Before I disappear I just want to raise what I feel is a valid point.

Supportive criticism is not trolling or being mean. Neither is dissension. Rather they are an attempt to encourage what might be a more appropriate consideration and path.

Disagreement is an essential component to healthy dialogue. Just because someone doesn't agree with something does not constitute a a personal attack.

I see all too often people jumping onboard a bandwagon of agreement and feel-good pats on the back when what might really be more appropriate is a standing back to consider what actually might be fact or fiction. Even I am guilty of glossing and slanting something in my favour - as we all are. It behooves us then to read posts with a great deal of scrutiny. In my observation there exists a sizeable amount of content which defies belief and judgement. We owe it to ourselves - even others - to consider what might really be going on instead of rushing to jump upon that bandwagon of 'hugs'. Maybe validating a person's beliefs isn't the correct action to take.

When it sounds farcical it probably is. When it sounds ridiculous, maybe it is.

And when it sounds delusional we do no favour to encourage it.

Hence the importance of a solid and sound voice of dissent. It is needed. There needs to be scrutiny. There needs to be raised the possibility all is not as it would be portrayed.

It is frustrating to see such blindness.

It is also frustrating, that dissent - no matter how strong the attempt to be delicate - be assumed to be mean.

Thus should there be room for Supportive Criticism.

Blindy jumping to conclusions is neither helpful nor supportive. Playing into and encouraging a delusion is not being supportive. On the contrary, encouraging scrutiny and the making of perhaps a more logical and reasonable conclusion IS being supportive.

I feel the administrators have lost sight of purpose. Instead of being quick to judge the voice of dissent they could be judging the legitimacy of and direction of threads. Perhaps they ought better to be that voice of scrutiny that manages posts as threads are initiated using the litmus tests of - is this of value to the participants? Does this promote the recovery process, etc. Is this likely to be authentic? Valid? Truthful? Perhaps they ought to weigh-in on occasion in an effort to refocus a thread on a useful and appropriate direction.

The voice of decent has a valuable place. This should be recognised not beaten down.

I have never ever ever written a post with the intention of hurt rather interjected a thread with an alternate opinion and consideration of what else might really be at hand. The administrators have accused me of this not being the case, citing a specific recent post which (frustratingly) they saw fit to remove. My response is that doing so was not a hateful act. I said what needed to be said. It was a valid point; I simply did not believe for a moment what an OP had initiated. What I said was by no means hurtful. It was a necessary interjection. It was also a taking of the bull by the horns and giving a hell of a shake where it was so very needed.

There were other actions the administrators could and should have taken. For one, they should have stepped back and considered the authenticity of the original post. It is the OP who should have been addressed not I. They ignored an opportunity to suggest, offer, and provide help to the OP which was so obviously needed. The post was a cry for help and this was ignored.

I will lurk long enough to see how - and if - this plays out. Then folks it is off to the greener side of the fence.