Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

So, is this it for Kim?

Posted by Barbara TX on 4/27/01 at 16:08 (046006)

Scott - you will see from Kim's latest post that she has taken a private e-mail discussion that we had and brought it up on board in order to discredit me. What if I were gay and she outed me? Or having an affair? What if I had shared some personal pain with her and she revealed it to hurt me? You are a party to this if you don't stop it, and you don't protect any of us by allowing her to continually misuse the board. If this discussion isn't enough for you to ban her for a year, then what is? This is the clearest example of not being nice that I can think of, and if you don't ban her for this, all your talk about 'niceness' is cheap indeed. B.

Re: OK, Kim's blocked from posts

Scott R on 4/27/01 at 17:48 (046015)

OK, Kim divulged some personal medical information about someone in the context of taking revenge, so I'm blocking her from future posts. I feel only a little bad about this because in the past there have been numerous complaints from at least 4 different people about her posts. The block isn't fool-proof, so she could make more posts in the future. But I'm making the demand that Kim not post in the future if she finds a way around the block. The message board is still private property and I believe I have the legal right to make the demand.

Since Kim cannot respond to posts, I'm also barring anyone from saying anything negative about her.

Kim can email a 'good-bye' post to me for posting in this thread if she chooses.

My apologies to both Kim and those who have complained for not giving more warning to Kim. Kim usually seemed to take heed my warnings. I usually didn't see as much meanness in her posts as others did and had the distinct impression (on those occasions when I caerfully checked what was being said) someone was calling 'wolf' when there wasn't one. This may have led me to take complaints about her less seriously and to stop reading her posts carefully enough to check for fouls.

But she did go on and on before I detailed the new whistle and did have at least one more attack after I described it.

Re: Was it really medical information.

BrianG on 4/27/01 at 22:06 (046042)

Scott, this is really a shame. I read her post before you edited it. It didn't seem to be a medical issue at all to me. It was more of a religious / political difference. She did reveal something from a personal message, but it had nothing to do with any kind of medical issue. I thought the whole idea behind warnings, is that people would get 3 warnings before they were asked to leave? I know it's your site, but do you really have to change the rules as you go along? I think Kim should get a warning, and another chance to post.

BCG

Re: Was it really medical information.

Nancy S. on 4/27/01 at 22:32 (046043)

Brian, the primary rule has never changed; it has always been 'Be Nice.' I believe Scott is finally enforcing it for a person who has violated this rule time and time again, beginning way back, I think long before you got here. It's unfortunate, but in my opinion warranted -- and certainly not a shame. The shame is that so much nastiness could have been avoided if the golden rule had been applied long ago -- but I'm not looking back, and appreciate Scott's attention to this matter now.
Best of luck to you with your feet, Brian, and I wish you a good night.
Nancy

Re: Was it really medical information.

Nancy N on 4/28/01 at 07:18 (046054)

I just want to second what Nancy said. It's been going on for a very long time, unfortunately. Sad, but true. (Besides which, whether or not it was medical information this time, a violation of the privacy of personal email is still incredibly wrong, and points to the possibility that it could be medical information the next time)

Re: Uh, YES, that was VERY PRIVATE MEDICAL information, DUH

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 07:36 (046055)

If Kim's post had been her first to the site, I would have placed a block. Her post very clearly revealed highly private medical information. BarbaraTx was clearly aggrieved and had the right to ask for Kim to be removed. I had a responsibility to do it. Plenty of people have asked for Kim to be banned, but BarbaraTx was the first I saw that had a serious enough complaint to justify it. The others were asking because their ego had been hurt or because they were afraid of Kim hurting newcomers or otherwise hurting the message board. BarbaraTx was the first who was personally aggreived in a manner that it could have had serious consequences in her daily life for the rest of her life if what Kim had said were widely known.

Re: oops, sorry Brian and Kim, Kim can post again

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 14:59 (046079)

I jumped to a conclusion. Kim didn't reveal medical information. She can post again. I thought Brian was being stupid, but I was the stupid one. Let's not talk about this please. Let's move on. I'm gonna start doing the whistle now. Foot-topics only please.

