PSA

[rivka]

How not to get into my research study: Part 17283 of a continuing series.

1. Call me "baby."

1a. Call me "baby" again, after I already told you not to.

2. "When did you last use heroin or cocaine?" (Voice slurring, eyes drooping, head rolling and nodding) "When? It was juuuuust... before... I got... clean."

Comments

Re: What in the world?

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Why am I mad? You came in here without even bothering to introduce yourself, insulted the client population I work with, and implied that I didn't know the least thing about how to relate to them, and you're wondering why I'm mad? Okay. Whatever.

I don't object to anonymous comments per se, but I've had a whole string of lecturing ones that have made me impatient with the genre. I don't know if those were you or not, of course - which is why I prefer when anonymous comments are signed with some kind of name or handle.

Re: What in the world?

[(Anonymous)]

*Sigh.* Your original post read *precisely* like you had excluded this person from your study for calling you baby.

I replied as I did, out of *respect* for the client population, a basic population whom we happen to share, because your original comment did not actually read like you were filtering out being (annoyingly and repeatedly) called "baby" in that particular circumstance with that particular individual.

You *said* that was how he didn't get to be a participant in your research study...along with his sense of entitlement.

You only mentioned later in the thread, after I posted, that the person you had excluded hadn't met criteria, or he *would* have been included, ("baby or no baby", passed on, as it were, to a burly coworker.) I didn't *have* that information when I first responded. (And, as as an aside, both of us know there are many people who are in such crisis that they could never keep polite track of whether the someone trying to help them prefers Kathy or Katie. I get called Mom, most often, and go right on to address the issues at hand.)


Your clarification helped, because I read it, and believed it: so now, I could read your original post as it was maybe intended: a little humorous venting. But, you also asked me if I even knew any poor African Americans, and you wrote things that made it clear that you had misunderstood my use of the word "culture," and furthermore, you implied that I was prejudiced, and believed manners were something only attainable by the middle-class. Nothing could be more wrong. So, because things can easily be misread on the internet, I clarified my stance and meaning as best I could.

My clarification, apparently, did NOT help. Because, in your above post, you simply repeat that I insulted the client population you work with, among other things.

I wonder why things disintegrated into another poster calling me an "anonymous coward," and had you, berating me for not introducing myself. And, I fail to see where my first and second comment were in any way "lecturing." I wonder how you imagine it would feel safe to me to introduce myself. So, this is my last post, written here to defend, if nothing else, why I wrote what I did. This is probably also where I will be completely ignored, or perhaps even be called names, or have my posts picked apart and twisted into something nasty, or accused again of behaving insultingly to you or others.

But, I can go so far as to hope that we can meet in the middle on this one, and chalk it up as a mutual misunderstanding that has now been corrected. And that would actually be a very good outcome, because I am not a coward, and I am not a lecturer, and I am not a troll, and in real life, I suspect you'd know me to be one of the Good Guys.

Re: What in the world?

[brooksmoses]

You only mentioned later in the thread, after I posted, that the person you had excluded hadn't met criteria, or he *would* have been included, ("baby or no baby", passed on, as it were, to a burly coworker.) I didn't *have* that information when I first responded.

Unless this is the first post of Rivka's that you've ever read -- and if it is, I can't really imagine why you'd have started here, and why you wouldn't have read others before replying -- then you should know that she is a reasonable person who takes her job and the ethical responsibilities that come with it very seriously.

And, if you had that information about her, then you also have the information that the person in question would have been included had he met the criteria, because that's directly and obviously implied by the information that Rivka is a responsible person.

Instead, you seem to have been acting on some sort of information that the "how not to get into my study" was to be taken literally, despite the implications it made about Rivka's character. Where, I wonder, did you believe you got that information from? (And, can you see why your choice to believe "this statement is literal rather than flippant" instead of "Rivka is an ethically-upstanding researcher" might come off as an insult, regardless of your intentions? I don't think it's possible for the misunderstanding to be corrected unless you can see that.)

Re: What in the world?

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

Your original post read *precisely* like you had excluded this person from your study for calling you baby.

FWIW i read it exactly as you did, but i figured rivka didn't actually mean it like that, being as she strikes me from years of reading her articles as scrupulously professional.

lecturing people as an anonymous commenter rarely goes over well. i recommend asking for clarification before going into lecture mode. also, if you don't want to go to the trouble of creating an LJ account, signing your name/handle and linking to some verifiable online presence is a good idea, in order to distinguish yourself from an average anon troll.

Re: What in the world?

[rivka.livejournal.com]

FWIW i read it exactly as you did, but i figured rivka didn't actually mean it like that, being as she strikes me from years of reading her articles as scrupulously professional.

