Hi David,

Thank you for your unrelenting work on this forum and its
continuance. We all respect and admire you so much.

Your response to Aurelia was intelligent, thoughtful and showed how
you evaluate things carefully rather than go in and punish every
dubious poster.

How insightful and sensitive to understand that some first time
posters actually do not conciously advocate bad rosacea treatments,
simply perhaps that the disease is new to them and they know no
better.

I'm sure these posters will in the future be very grateful to all on
this forum, who will further educate them with more knowledge. So it
is wiser and more compassionate to err on the side of caution. Hey
there may be some dubious people lurking around but it's safer to
watch their future posts and then perhaps decide whether they are a
danger or simply a new comer. There are enough extremely intelligent
well informed members on this forum to ensure dangerous treatments
never get the wrong publicity.

These forums are exactly what is needed to educate those that aren't
so cluey, so as David said 'I'd prefer to let open debate rage'.

Aurelia says 'but if it's a bad thing to submit irresponsible posts,
isn't it even worse to accept them? Why are posts advocating
successful treatments accepted onto this board?'

Because in my opinion, an informed and educated decision can only be
made by accepting that the world is full of opinions and theories -
good and bad and through this forum we protect each other from the
bad. It would be irresponsible to dismiss these people simply because
perhaps at the moment this is all they know, as dangerous as it
sounds to us.

As David so intelligently put it 'What I consider dangerous and
unworthy, may have some truth deep down, or something worthwhile on
some level'.

I'd like to think that I am being educated from every level and to
censor the forum would not give a realistic picture of what rosacea
sufferers have endured, have been misinformed about etc. So we learn
from this too, just as we would useful information.

Aurelia asks David 'PLEASE be tougher next time'. Aggression and the
implied threats to the original poster, that he may have crossed the
line and may be banned probably upset him more than we'll ever
realise. I don't think that's fair.

I think David's message dealt a much mightier blow by being delivered
with dignity, responsibility, intelligence and faith that we on the
forum will protect each other from dangerous information.

Thank you David for your supreme work.

Mermaid




--- In rosacea-support@yahoogroups.com, David Pascoe <pascoedj@g...>
wrote:
> Thanks Aurelia,
>
> I do prefer to be hands off and to prove that this board really
isn't
> about the moderators. We do reject a few posts every now and then,
> mostly with swearing, spam, insults and the like. One has to work
> extra hard to earn a banning, but every so often someone is rewarded
> for their hard work (ok thats a joke, just hinting that the decision
> is not taken lightly and you need to demonstrate your
recalcitrance).
>
> So back to your idea of not allowing dangerous posts. It would
> actually be too difficult to police something like that. Everyone
> would be subject to the arbitrary decision of a few. What I consider
> dangerous and unworthy may have some truth deep down, or something
> worthwhile on some level. (hidden in the post was mention of
> fluconozole which might be helpful in some circumstances for eg. but
> it was too full of other dangerous info). Also you can never know if
> someone is just new and uninformed, or a long lurker and
pathological.
>
> I'd prefer to let open debate rage, and allow for intelligent and
> factual rebuttals. Actually on that front Aurelia, you are a great
> intelligent rebutteler (try finding that in a dictionary!), thanks
for
> being a great resources for the group in keeping up with the quack
> watching.
>
> regards,
> davidp.
>
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:13:33 +1300, aurelia.dawn
> <aurelia.dawn@c...> wrote:
> > Hi David.
> >
> > First of all, please let me say that like most members of this
group, I have
> > the greatest respect and admiration for you and for the years of
selfless
> > work that have gone into providing us with this wonderful board.
Most of us
> > would find the struggle against rosacea very much harder without
your help,
> > and that of our dear Matija.
> >
> > However (yes, there is always a "however"! ;) I was surprised by
your
> > message complaining about the post by Grubber1. Yes, it is
terrible when
> > people "advocate dangerous treatments that they should know
better about,
> > and can be devastating to peoples' rosacea". Of course it is
irresponsible
> > to say "these may be harmful, just for your info".
> >
> > Your anger is understandable, but why respond by "being extra
polite"?
> > Honestly, who will benefit from that?
> >
> > It's good that you've posted a warning, saying: "Please, everyone
keep away
> > from these chemicals", but if it's a bad thing to submit
irresponsible
> > posts, isn't it even worse to accept them? Why are posts
advocating such
> > treatments accepted onto this board?
> >
> > We know you don't like banning people or removing posts, but
there are other
> > rosacea groups where Grubber1's dangerous message would be right
at home.
> > PLEASE be a bit tougher next time.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Aurelia
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> David Pascoe, pascoedj@g...