Munchausen by Internet

[birol]

People who believe that human beings are good in nature and trusts them. That goes to show that they are trusting human beings.

It would be a shame if people on this board attacked a person who trusted them and the board allowed it.

Talking about respect .... I think we all know enough to recognize respect when we see it.

I think that this thread was hijacked..........Being in the medical profession, I have seen Munchausen and Munchausen by proxey happen and it is not a laughing matter.  It is truly an illness that needs psychological help.  A person with this disorder my seem normal enough, and nice enough too, and very likable, but they are indeed,in need of serious help.  Who I feel so sorry for are support group folks who get suckered into the drama of it all.  It is such a dishonest relationship, a real lie.  That person has no respect for the supporters, but, what can you expect, it is a very serious psychological illness.  Makes me wonder how you can trust people you meet on the internet.  Please, beware of what happens on the boards that you frequent, not all may be who or what they may present.  It would be a shame if some of us enabled someone to do this to us, the board, and the whole community. One has to think, what kind of person would air their very personal, private life on an internet board?  Something to think about.  JMHO.

[chasd60]

People who believe that human beings are good in nature and trusts them. That goes to show that they are trusting human beings.
 
It would be a shame if people on this board attacked a person who trusted them and the board allowed it.
 
Talking about respect .... I think we all know enough to recognize respect when we see it.

I don't understand the meaning of what you are saying here?
Are you saying that It would be OK if people on this board attacked a person who DID NOT trust them and the board allowed it??
 
If you trust someone or say you do, then you are entitled to be treated specially?
Does the trust not have to be mutual?
 
Please define "attacked"
Then define denial
Then put them all together to see if there is relationship to the subject of this thread.
This is a very serious condition as HersheyGirl attested to based upon her experience in the field.

[MommaMia]

My opinions on this matter are my own and that's where they stay.... with me

[birol]

I admire your thoughts.  Hersehygirl is talking about a person saying who would post private stuff, and my reply is, someone who trusts the people where he might be posting it.

Your question of should the board attack someone who doesn't trust it, is sort of out of the blue and is irrelevant. Surely you knew that when you wrote it though. We are discussing someone who trusted  people visitng a board, not people who did not trust the people.


I do not see anything about a trusting person being treated specially and a mutual trust. I don't know what you mean, what do you think you are trying to mean ?

Should the trust be mutual ? I have no idea what you are talking about, you lost me.

I think you can look at the definitions of words using the internet propely.

I am sure it is a very serious condition. Presenting yourself as person "A" and behaving as person "B" is always a serious condition, isn't it ?

By the way, one doesn't have to have a experience in certain fields to realize that certain things are serious conditions. A well educated person who reads a lot can usually realize that people are fake. Our actions always give us away at the end.

I don't understand the meaning of what you are saying here?
Are you saying that It would be OK if people on this board attacked a person who DID NOT trust them and the board allowed it??
 
If you trust someone or say you do, then you are entitled to be treated specially?
Does the trust not have to be mutual?
 
Please define "attacked"
Then define denial
Then put them all together to see if there is relationship to the subject of this thread.
This is a very serious condition as HersheyGirl attested to based upon her experience in the field.

[chasd60]

Your question of should the board attack someone who doesn't trust it, is sort of out of the blue and is irrelevant. Surely you knew that when you wrote it though.

If you believe that to be true then why did you post?
 

It would be a shame if people on this board attacked a person who trusted them and the board allowed it.

Was it out of the blue and irrelevant? And did you know that when you wrote it?
 
You had given a condition, trust,as a reason not to "attack" someone. I merely asked you if trust did not exist, would it be OK to "attack" them
 
I responded to your words. Does the fact that I questioned what you said upset you, so you responded in this manner? I thought my question was totally relevant. This is not an "attack" merely because I asked you to explain what you meant because I did not understand. Please do not try to portay it that way. Do you define "attack" as when someone has a dissenting opinion?
 
If you would rather not answer my question, then say so.

[birol]

You are good with playing words. All I said is it is a shame if the board allows someone who trusted the board (its people) be attacked by the same people.

You went to a reverse deduction and ask me to explain what you have reasoned in your mind and find it relevant ? I do not.  There was no reason given not to attack, I said it would be a shame.  You said it was a condition. I did answer you, but you had rather not understand it I guess. Nothing is being portrayed, I guess you just did not like the answer.

