I come waving a large, white flag....
Here are the terms of my surrender:
I will attempt to clean-up the mess I created on the "Exposure 101" thread by eliminating the clutter and leaving the portions that might actually be of help to someone. Here's how I propose to do that:
(1) I will delete all of my posts there EXCEPT: my first one calling on FWS's to tell their stories, my follow-up post asking AtPeace to elaborate on her story, and one sentence of a latter post asking whether the method of exposure matters. The reason I intend to leave those three posts there, is that they were followed by some good responses that may not make sense otherwise.
(2) Those of you who wrote responses can then:
(A) Delete your responses that were directed to me, but that are not beneficial to the intended audience (newbie BS's).
(B) Edit your responses to remove the back and forth with me that's not helpful to others... but leave anything you think would be helpful.
(C) Leave the posts alone that offer good general information.
(3) I would also STRONGLY encourage those of you who shared your exposure experiences and insights on the "Mrs. Wondering" thread to consider moving those posts, or writing modified versions of them, in the "101" thread. rprynne, Suzet*, tiger, Mel, Eagle15, Lady Clueless, Lexxxy, bob pure*, Hope This Works, bigkahuna. (WAT recently requested more activity on the 101 thread, and some of the excellent insights in the "Mrs. W" thread will be lost when that one eventually fades away unless you move them over)
I realize all the deleted/edited posts will create their own sort of clutter... but perhaps it will be at least a little less distracting than the clutter that's there now.
I want to say for the record that I still think that debate is healthy, and that there's nothing wrong with questioning a particular MB principle. (In fact, didn't I recently read that Dr. Harley is launching a research project to test some of his own principles... stating that he "must be wrong about something"?)
However, I also now realize that there is a time and a place for such debate and that a thread entitled "Exposure 101" is not the best place for that. (Ya know, eating crow isn't all that bad... once you acquire a taste for it <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />)
I also want to pay tribute to the Heros of this war -- the ones who initiated the end of it, and prompted my quest for a truce.
They are...
Dorry -- for coming along and holding up a mirror for me to look into. I swear, that woman has the ability to cut right through cyberspace see into my soul.
and rprynne -- for his post that made me see why the 101 thread was not the place for debate. He wrote in part:
SC – IMO, debate becomes unhealthy when you factor in time. You once mentioned the word empathy to me. Okay, put yourself in the position of an expert here. Now factor in time. By time I mean, consider that many of the posters on this site are hit and run. They are in a panic. They are not reading through every post. As I’ve alluded to in another post, they are looking for a silver bullet. Think of what you would tell a BS or a WS if you were limited to just one paragraph and you only get one shot at it. What would you boil it down to about exposure?
To me, most of the experts are trying to treat it that way. You get one shot, it has to come across as a silver bullet. For those people seeking advice, given all the turmoil and confusion they are facing, if that message comes across as conflicting, many a poster would decide there is no consensus and therefore they should not act. This would be a huge mistake. I think the experts realize this and to motivate people to act, they are very strict in their interpretation of the MB principles. They get frustrated when the message gets clouded. If it helps, I know for a fact that many of these experts, when they are confident that they can have a debate and not just one shot at it, they are more then willing to discuss nuances of MB principles.
Three cheers for Dorry and rprynne!
Okay, so this is how this truce will be implimented (or not).
(1) Everyone who was involved in the fray gets a vote.
(2) Based on your input, I will then decide whether to impliment the truce or not. (For example, if the majority of you think this is a good idea, it will be done. But if a majority of you think it will create even more confusion, it won't.)
(3) Only WAT himself can veto this truce... or any portion of it as he sees fit. (And WAT, I do hope you weigh in, either way)
Please cast your votes below. They will be tallied by the middle of next week (sooner if all the votes come in quickly) and the appropriate action will be taken.
--SC
