would I tolerate N’s type of behaviour if it came from another member, with whom I was not emotionally involved? I replied that I could not give them the answer that they wanted to year – which was “no” – because I had never lived with nor shared my life in such a way with any other member, therefore the comparison was not valid.

A day or so after the exchange in the moderator forum, I woke up, tried to log on to BYDLS, and found that both my username and that of my husband had been banned. I saw no reason to keep quiet about this fact, because I was never warned specifically that I personally would be banned if my behaviour did not at once become contrite and respectful.

I posted on Facebook about it in conjunction with and support of my husband’s Facebook posts, and was promptly chastised for doing so by the BYDLS administration. Apparently, it is improper to discuss events in one’s life on a public forum when all attempts to do so in private have been met with pleading ignorance and dishonesty. There is no recourse available.

Now, let’s look at the evidence that BYDLS presents:

1) I publicly compared one of the administrators, Linda, the one who is publicly visible as making the decisions on the forum: whom to ban, whom to chastise, which members need a slap on the wrist, and which get let off with seemingly atrocious behavior – to Stalin. As a Russophile, it was the first one which came to me as being logical. I explained in the moderator forum and on Facebook that I chose it because I am a Russophile. If I had been a student of American history, I would have compared her to George W Bush. The title of my blog post refers to Stalin’s place of birth – Georgia, in the former USSR.

I explained that this metaphor was quite apt, as BYDLS is literally large and unwieldy, like the former Soviet Union, and that like Stalin, the public perception of Linda is that she is alone at the helm, and has the appearance of complete power to do whatever she likes. The counter-argument was made that Linda is NOT alone at the helm, that there are two other administrators present on the boards at all times, and that all major decisions are made between the three administrators in private conversations. However, since these conversations are made outside the knowledge of anyone except the three administrators, how are we to assume that Linda is not the sole arbiter?

I repeated that the salient point was that although everyone is aware that there are three administrators total on BYDLS, the public perception was that of Linda alone at the helm. Stalin had helpers behind the scenes too, and nobody ever saw the things they did; actually, I would bet that most of them eventually fell from grace and were sent to the gulag. Linda replied that the comparison to Stalin wash harsh.

That’s the point – it was meant to be harsh. If you do not want to be criticised, do not do things that people can criticise you for. I fully expect to be criticised for writing this blog post.

2) My explanation of N’s behaviour was met with disregard when I brought it up privately in the moderator forum. Interestingly, the administrators counter-claim was that I disregarded the points they made in rebuttal. I did not. I read their posts, made a decision that they did not hold water for me, and chose accordingly to support my husband rather than the BYDLS organization. Their philosophy is that all opinions are worthy of respect. I disagree. I respect what earns my respect, and BYDLS has not. Respect is not to be doled out to everyone. Should I respect the idea that pink unicorns may live in Russell’s Teapot?

One piece of evidence that BYDLS has commented on obliquely was another spoonie’s personal blog post regarding her experiences with BYDLS.

http://newly-nerfed.net/2010/06/18/weekend-sendoff-but-you-dont-look-spammy/

The article painted BYDLS in an unfavourable light, and apparently my reading it and posting a link to it on Facebook without my own comments on what I thought of the article is an affront to BYDLS. Since many people use Facebook and Twitter to tell their contacts what they are reading online, there is as yet no statute to prevent people linking to whatever they are reading. If others choose to be offended by something I read, that is their problem.

Gee, this sounds familiar: Crohn's patient kicked off a Crohn's support forum because he advocated that CAMmers should not take MMS, which is basically bleach: http://thewelshboyo.wordpress.com/2010/08/10/bleachgate/