Suggestions Please

[_wenglund]

Serious about what, Wade? That I'd be willing to serve as an admin on your new board? Sure I was serious! I'd love to help out, particularly if it meant getting to work alongside one of my all-time favorite MAD posters, Calmoriah. We could start by asking her what psychological problem she has that causes her to shun people, or behave in vindictive ways. What do you think?

Also, I devoted considerable time going through your "Ten Step" list of points, applying it to Suzi. (Interesting choice of name, by the way.) Why no response?

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that I had read what you said. Thanks for sharing that with me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_rcrocket]

Harmony:

I believe you when you say there are certain ethical considerations that Wade is/would/will be inadvertently violating by not knowing what they are.

However, for non-specialists such as myself, will you please give us a brief run-down of what, exactly, those are?

1. uncredentialed counselors are unethical

2. lack of confidentiality is unethical

3. no privilege and no privacy

4. no way to verify input from either direction

5. unethical record keeping

I would never lend my credentials to anything like this. The whole premise is unethical at its foundation.

Idiotic, yes. Non-ethical, yes. "Unethical?" There you go making up rules that don't exist. I have huge problems with your posts -- just making up rules of conduct which nowhere can be found. Where can I read these ethical rules? Do you read anything besides tripe on the internet? Can you use the jargon of an educated person?

Non-credentialed people can counsel all they want; otherwise ministers would be "unethical," cops would be unethical, school counselors would be unethical. Confidentiality rules do not apply to them (except in the penitential confession to a priest or minister).

P

[_wenglund]

Harmony:

I believe you when you say there are certain ethical considerations that Wade is/would/will be inadvertently violating by not knowing what they are.

However, for non-specialists such as myself, will you please give us a brief run-down of what, exactly, those are?

1. uncredentialed counselors are unethical

2. lack of confidentiality is unethical

3. no privilege and no privacy

4. no way to verify input from either direction

5. unethical record keeping

I would never lend my credentials to anything like this. The whole premise is unethical at its foundation.

Since with my intervention...

1. There will be facilitators rather than counselors

2. There will be complete anonymity (see my post above) and thus confidentiality, privilege, and privacy.

3. It is designed to be self-help, and thus verification of input and record-keeping is superfluous.

...then, your concerns about ethics do not apply.

If you have any other concerns that I can address, please let me know.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Idiotic, yes....P

I am curious to learn why you think it "idiotic".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Physics Guy]

Serious about what, Wade? That I'd be willing to serve as an admin on your new board? Sure I was serious! I'd love to help out, particularly if it meant getting to work alongside one of my all-time favorite MAD posters, Calmoriah. We could start by asking her what psychological problem she has that causes her to shun people, or behave in vindictive ways. What do you think?

Also, I devoted considerable time going through your "Ten Step" list of points, applying it to Suzi. (Interesting choice of name, by the way.) Why no response?

I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that I had read what you said. Thanks for sharing that with me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ah, I see. So, back into your gopher hole you go. Ignore everything. You are fond of citing the Black Knight from the Monty Python film. Well, my dear friend, you are beginning to sound like him: you get your butt kicked time and time again, and just pretend, "la de da"-style, that nothing has happened. Great strategy, Wade! Now even Plutarch is sticking it to you!

As for this hogwash:

Since with my intervention...

1. There will be facilitators rather than counselors

2. There will be complete anonymity (see my post above) and thus confidentiality, privilege, and privacy.

3. It is designed to be self-help, and thus verification of input and record-keeping is superfluous.

...then, your concerns about ethics do not apply.

If you have any other concerns that I can address, please let me know.

None of this changes the fact that your motives are questionable, or the fact that your project is completely self-serving. Especially dubious is your "there will be complete anonymity" claim. Yeah, right. Aside from the "lurkers" from the COB and SCMC who are already monitoring RfM, this site, MAD, and etc. Sorry, Wade, but I just don't see how you can reasonably be trusted with IP information.

[_rcrocket]

Idiotic, yes....P

I am curious to learn why you think it "idiotic".

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't know you, don't know you personally; I can only judge you from your posts. They are idiotic. They really are. I'm sorry. I'm surprised that the denizens on this board really engage you like they do; you and Gazelem must be the only regulars who pass for TBMs on this board, and they have to talk to somebody.

Do you have a real job?

P

[_Who Knows]

Hahaha. This is where we really need the 'laughing my ass off' smileys.

ah, too funny.

[_rcrocket]

Aside from the "lurkers" from the COB and SCMC who are already monitoring RfM, this site, MAD, and etc. Sorry, Wade, but I just don't see how you can reasonably be trusted with IP information.

I don't doubt that people with COB Ip addresses lurk here. Lots of those people, many only nominally loyal.

But, what evidence have you that SCMC personnel lurk here? Inquiring minds want to know.

P

[_Jersey Girl]

wade,

I have a question for you. What is the main reason that you want to create this future board? What is the driving force behind it?

Jersey Girl

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

I don't know you, don't know you personally; I can only judge you from your posts. They are idiotic. They really are. I'm sorry. I'm surprised that the denizens on this board really engage you like they do; you and Gazelem must be the only regulars who pass for TBMs on this board, and they have to talk to somebody.

Do you have a real job?

P

Don't feel bad, Wade. Plutarch makes idiotic posts too. In his way, he's just like you, willing to go to any length to prove the church is true and it usually ends up idiotic.