Re: oops, sorry Brian and Kim, Kim can post again

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/28/01 at 15:34 (046081)

Wow!!!

Thought it was going to be a new day on heelspur.com But the referee is making the calls.

Re: FOUL - Dr. Z

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 15:38 (046082)

This post was judged to be against the posting agreement for the following X-marked reason(s). In most cases, no one should reply to this or the original message.

[X] The post was off-topic. The post was not about foot pain.
[] The post was not nice.**
[] The post was an offensive, suspicious, or repeating advertisement.
[] The poster attempted to be anonymous by not using their usual nickname.
[] After 3 fouls of this nature, a block may be placed on the IP address of the poster to prevent posting for 20 days or more.

** It's always OK to be honest and factual in a post that is critical, but it's not OK to merely attack, anger, or otherwise encourage useless, off-topic posts. In all posts, the emphasis should be on facts, foot pain, and helping others.
Arguments against declaring this and similar posts 'foul' should be sent to scott@heelspurs.com .

Re: oops, sorry Brian and Kim, Kim can post again

Nancy N on 4/28/01 at 17:39 (046085)

Scott--

I know this is off-topic, and I don't really care if you Foul me for posting this time. I am so disappointed in this board right now that I don't even care if you ban me. I think the people who post here should have a right to voice their opinions on this overturned decision, because it does affect all of us and how we use the board.

I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I am in this decision. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you so completely reverse your position--especially after you so rigorously defended the first decision this morning? How much trouble does someone have to cause before you finally reprimand them in a meaningful way?

I ask you to reconsider--I don't know what Kim posted, but if it upset Barb to the extent that it did, and was a breach of privacy (medical or not), then it's a pretty serious issue, in my eyes. If my right to privacy isn't going to be upheld here, then I have to seriously reconsider my participation on the board. It's been a valuable part of my life since PF, but it's not worth the possibility of my (or anyone else's) private information being posted online with no response on your part.

Re: To Scott:

Pauline on 4/28/01 at 18:17 (046088)

Scott,
I think you can be the only judge on this one. You know all the details.
For the rest of us to vote knowing nothing would be in error. If you believe Kim is able to post I think you should keep it that way until her post is objectionable to you again. To change back now is to take sides and that is my mind not correct.

Re: oops

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 18:35 (046091)

Nancy N, Kim said she and Barb argued about abortion. I mis-interpreted her words to mean that she said Barb got an abortion. When I found out I had made a mistake, I had to recant. My first post indicated that was the main if not only reason for the blocking her. If I disclosed Dr. Z and I discussed Pres Bush's China skills via email I don't think much harm would be done. If banned Kim based on Barb's hurt feelings, many others would have been banned long ago based on Kim's.

Barb attacked Kim first. They both ignored my whistle threats. I goofed when I didn't blow it on Barb. That's what prevented me from blowing it on Kim.

If Kim is so bad, she only has a few posts to make. Steve P still has a whistle.

Re: oops

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/28/01 at 20:00 (046094)

Scott.

Barbara Tx is a long time heelspur.com poster that we will never be able to even attempt to give praise for the tremendous amount of effort and caring fun that Dr. Lewi has given this board.

Please take a look at the entire postering that led to this situation. There are some personal aspect of Kim's posting that are completely out of line. Yes you are the judge and yes you will be judged by many long time posters with your decision. Maybe we need to have an open vote on should she stay or should she go.

Re: Banning

Julie on 4/29/01 at 03:19 (046131)

Hi everyone

I'm glad Scott reversed his decision about Kim: it was a brave thing to do. I did not think she should have been banned. Yes, some of her posts were inflammatory, but the situation got out of hand, and others contributed to its escalation.

In an ideal world everyone would think before they speak (or post). They would stick to facts, and be clear and compassionate, and take responsibility for what they say. But this is not an ideal world, and this forum is a place where people who are in pain, sometimes great pain, frequently vent their emotions. It has seemed to me that some of Kim's posts show a lack of self-control that probably stems from her pain. That is no excuse for attacking people, but I think it does at least partly explain the way she talks to people when she feels she herself is under attack. My guess is that she will have learned something from this episode, and if she does return to the board I will be glad to welcome her back.

