What kind of games are we playing here? You deleted the very post I was responding to, only to bring it back now just to bury the evidence. We aren't exactly idiots, you know!
@ambercyclist50 and @Nicole Turner35 — what kind of psychological pathology are we even talking about when someone ignores dozens of repeated questions, or when you factually prove they are lying, yet they act as if nothing ever happened? Do people like that even have a conscience? Do they understand the concept of shame? Don't they feel any urge to apologize for lies that have been proven (marked in red)? From what I gather, this isn't about BPD—it's about something else entirely, which you all should try to figure out.
Are you perhaps seeing a bit too much of yourself in that post?
redharbor9 said:The whole "soliciting clients" accusation is a tired narrative—I’ve already dealt with reports about this, including people spinning up alt accounts just to try and prove I'm hunting for business when I'm clearly not. Besides, if we're being pedantic, your own way of presenting yourself as some sort of expert psychotherapist could easily be interpreted as soliciting clients. Look, at the end of the day, if someone wants to reach out to someone else here, that isn't against the rules; even if someone were using this space to find customers for any service imaginable, they wouldn't be breaking forum policy. Everyone is free to talk to whomever they please, which is exactly why private messaging exists.
So why not just be honest for once? Why not just say, "Hey everyone, I'm basically just trying to drag as many people into hypnosis sessions as possible so I can line my pockets—who cares if it's useless or even harmful to them?"
I am in complete agreement with Assane. I have to point out how absolutely surreal it feels—if we are honestly going to call this a mere coincidence—that redharbor9, who never once contributed a single solitary post to the old thread, has suddenly become this whirlwind of activity, dragging in their little circle of friends from other topics. To suggest this is just a fluke is an insult to anyone's common sense. I’ve been posting on this thread for years; I have by far the highest post count—nearly double that of the next person in line—so I feel I know this community quite well. Something like this has never, ever happened before. It is painfully obvious that the goal here is to sabotage the discussion. It seems clear that redharbor9 is luring clients into their hypnosis clinic with false pretenses and promises of quick-fix therapies, and it’s equally obvious that these new accounts have nothing to do with this subject and exist solely to undermine us. We’ve had outsiders pop in before, sure, but never in such numbers, and certainly never with this level of sheer aggression, trolling, and blatant attempts to tear the thread apart. Personally, I think Michelle Evans, for reasons known only to herself, seems completely powerless to intervene. I wouldn't go so far as to blame her personally, though I would certainly question her sense of responsibility. If you take a moment to carefully read through the posts from the last month or so on the old thread, you'll see how much we helped one another and how frequently we expressed gratitude. Perhaps that very sense of community is what’s fueling someone's jealousy, driving them to vent their destructiveness and rage by trying to wreck this space.
If you watch closely, all the veteran members of this thread cooperate and respect one another immensely. Even if there were issues regarding Silentium's outbursts, she could have been given a warning or a ban—whatever was necessary—but it is truly staggering that the entire thread is being shut down just because of the nervous tantrums of a few outsiders. Should we really be in a position where anyone can wander into a topic, start acting up, and cause the whole thing to be closed?
We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this was the most widely read thread in the entire psychology section, pulling in 500 to 1,000 daily views and totaling over half a million reads. Half a million! Who exactly was being bothered by that? Michelle Evans' argument that "conflict attracts readers" simply doesn't hold water. Since the old thread was closed, the fighting has stopped, many of the older posts have been deleted, yet the (now closed!) thread remains incredibly popular. How else are we supposed to explain that?
Shouldn't moderators be the most active members with the strongest reputations? Just look at Rosey's post count on this thread—it's only a handful, and most of them are nothing more than snarky comments. What good is a moderator who doesn't actually know the subject matter or have any history here? Or worse, what good is a moderator who spreads misinformation, hands out baseless warnings, and scrubs the thread just to protect themselves—behaving in a way that practically begs for a six-month ban—and then holds a moderator title? Is that the model for an exemplary forum member? Just look at what people are writing when they are being promoted to moderator, and then consider what a moderator should actually be.
Nicole Turner35 said:It’s pretty obvious 😬—so, yeah, it’s back open again.
What’s the deal with our complaints here? Are we just sitting around waiting for someone to actually address them or give us a quote?
