Some controversial topics come along in lymeland again and again, often leading to superficial discussions so that questions are never really answered. It would be better, more productive and beneficial, to discuss such topics thoroughly and really get somewhere.
Well, wouldn't it save time to develop a list of topics that aren't
controversial in Lymeland?
But may I ask what you mean when you say "...really get somewhere"?
What is the desired goal you anticipate there?
To my mind, what is important about LNE is the availability of another perspective. Too often, patient forums on Lyme disease are censored, restricted to only one point of view.
But the value of that is reflected in an understanding that the patient's persepctive...view of the controversy has profound impact on the healthcare decisions that patient may make...and those decisions will, in turn, have great impact on the patient's health...and financial health.
So, for me, I think it is highly unrealistic to imagine that you are going to solve anything on an online forum like this, or even shed any real light on it, other to repeat what others say elsewhere.
But science, I think it has been said..."is a way of thinking."
And, I think that critical thinking and analysis of issues can lead to better understanding. And better healthcare choices can flow from that.
And these online discussions can often be emotionally-charged. One constructive criticism that I would ask the Admin here to consider...is that in the past, when rules against personal attack have been blatantly violated...no action is apparently taken until the discussion becomes lost entirely and becomes a quarrel. (And then, in one notable case, to insist that the target had "provoked" those attacks. That's not an excuse. No one is forced to make those type of remarks).
I think that personal attack should be stepped on immediately
, and visibly, and uniformly, if the Admin wants to preserve some atmosphere of rational discussion. You simply can't allow one perspective to name-call and bully the other.
Another involves "off topic" meanderings. Sometimes the subject being discussed in those "meanderings' flow naturally from what was immediately said just before. And if the Admin was personally involved in those 'meanderings' and discussions...and then stops them, mid-stream on the basis that they were "off topic"...well, it's confusing, to say the least.
But people are ultimately responsible for what they want to believe.
I think, realistically, you can put it out there..."you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".