I would not like to see anyone banned from the board except in very exceptional circumstances (of which I believe Scott as webmaster should be the sole judge). This is a community, a family, and if some of its members occasionally go over the top it is up to us how we deal with that. The animosity in many of the posts (not only Kim's) that have been made in the past couple of weeks has led to an unpleasant situation. But unpleasant situations are part of life, and it's for us to handle them, not to ostracize those who contribute to them. I'm sure we can do so with compassion and understanding - even for those who occasionally lose control.

Julie

Re: Banning

Nancy S. on 4/29/01 at 06:16 (046134)

Hi Julie,
In my year and a half on the board, I've found that most people here are full of compassion and understanding, not to mention intelligence, including the people who are voting. But these people are in pain also, some in great pain; and even the kindest of people have their limits, especially when they've been a target (as I have, incidentally, by Kim, on several occasions, including via a very strange email some time ago).
Less-than-kind posts in response to Kim's attacking style made by usually compassionate and understanding people are an example of what she tends to provoke, and frankly, I've grown tired of seeing that happen to people and the upshot being 'poor Kim.' Other people are being hurt too, not only as targets but because they are provoked into responding in ways that I imagine cause them great distress -- because they _are_ compassionate people.
I used to lose sleep over this, and I did again last night. And I'm extremely close to voting myself off the board, because the stress has become not worth it. Some already have.
I want to point out again that even very compassionate and understanding people have their limits, and that does not mean that they then turn into people who have no compassion or understanding.
Finally, sometimes the most compassionate thing of all that one can do for an out-of-control person is to let that person know there are limits that we _all_ have to impose on ourselves in order to get along in this world -- and that not to learn this has consequences. I haven't seen Kim as a poster learn a thing about how to treat people or how to look to herself as a primary cause of her supposed persecution -- and some people have tried Very Hard in a kind way to help her learn these things. Is it kind, in the big picture, to let this lack of learning go on? Compassion has many facets.
Nancy

Re: Banning

Pauline on 4/29/01 at 06:31 (046136)

Is our compasion limited only to foot problems?

Re: Banning

Nancy S. on 4/29/01 at 07:00 (046138)

Is our compassion limited only to foot problems, Pauline? Far from it. See the social/support board.

Re: OK, Kim's blocked from posts

Scott R on 4/27/01 at 17:48 (046015)

OK, Kim divulged some personal medical information about someone in the context of taking revenge, so I'm blocking her from future posts. I feel only a little bad about this because in the past there have been numerous complaints from at least 4 different people about her posts. The block isn't fool-proof, so she could make more posts in the future. But I'm making the demand that Kim not post in the future if she finds a way around the block. The message board is still private property and I believe I have the legal right to make the demand.

Since Kim cannot respond to posts, I'm also barring anyone from saying anything negative about her.

Kim can email a 'good-bye' post to me for posting in this thread if she chooses.

My apologies to both Kim and those who have complained for not giving more warning to Kim. Kim usually seemed to take heed my warnings. I usually didn't see as much meanness in her posts as others did and had the distinct impression (on those occasions when I caerfully checked what was being said) someone was calling 'wolf' when there wasn't one. This may have led me to take complaints about her less seriously and to stop reading her posts carefully enough to check for fouls.

But she did go on and on before I detailed the new whistle and did have at least one more attack after I described it.

Re: Was it really medical information.

BrianG on 4/27/01 at 22:06 (046042)

Scott, this is really a shame. I read her post before you edited it. It didn't seem to be a medical issue at all to me. It was more of a religious / political difference. She did reveal something from a personal message, but it had nothing to do with any kind of medical issue. I thought the whole idea behind warnings, is that people would get 3 warnings before they were asked to leave? I know it's your site, but do you really have to change the rules as you go along? I think Kim should get a warning, and another chance to post.

BCG

Re: Was it really medical information.

