Hello Bob!
12 Jul 97 00:35, Bob Moylan wrote to Steven Godbe:
 BM> Steven Godbe (On 08 Jul 97) was overheard pontificating to MARK
 BM> PROBERT
 MP>> I wonder what you real agenda is.
 BM> Those of us who live with ADHD/ADD
 BM> day in and day out, either as parents of or those who have
 BM> ADHD/ADD, have seen and heard all manner of nonsense from all
 BM> manner of people.
What makes you think I don't have some experience in this myself?  I've
been diagnosed with ADD.  My wife has also.  It runs in my family and
both my brother and I have had to deal with all manner of learning
disabilities all our lives, complete with the attitude barriers that
come with it.   BTW, Bob, later in your note you're going to accuse me
of a personal attack.  You quoted Mark's sentence above.  Don't you
think that accusing a perfect stranger of prosecuting a personal agenda
is a personal attack?  THAT is what prompted my response.  This echo's
propensity to behave this way with alternate viewpoints is the pattern
which has me pursuing it this far when I've other ways to spend a
Saturday.  I care about the mission of the echo and the ADD/ADHD
community.  I feel it's too important to allow unmentioned what I feel
to be an irresponsible narrowing of the 'allowable' areas of discussion.
I feel even more strongly about the need to observe the rules of common
courtesy in discussions of such charged issues, especially if one wishes
to enlarge participation and to reinforce estimations of credibility.
 BM>   Many of those have presented themselves as a
 BM> doctor of this or that with the mistaken belief that the title
 BM> cloaks them in a mantle of authority and lesser folk are somehow
 BM> required to take what they say as something akin to holy writ.
 BM> While typing my response I was thinking the same thing that Mark
 BM> wrote in his response.
I can't help you with your difficulty knowing which authority to give
credence to.  It's a problem of the information age.  What most
distressed me was the complete lack of civility and the rush to
oppositional and confrontational stance.
 BM>  None of which lends any credibility to one who touts Breggin as
 BM> an authority.
Then I'm afraid that I'll have no credibility with you either.  I've
read some of Breggin's writings, and I see his goals differently from
you.
 BM>  That's all well and good but she is a total unknown to me, Mark,
 BM> and at least one other who responded to her.
Which is not an excuse for poor behavior, Bob.
 BM>  You obviously don't know from where he speaks.  Your comment
 BM> above is nothing less than a personal attack...what's the reason
 BM> for that?
Cut my feed to the echo, cut access to all the people who use my bbs to
access the ADHD echo.  Report my conduct to Karen Kasper of our regional
ADHD group.  It still won't explain how a constructive criticism became
a personal attack, and it won't explain his pattern of behavior which
prompted my remark.  Disagreement in a field of inquiry for which there
is so much room for argument and for which there is NOT any unified
professional position statement is NOT a personal attack in and of itself
and it's not meritous of one either.  I think his response to Dr. Dot
was on the order of a personal attack, and that his response to me was
needlessly and agressively confrontational, too.
 BM>  The content of your post similarly invalidates all of what she
 BM> had to say.  Can the "doc" not speak for herself?
You and he seem to feel that it's not appropriate for another participant
to speak their mind when they feel a criticism is due.  Whether or not
she chooses to answer is immaterial.  I chose to do so because I thought
it appropriate and timely.  That's all that matters and it has ZERO
bearing upon what she had to say.  It's a SEPARATE ISSUE.
 BM>  See above re "personal attack".  We've seen many come into this
 BM> and similar echos/newsgroups with personal agendas ... once
 BM> burned twice shy...
That's not an excuse for poor behavior.  They misbehaved and jumped
off the cuff so YOU should be allowed special privilege to ignore
common courtesy also?  I'm sorry, that's not a way to maintain an
environment suitable for good society.  Sitting quietly while it
happens is not a good choice of response either.
 BM>  I personally don't think that anyone who comes into this echo
 BM> and throws Breggin's name out, as if he were the end word on
 BM> ADHD/ADD, has much consideration or sympathy for the
 BM> participants.
There is room for disagreement and neither you or Mark seem terribly
interested in hearing a voice of disagreement, or even in wanting to
acknowledge the fact that she mentioned other good source material.
Didn't you earlier question my ability to know 'what the good Dr. was
thinking'?  I think I know her loads better than you do, know of her
reputation much better than you do, and so I think that you might do
well to take your own advice.
 BM>  Recommended reading lists are always welcome...
...unless you disagree with a source listed upon it?
 BM>  You are saying then that it's quite alright for "Dr. Dot" to
 BM> advance her beliefs and thinking on an issue but that she
 BM> shouldn't be questioned on them?
She as much as said in her note she'd not be available for that, but
left a reference list.  I think that's an acceptable behavior, yes.
I think it's acceptable to question someone, but I think that there is
a burden of mutual respect and courtesy which should be observed, and
that Mark chooses regularly to ignore that burden.  It's a separate
issue entirely to me.  It just so happens that I think many of Breggin's
criticisms are valid ones.  His record as an advocate for the mentally
ill is certainly nothing to vilify him over, but is rather a strong
reason to accord at least some respect to him and his arguments.
Steven
--- GoldED/2 2.42.G0214
(1:106/1393)
---------------