Thanks for that. I think this is where we get into the implied audience of LJ. I wouldn't use wording like that in a purely public setting, because, well, it's unethical research conduct to pick and choose your participants based on anything other than your stated criteria. But here in my journal, I figure that the people reading my words know me - or at least, know enough about my public self-presentation to be able to read my tone.

Re: What in the world?

[(Anonymous)]

As yours was the most recently updated of only *six* livejournals listing "HIV issues" as an interest, I stumbled into this mess purely by accident. Wish I hadn't- people are saying really cruel and untrue things about me, and it doesn't seem to help when I try to explain myself. I guess this reminds both of us that the internet,(and any livejournal, sans filters) *is* a purely public setting, and you have little control over who reads you, and how you are interpreted.

Re: What in the world?

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

at first i felt a bit sorry for you, but now you're well on the path to convincing everybody that you are just a troll because you're not listening and acknowledging that you misunderstood, but instead you're still lecturing. rivka doesn't need reminding what place this is; you on the other hand need to learn some basic livejournal etiquette. so listen up; i like to lecture myself:

the same standards for behaviour don't apply to all public places and all public gatherings. if rivka sits in gazebo in a public park and tells an anecdote to people who're at a picnic with her, and you as a random bystander walking past overhear and are bothered by some off-the-cuff remark, do you think it'd be appropriate to pipe up out of the blue and let her have your words of "wisdom"? if you think that'd be obnoxious you have the social skills that you should transfer here. if you think that'd be just fine you need a remedial course in how to interact with strangers.

this is a mostly private gathering in a public place. since you seem unaware of the differences: livejournal isn't usenet or a public web forum. yup, anyone can wander by and misinterpret things, but the space isn't shared equally; instead said wanderer is a guest of the journal owner, and it behooves one as a guest to perform some rudimentary introductions, and learn something about the gathering before opening one's mouth. if one skips that step one is likely judged much more harshly, because there are people (whom we call "trolls") who specialize in stirring up the natives.

Pleonastic: thank you for explaining:

[(Anonymous)]

"livejournal isn't usenet or a public web forum."

I meant no harm, and I honestly didn't know the difference. Now I do. I'm sorry for writing in your journal as if it were usenet or an open discussion topic, rather than a private gathering, Rivka.

Re: Pleonastic: thank you for explaining:

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

You came by here looking for posts on "HIV issues." Those posts might be tagged "research," "work," "hiv," or "therapy," but anything that references my actual clients (not by name or identifying information, obviously) is probably friends-locked.

Re: What in the world?

[firecat]

Datapoint: I thought you excluded him because of his recent drug use and the "baby" thing was just additional irritation.

Re: What in the world?

[rivka.livejournal.com]

The person in example #2 was actually someone else, who didn't get into the study either. "Baby" guy didn't have a high enough CD4+ (T-cell) count for the study.

Re: What in the world?

[jmhm.livejournal.com]

Since we're extrapolating from each other's words, you seem to be familiar in unusual depth with the standard set of responses to anonymous concern trolling.

Re: What in the world?

[elynne.livejournal.com]

why things disintegrated into another poster calling me an "anonymous coward,"

On another popular online venue, anyone who posts a comment anonymously is automatically (as in, given by the progam interfact itself) given the user name of "Anonymous Coward." I have picked up this habit, because nineteen times out of ten, it's completely accurate.

I see that you seem to be working things out to some degree with rivka. Given that this is her LJ, and you probably have as much interest in me or my own journal as I do in you or your journal (extremely little), having made my rather knee-jerk reflexive snap at you for the comment I had an issue with, I will now disengage; in common parlance, I do not have a dog in this fight. I just want to clarify that by referring to you as an "anonymous coward", I wasn't being specifically insulting, and I wasn't accusing you of cowardace in particular. If that makes any sense, which it probably doesn't.

Re: What in the world?

[(Anonymous)]

As an occasional commenter on this and other livejournals, and not the same anonymous who got zirself into this mess, it does seem a little harsh to call all people who do not care to open their own Livejournals, anonymous cowards. I always sign comments with my real first name, and I try not to be rude, but just because I don't myself have the time or inclination to write a journal or blog, doesn't mean I can't be a thoughtful or honest commenter.
Emma

Re: What in the world?

[elynne.livejournal.com]

But by signing your not-logged-in-to-LJ comments with your name, you are taking responsibility for your words. I would never refer to someone who signs their not-logged-in comments as an "anonymous coward" - you are being neither anonymous nor cowardly. It's the people who hide behind anonymity that I scorn.