Nancy S. on 4/27/01 at 22:32 (046043)

Brian, the primary rule has never changed; it has always been 'Be Nice.' I believe Scott is finally enforcing it for a person who has violated this rule time and time again, beginning way back, I think long before you got here. It's unfortunate, but in my opinion warranted -- and certainly not a shame. The shame is that so much nastiness could have been avoided if the golden rule had been applied long ago -- but I'm not looking back, and appreciate Scott's attention to this matter now.
Best of luck to you with your feet, Brian, and I wish you a good night.
Nancy

Re: Was it really medical information.

Nancy N on 4/28/01 at 07:18 (046054)

I just want to second what Nancy said. It's been going on for a very long time, unfortunately. Sad, but true. (Besides which, whether or not it was medical information this time, a violation of the privacy of personal email is still incredibly wrong, and points to the possibility that it could be medical information the next time)

Re: Uh, YES, that was VERY PRIVATE MEDICAL information, DUH

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 07:36 (046055)

If Kim's post had been her first to the site, I would have placed a block. Her post very clearly revealed highly private medical information. BarbaraTx was clearly aggrieved and had the right to ask for Kim to be removed. I had a responsibility to do it. Plenty of people have asked for Kim to be banned, but BarbaraTx was the first I saw that had a serious enough complaint to justify it. The others were asking because their ego had been hurt or because they were afraid of Kim hurting newcomers or otherwise hurting the message board. BarbaraTx was the first who was personally aggreived in a manner that it could have had serious consequences in her daily life for the rest of her life if what Kim had said were widely known.

Re: oops, sorry Brian and Kim, Kim can post again

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 14:59 (046079)

I jumped to a conclusion. Kim didn't reveal medical information. She can post again. I thought Brian was being stupid, but I was the stupid one. Let's not talk about this please. Let's move on. I'm gonna start doing the whistle now. Foot-topics only please.

Re: oops, sorry Brian and Kim, Kim can post again

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/28/01 at 15:34 (046081)

Wow!!!

Thought it was going to be a new day on heelspur.com But the referee is making the calls.

Re: FOUL - Dr. Z

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 15:38 (046082)

This post was judged to be against the posting agreement for the following X-marked reason(s). In most cases, no one should reply to this or the original message.

[X] The post was off-topic. The post was not about foot pain.
[] The post was not nice.**
[] The post was an offensive, suspicious, or repeating advertisement.
[] The poster attempted to be anonymous by not using their usual nickname.
[] After 3 fouls of this nature, a block may be placed on the IP address of the poster to prevent posting for 20 days or more.

** It's always OK to be honest and factual in a post that is critical, but it's not OK to merely attack, anger, or otherwise encourage useless, off-topic posts. In all posts, the emphasis should be on facts, foot pain, and helping others.
Arguments against declaring this and similar posts 'foul' should be sent to scott@heelspurs.com .

Re: oops, sorry Brian and Kim, Kim can post again

Nancy N on 4/28/01 at 17:39 (046085)

Scott--

I know this is off-topic, and I don't really care if you Foul me for posting this time. I am so disappointed in this board right now that I don't even care if you ban me. I think the people who post here should have a right to voice their opinions on this overturned decision, because it does affect all of us and how we use the board.

I can't even begin to tell you how disappointed I am in this decision. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you so completely reverse your position--especially after you so rigorously defended the first decision this morning? How much trouble does someone have to cause before you finally reprimand them in a meaningful way?

I ask you to reconsider--I don't know what Kim posted, but if it upset Barb to the extent that it did, and was a breach of privacy (medical or not), then it's a pretty serious issue, in my eyes. If my right to privacy isn't going to be upheld here, then I have to seriously reconsider my participation on the board. It's been a valuable part of my life since PF, but it's not worth the possibility of my (or anyone else's) private information being posted online with no response on your part.

Re: To Scott:

Pauline on 4/28/01 at 18:17 (046088)

Scott,
I think you can be the only judge on this one. You know all the details.
For the rest of us to vote knowing nothing would be in error. If you believe Kim is able to post I think you should keep it that way until her post is objectionable to you again. To change back now is to take sides and that is my mind not correct.

