The population of the forum changes routinely. We have seen over the years heated discussions on religion, clinical studies, personalities that have taken antagonistic attitudes for no more reason than they liked the adversarial process, and much more. Human nature, the pressure cooker of the world of cancer and its implications, bring out the worst in some - and the best in others. Even the medium of the written word vs. a face to face conversation which can be easily misinterpreted, causes problems. In the end, we must not forget why the forum exists. To answer questions based on our own experiences going through the journey, and offer support to those just beginning theirs.
My father knew me well, when at an early age he told me never to seek employment in the diplomatic corps. If anyone on these boards is guilty of being blunt to a fault it is often me. I get frustrated with some posters, and I speak my frustration plainly. Perhaps I have been riding herd to0 long. But unlike a topic people agree to avoid, that tact doesn't work well on a public form. How many times have someone suggested that a topic be dropped only to have posters continue to want to have the last word on the subject, forcing me or another to close the thread? Some posters don't know when to let something go.
Unlike Mark's solution with his brother, those of us that monitor the boards to see that they stay on track - (and offending people, well intentioned or not, post appropriately or are corrected if they post incorrect information or frame their answers in a manner which muddies the issue), are doing a thankless task. But one that is necessary. We can explain the situation, which sometimes only prolongs the dispute/discussion. I try this and often end up with plenty of arrows in my back for the effort. We can end the thread, or we can delete the posts. One takes time and wins us no friends, the other offends people but is quick and to the point. Either way, as a monitor there is no winning. Someone gets pissed or their feelings hurt at minimum, especially if there intention was to help.
I think that things would be easier, if in addition to what Mark has posted, people post with the thought of; not speaking in absolutes, of not suggesting that there is a singular answer to a problem, of not touting the latest preliminary data from some trial as gospel, speaking as if the institution that is treating them has the best solutions, and more.... when these positions are taken, there has to be intervention.
Take a look at some of the other boards that you could be reading and posting to on the web related to our subject of interest. There is enough misinformation on them to choke a horse because no one is monitoring them. OCF cannot go there, though from the amount of time I spend reviewing posts that people email me about, I sometimes would like to not be the sheriff in town. We have a responsibility to those that come here to first do no harm with our postings and information, and second to see that the information considers the emotional state of the reader. Subjects lately have not considered the latter, and more than a technical error, those get to me. My first reaction is to say so bluntly. In providing information to someone who is scared, (admittedly or not), tone in the delivery of the answer, is just as important as the answer itself.