I have a suggestion: maybe it would be a good idea to start a "Sacreusov BPD corner" thread over on the Alternative subforum—that way, everyone gets what they want. 🙂
Exactly—what is the actual point of lodging these complaints?
I solemnly swear that I will never, ever post a single word in that Sacreusov BPD corner on the Alternative board. 😁
Look, Beljki, I have zero interest in debating technical matters with self-proclaimed "experts." The same goes for those armchair pundits. If you’re acting as legal counsel for @Twitter, then just say so and be done with it.
Your contribution to this old thread is so negligible that I don't even consider you a factor in the discussion regarding the BPD topic—not that we're even talking about BPD right now.
As for Vatroled, insulting someone's basic intelligence is an insult, plain and simple. You should probably take a closer look at Splitterica's massive, mile-long post. As Max would say—it's enough to make one want to commit instant hara-kiri.
My grievance starts with the moderator @ElonMusk, who refuses to hold user @ElonMusk accountable—instead choosing to scrub any posts that don't align with his narrative. It’s become clear he’s leveraging his mod powers solely to shield @ElonMusk, even going so far as to slap me with a 45-point penalty just because I called him out for being unprofessional—all while he sits there letting him call splitters "morons." To make matters worse, @ElonMusk isn't punishing @ElonMusk for blatant trolling, nor is he addressing how @ElonMusk uses his moderator status as a built-in endorsement to lure clients into his private practice... it’s a massive conflict of interest.
As for user @ElonMusk, he’s a whole different breed of problem—nothing but insults and pure trolling...
Hey, guys over at the local corner deli, why don't you go set up your own little private chat room? We can take our arguments over there instead.
I haven't seen this level of nonsense, blatant disregard, gaslighting, insults, trolling, or pure charlatanism on any American message board in a very long time. The way he chooses to ignore—quite systematically, I might add—over thirty direct questions from various users is nothing short of psychological warfare; it’s causing genuine distress to many people here, as several posts have already documented. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with psychology knows that being ignored is perhaps the most malicious, traumatic, and dangerous form of passive aggression. Honestly, you’d be hard-pressed to find this much concentrated passive-aggressive behavior even in clinical cases of passive-aggressive personality disorder. This individual is multifaceted in his danger to everyone involved in such an incredibly sensitive discussion. He leverages his position as both a therapist and a moderator to lead people down a false path—effectively steering them away from legitimate, evidence-based therapies and toward what can only be described as his own pseudo-hypnotic, carnival-style quackery. It is the exact opposite of established clinical standards; he actually advocates for hypnosis to treat personality disorders. He denies professional protocols, rejects established science, and ignores the very mandatory literature through which he supposedly obtained his license—only to pivot back to his own unverified, hazardous "systems" for which he holds no credentials whatsoever. This isn't just bad practice; it is outright fraud and malpractice under the Penal Code of the United States. I suspect his ultimate goal is simply to build a client base for his private practice—which explains why he finds it so convenient to drop the name Mauro into his posts, making it all too easy for someone to track him down. In my view, he is dangerously exploiting this forum as a vehicle for self-promotion, aiming to profit from vulnerable and misled individuals. There is no precedent in the world for a practitioner whose tenure lasts barely a few years yet feels entitled to insult and dismiss an entire professional field. To disparage an entire discipline like that is a betrayal of both the clients and the profession itself.
To top it all off, he brought his girlfriend into this thread—someone who has never posted here before—to use this discussion on hypnosis and hypnotherapy as a platform for their own self-promotion. They openly insulted 98% (and yes, I am quoting him directly) of mental health professionals, claiming their expertise is inferior to that of circus magicians. Is that not a direct affront to every single one of us who belongs to these professions?
[QUOTE] So, we should learn how to adapt and actually communicate within the established forum rules.[/QUOTE How on earth did I not think of that myself?! I should have just handed out the Code of Conduct to all the moderators and non-staff members and hosted two intensive workshops to settle all their grievances once and for all. Honestly, you live and learn, I suppose.[/QUOTE]
Michelle Evans said:Perhaps they should be. As for whose ego is actually being bruised here—well, that’s a conversation worth having.
An attack on my ego from a position of authority? Please. If you want to challenge me, try doing it with actual arguments. Everything I write is backed by logic.