If you believe that to be true then why did you post?
 
Was it out of the blue and irrelevant? And did you know that when you wrote it?
 
You had given a condition, trust,as a reason not to "attack" someone. I merely asked you if trust did not exist, would it be OK to "attack" them
 
I responded to your words. Does the fact that I questioned what you said upset you, so you responded in this manner? I thought my question was totally relevant and this is not an attack merely because I asked you to explain what you meant because I did not understand. Please do not try to portay it that way.
 
If you would rather not answer my question, then say so.

[chasd60]

You are good with playing words. All I said is it is a shame if the board allows someone who trusted the board (its people) be attacked by the same people.
 
You went to a reverse deduction and ask me to explain what you have reasoned in your mind and find it relevant ? I do not. There was no reason given not to attack, I said it would be a shame. You said it was a condition. I did answer you, but you had rather not understand it I guess. Nothing is being portrayed, I guess you just did not like the answer.

You did not answer me, nor have you yet answered. I am beginning to believe that it is you that is playing with words and does not answer.
I asked you to define "attack", please point out where you did that. I may have missed it and apologize if I did.
 
You may be confusing "attacked" with "disagreeing". I have not seen what I think its attacking but rather differing opinions that you interpret as what you may define as an "attack".

[birol]

I asked you to look at the definiton of the word on internet. use google look for webster online dictionary.

If you do not know what it means, And will deny that I haven't been attacked by bearbait and his friends and yourself on this board, you do not bother to look. People who are in denial about their motives do not learn from their mistakes.

[SkipP]

That was a pretty interesting read!

 Why on earth would folks do this? Whats the motivation? On a group like this, I agree with Birol, we tend to trust that people are presenting themselves at face value. But who's to say that they are in fact who they say they are? Early in this thread, several of us had fun with it but if it's real.... that's no fun at all. I appreciate that Hersheygirl got this thread back on track and gave us an interesting look at this disease.
 
 If anyone doubts that this could happen, it's a mistake. I remember quite a few years ago (on one incarnation or another of this board... forget which one) there was a person who was quite active with youth groups and camping. He was also pretty active on the boards and seemed likable enough. One day, out of the blue, we find out that he has been charged with some very serious crimes... was mentioned by name in the newspaper.... and disappeared from the boards. Can't remember if he plead guilty or was tried. The whole thing came as quite a shock. You really just don't know.

[birol]

I remember, that guy was a pedophile, hiding it and was a member. As far as I remember he was found guilty and ended up in jail.

What the thread is, people who are living in fantasy worlds and making up things and attracting attention, making people believe that their problems are real when they have no problems.

That is supposedly me ... I think this explains it better for you .....

Otherwise I agree with you, you never know whom you are dealing with ....

That was a pretty interesting read!

 Why on earth would folks do this? Whats the motivation? On a group like this, I agree with Birol, we tend to trust that people are presenting themselves at face value. But who's to say that they are in fact who they say they are? Early in this thread, several of us had fun with it but if it's real.... that's no fun at all. I appreciate that Hersheygirl got this thread back on track and gave us an interesting look at this disease.
 
 If anyone doubts that this could happen, it's a mistake. I remember quite a few years ago (on one incarnation or another of this board... forget which one) there was a person who was quite active with youth groups and camping. He was also pretty active on the boards and seemed likable enough. One day, out of the blue, we find out that he has been charged with some very serious crimes... was mentioned by name in the newspaper.... and disappeared from the boards. Can't remember if he plead guilty or was tried. The whole thing came as quite a shock. You really just don't know.

[NightOwl]

there is a thread on this forum "The Elephant In The Living Room" where you are  ALL  cordially invited to continue this discussion in more depth and openess.  I think that explaining our reasons and reactions to things candidly  will have a helpful effect.  

Chasd you are an eloquent person and  your reasoning in this matter  can be especially enlightening to those who may have come into this situation late and not understand why so many people are concerned  about Birol's authenticity and the truth of his statements and why some of us, nevertheless feel he is genuine.

This is a chance to clear the air and get on with other things once we all understand each other more clearly.  Suspicion thrives on innuendo and once we get rid of that things should improve

[chasd60]

I asked you to look at the definiton of the word on internet. use google look for webster online dictionary.
 
