This message was self-deleted by its author

[BainsBane]

This message was self-deleted by its author (BainsBane) on Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:14 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Tobin S.]

1. That person should probably be blocked from this group.

How about a link? I'd at least inform a host of this group if not the rest of us.

[Tobin S.]

3. I can see how that PM was taken the wrong way

But, regardless, PMs should not be made public. I think it violates a broader community standard. NYC_SKP should have alerted on the PM if he or she thought it was offensive.

[kickysnana]

13. +1

[Denninmi]

4. It sucks when you try to do the right thing and people take it the wrong way.

But, bottom line is, you did try to do the right thing. So try not to let it hurt -- I know, much easier said than done.

[BainsBane]

5. I was just wondering about you

Thanks for the support. How are you doing?

[Denninmi]

8. Fine. TY for asking.

Been rocking and rolling at work on tax season and doing all of the fun stuff on the side, so I can't complain.

[HereSince1628]

6. This is a topic for Meta-discussion

[BainsBane]

7. no, it isn't

It is not for the amusement of the entirety of DU. It is about the confidentiality among a group of people with mental illness. Meta is the last place this belongs.

[Denninmi]

9. Agree.

Seems better here due to the sensitive nature. But ymmv.

[HereSince1628]

12. It unfortunately requires identification and discussion of another MHSG member/DUer

as a non-party to the discussion. That's something done fairly regularly within the framework of Meta and the definition of metadiscussion is discussion about discussion which this is.

Perhaps Tobin or one of the other founders of the group can comment on whether MHSG has always had a practice of allowing originating posts that include callouts. If that's not the case, perhaps Mo can comment on whether MSHG is turning to a new policy.

[HereSince1628]

10. I disagree. But if you want to make it about MHSG practice then...

I would say you skated along the outer margins of the envelope of long standing practices of MHSG and more generally DU.

It seems plain enough you went beyond the other DUer's boundaries of comfort, regardless of intent. That's the stuff of which apologies can be built.

You took information you knew from MHSG and acted on it outside of MHSG. As it turns out, that was done in a manner that was objectionable to the person you contacted. Regardless of your intent.

You invoked a very common stigmatizing phrase (you need your meds checked) against the mentally ill, even if your intent was good that's an exceptionally tricky business.

You played MD by long distance when you started dx'ing mania, even if your intent was good.

[BainsBane]

11. on rereading the post

I see that. I tried to make my intent clear in the thread in which he posted the PM.

[HereSince1628]

15. And IMO it would have been best worked out between the two of you.

The original screw up is now compounded by the call out here of another MHSG member for what happened in a main forum.

There are many MHSG readers who aren't posters in MHSG because they fear this sort of thing. How do you suppose people with those concerns read your subject line?

[BainsBane]

16. I see your point

that was the last thing I wanted to do, which is why I didn't provide his name. I'll self delete.

[kickysnana]

14. +1