Re: oops

Scott R on 4/28/01 at 18:35 (046091)

Nancy N, Kim said she and Barb argued about abortion. I mis-interpreted her words to mean that she said Barb got an abortion. When I found out I had made a mistake, I had to recant. My first post indicated that was the main if not only reason for the blocking her. If I disclosed Dr. Z and I discussed Pres Bush's China skills via email I don't think much harm would be done. If banned Kim based on Barb's hurt feelings, many others would have been banned long ago based on Kim's.

Barb attacked Kim first. They both ignored my whistle threats. I goofed when I didn't blow it on Barb. That's what prevented me from blowing it on Kim.

If Kim is so bad, she only has a few posts to make. Steve P still has a whistle.

Re: oops

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/28/01 at 20:00 (046094)

Scott.

Barbara Tx is a long time heelspur.com poster that we will never be able to even attempt to give praise for the tremendous amount of effort and caring fun that Dr. Lewi has given this board.

Please take a look at the entire postering that led to this situation. There are some personal aspect of Kim's posting that are completely out of line. Yes you are the judge and yes you will be judged by many long time posters with your decision. Maybe we need to have an open vote on should she stay or should she go.

Re: Banning

Julie on 4/29/01 at 03:19 (046131)

Hi everyone

I'm glad Scott reversed his decision about Kim: it was a brave thing to do. I did not think she should have been banned. Yes, some of her posts were inflammatory, but the situation got out of hand, and others contributed to its escalation.

In an ideal world everyone would think before they speak (or post). They would stick to facts, and be clear and compassionate, and take responsibility for what they say. But this is not an ideal world, and this forum is a place where people who are in pain, sometimes great pain, frequently vent their emotions. It has seemed to me that some of Kim's posts show a lack of self-control that probably stems from her pain. That is no excuse for attacking people, but I think it does at least partly explain the way she talks to people when she feels she herself is under attack. My guess is that she will have learned something from this episode, and if she does return to the board I will be glad to welcome her back.

I would not like to see anyone banned from the board except in very exceptional circumstances (of which I believe Scott as webmaster should be the sole judge). This is a community, a family, and if some of its members occasionally go over the top it is up to us how we deal with that. The animosity in many of the posts (not only Kim's) that have been made in the past couple of weeks has led to an unpleasant situation. But unpleasant situations are part of life, and it's for us to handle them, not to ostracize those who contribute to them. I'm sure we can do so with compassion and understanding - even for those who occasionally lose control.

Julie

Re: Banning

Nancy S. on 4/29/01 at 06:16 (046134)

Hi Julie,
In my year and a half on the board, I've found that most people here are full of compassion and understanding, not to mention intelligence, including the people who are voting. But these people are in pain also, some in great pain; and even the kindest of people have their limits, especially when they've been a target (as I have, incidentally, by Kim, on several occasions, including via a very strange email some time ago).
Less-than-kind posts in response to Kim's attacking style made by usually compassionate and understanding people are an example of what she tends to provoke, and frankly, I've grown tired of seeing that happen to people and the upshot being 'poor Kim.' Other people are being hurt too, not only as targets but because they are provoked into responding in ways that I imagine cause them great distress -- because they _are_ compassionate people.
I used to lose sleep over this, and I did again last night. And I'm extremely close to voting myself off the board, because the stress has become not worth it. Some already have.
I want to point out again that even very compassionate and understanding people have their limits, and that does not mean that they then turn into people who have no compassion or understanding.
Finally, sometimes the most compassionate thing of all that one can do for an out-of-control person is to let that person know there are limits that we _all_ have to impose on ourselves in order to get along in this world -- and that not to learn this has consequences. I haven't seen Kim as a poster learn a thing about how to treat people or how to look to herself as a primary cause of her supposed persecution -- and some people have tried Very Hard in a kind way to help her learn these things. Is it kind, in the big picture, to let this lack of learning go on? Compassion has many facets.
Nancy

Re: Banning

Pauline on 4/29/01 at 06:31 (046136)

Is our compasion limited only to foot problems?

Re: Banning

Nancy S. on 4/29/01 at 07:00 (046138)

Is our compassion limited only to foot problems, Pauline? Far from it. See the social/support board.