If you do not know what it means, And will deny that I haven't been attacked by bearbait and his friends and yourself on this board, you do not bother to look. People who are in denial about their motives do not learn from their mistakes.

I have never attacked you and for you to say so makes one wonder what you are hiding by representing it this way.
 
You are outright lying about me attacking you. I can say that and have a clear conscience because I know my motives. You IM'd me yesterday and said you thought my post saying "I got new socks" was in some way an attack on you. I explained to you it was a way to lighten up the thread and maybe put a little humor in it and hopefully take it off the topic a little. Yesterday you seemed to agree that maybe you misunderstood my intention with that post.
 
Your responses and accusations today do not reflect your opinion of yesterday. Is it maybe you that is in denial about your motives?
Guess I need to add the following disclaimer so you don't misinterpret my posts.
 
This is not meant to be an attack in any manner, shape, or form.

[birol]

I have no other motivations, the way your message of today reads to me looks like it is an attack, not an open one but implicitly.

Just like the I read "socks" post yesterday, sort of mocking me for sharing my personal life, saying see I can also share this. Yesterday I bought your explanation of you were trying to lighten things up.

Yesterday I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but todays post confirmed that you are not acting in a friendly manner. Your tone, your appoach would be different.

Instead of having a friendly approach of, sorry if you thought I was attacking you, i must have come wrong, you immediately say " YOU ARE OUTRIGHT LYING" That says alot about your mentality Charlie. You will have to do a lot of explaining about that.

Not everyone who has immigrated to another country and doesn't speak English as their native language are stupid.

My motives ? How do you know I have  motives ? What makes you think I have motives ? I have been talking with a  few friends talking about how my cardiac test went. Next thing I know I am attacked as being a  liar and mentally sick person by another member and a moderator questions my motives.

What are your motives Charlie ? To end this tasteless discussion or to string it out to defend the attacking members ?



>

I have never attacked you and for you to say so makes one wonder what you are hiding by representing it this way.
 
You are outright lying about me attacking you. I can say that and have a clear conscience because I know my motives. You IM'd me yesterday and said you thought my post saying "I got new socks" was in some way an attack on you. I explained to you it was a way to lighten up the thread and maybe put a little humor in it and hopefully take it off the topic a little. Yesterday you seemed to agree that maybe you misunderstood my intention with that post.
 
Your responses and accusations today do not reflect your opinion of yesterday. Is it maybe you that is in denial about your motives?
Guess I need to add the following disclaimer so you don't misinterpret my posts.
 
This is not meant to be an attack in any manner, shape, or form.

[garym053]

Hmmmphhh.. Mommamia, you kinda sound like Kerry there..

I love it, I love it!!!

[chasd60]

I have no other motivations, the way your message of today reads to me looks like it is an attack, not an open one but implicitly.
 
Just like the I read "socks" post yesterday, sort of mocking me for sharing my personal life, saying see I can also share this. Yesterday I bought your explanation of you were trying to lighten things up.
 
Yesterday I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but todays post confirmed that you are not acting in a friendly manner. Your tone, your appoach would be different.
 
Instead of having a friendly approach of, sorry if you thought I was attacking you, i must have come wrong, you immediately say " YOU ARE OUTRIGHT LYING" That says alot about your mentality Charlie. You will have to do a lot of explaining about that.
 
Not everyone who has immigrated to another country and doesn't speak English as their native language are stupid.
 
My motives ? How do you know I have motives ? What makes you think I have motives ? I have been talking with a few friends talking about how my cardiac test went. Next thing I know I am attacked as being a liar and mentally sick person by another member and a moderator questions my motives.
 
What are your motives Charlie ? To end this tasteless discussion or to string it out to defend the attacking members ?
 
 
 
>

Once again you do this.
You bring up people in denial about their motives and when I question you on it, you try to turn it around. You then once again believe this is an attack because I question you. I questioned you as a board member, not as a moderator. Everytime I question something you say, you twist it into an attack. I am sorry for quoting you so much, but these are your words.
 

People who are in denial about their motives do not learn from their mistakes

Guess I can take what you have been saying as attacks on me. That is not nice to attack people Birol. You should practice what you preach and maybe apologize for attacking me. I don't need to stroke your ego when I explain something to you and you twist it around and expect an apology.
It seems that no one is to ask Birol questions or to explain something if they don't understand what you mean.