Michelle Evans said:Look, if you have some burning desire to share information you already possess, just say it—don't turn it into a interrogation by asking me, "Why do you think someone left?" I’m really not in the mood for those kinds of games.
I suspect you're just buried under a mountain of personal life drama and moderator duties, which is likely why it slipped your mind that we were actually addressing you specifically regarding the departures and the reasons behind them. Those posts are still right there in the thread. I even went ahead and reiterated those exact reasons again today.
Michelle Evans said:P I don't keep a spreadsheet to give you an exact ratio of satisfied versus dissatisfied people.
Where would I even place Vilenjacica in all this? She was absolutely miserable before, and now she’s claiming the whole thing was a massive eye-opener. Perhaps those who are still unhappy will eventually have their own epiphany—they just need some time and perhaps a bit more substance to chew on. I assume your own therapist gave you plenty of time to process things too, right?
Properly executed psychotherapy for BPD is incredibly expensive—if you actually follow the clinical gold standards, we’re talking at least twice a week for six or seven years straight. That kind of commitment costs about as much as a brand-new car. Honestly, who in America can actually afford that? If anyone here has actually gone through those types of intensive programs (and I know many of you have claimed to), then you've likely poured a massive amount of money into it. Is that enough of a reason to question the specific format the treatment took? While you all sit here speculating wildly about what should and shouldn't happen, plenty of people are suffering because of your judgment. Isn't it a bit immature to withhold that from me?
Michelle Evans, you mentioned your own sessions before. What exactly did your therapist teach you? Responsibility? Selflessness? Or was it just learning how to be more self-centered?
If you had happened to ask Vilenjacica her thoughts on this a few months back, she probably would have told you that we were just insulting her. Yet, there was one day where she explicitly mentioned how incredibly helpful the whole thing turned out to be. So, which version of Vilenjacica are we supposed to believe? Honestly, I’d expect the moderators to be a bit more well-versed in BPD when dealing with such a nuanced subject. It feels a bit like attacking the pasta instead of the chef, doesn't it?
ambercyclist50 said:Who, specifically, was bothered by the way the topic was handled? And conversely—who found it perfectly acceptable, and to what degree? I’m looking for a bit of a cost-benefit analysis here—pros versus cons, if you will.
I’ve been reflecting on why people walk away—what exactly triggers that final decision to stop contributing? My focus lately has been on whether we should just close this thread entirely, or perhaps reconsider our entire editorial policy if you all decide to reopen it. Reading between the lines here, it feels like there's a looming threat hanging over everyone's heads—at least one moderator is going to be breathing down our necks. In the past, moderators have tried to "manage" discussions like this, only to end up stifling the conversation and driving away the most prominent voices on the board. A thread like this serves absolutely no one. Tell me, what do you think caused Julian Assange, Max, Nicole Turner35, Anaconda, Graham, the original author... and myself... to stop posting more than a year ago?
Who, specifically, is actually bothered by the way that topic unfolded? I’m curious—who exactly found it problematic, and conversely, who felt it was perfectly fine? Let's look at this through a bit of a cost-benefit lens—what were the actual pros and cons here?
How could it not lead there?! It’s simply a matter of re-evaluating your stance on that controversial closed thread and abandoning the editorial policy you've laid out. You know how the saying goes—don't change horses in the middle of a
Are you suggesting that BPD has gained traction among the general public primarily through online arguments? Honestly, I don’t see that as an entirely negative thing—it might actually serve a purpose by introducing people to the concept of BPD in the first place. How do you account for the fact that so many people are reading up on something most of them have never even heard of before?
I was browsing another forum recently where users were constantly bickering over trivial nonsense—like whether roses or tulips are better—and they spend all their time hurling insults at one another, yet the readership is lower than the actual number of active forum members. How on earth do you explain that phenomenon?
We shouldn't overlook the fact that even a topic this "contentious" and—let's be honest—completely disorganized has become our most read thread in the psychology section. Most people haven't even heard of BPD, let alone understood it, which makes it a far cry from something universally known like schizophrenia or depression. So, how do we account for this sudden explosion in interest? We saw 650 visits in just the last 24 hours, and that’s with the thread being locked since yesterday.
During the first eleven months of last year, we were averaging fewer than 150 daily views. How on earth do you explain a massive 500% surge like this?