----- Original Message ----- From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 1:56 PM Subject: Re: Let's Not Bloody Vote
> > Again (and again and again), apologies for the profanity. Apologies were accepted the first time you made them. However, it is my comments that you critiqued as "insulting and insane," I'm sure you can see why I don't think my ideas are either insulting or insane. So, I am going to push you for justification for such a strong statement. No hard feelings at all, but I tend not to react passively to such a strong negative critique. :-) > On Tue, 28 May 2002, Dan Minette wrote: > > I'm not questioning the value of boundaries in mental health. You've > misunderstood me. I'm questioning our competency to determine whether or > not applying a ban in response for Mark's behavior constitutes a "setting > of boundaries" that might in some way improve his mental health. But, the evidence is that, in general, it is a good thing to do with someone who is acting in this manner. One doesn't need a DSM-4 diagnosis in order to do this. There may be rare occurances, I suppose, when it is not best, but if one does it all the time, one does net good. > Now, if we need to set a boundary to preserve the social health of Brin-L, > that's one thing, but we shouldn't pretend that we've made the decision > based on a sage evaluation of Mark's personality or that we're doing it > for his own good. Why is the mental health community wrong, then, when they say it is generally the right thing to do, not only for the community, but the person exibiting the undesired behavior? > IMO, if we boot Mark at this point, we will not have done ourselves any > favors. Right now, its a close call. But, Mark's post this morning bascially told us that he will continue to push until we do set boundaries. Dan M.
