Thanks for that.
I've been in a number of groups over the past 10 years or so, and they go through
all the stages that we learned about in team-building back when I was in the
corporate world ... forming, storming, norming! So I agree with Bert ... some
amount of ranting is normal and to be expected.
I also read one study in Discover, about eGroups (yeah, the groups are
getting important enough people are studying them!). Basically that study found
that often a few "loudmouths" will take over a group, and the people who do that
are typically the ones with an agenda, on the extremes of the spectrum. When
that happens, the "moderates" will sort of shut up. This makes the group seem
a lot more extreme than what most people in the group actually believe. And it
tends to happen in *all groups*, which is why I think the whole "moderation"
thing is important.
This is why I've made it my personal agenda (see, I do have an agenda!) to
counteract extreme views, esp. the ones that have a, shall we say, evangelistic
tone and appear to be less reference-supported. The groups that I'm in that have
worked well for years, certain people do get moderated. I've been put under
moderation a few times myself in fact, when my views differed from
the group owner's.
I wouldn't worry about starting a new group, one way or the other. In most
of the groups I've been in, "splinter groups" do start. That's ok. Sometimes they
do great, and get their own niche. Sometimes not. It doesn't matter. It's an
experiment ... experiments are good! For experiments my adopted motto
is "NPD" ... "No Permanent Damage". If it doesn't get you tossed in jail, court,
or the hospital, then try it!
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Jump4Joy <joy2garden@yahoo.com> wrote:
I felt gratified, relieved, and validated in my feelings when I came in here today to see if there were any responses to my invitation post. I tried to be as tactful as I could so as not to "offend", even though I have been offended by an individual in the past, telling me how wrong I was to eat the way I do, etc. I didn't feel safe to post anymore after that. "Food Evangelism" really is the right term for it. I agree with everything everyone has said, and also what Heather said about Fast-5 NOT being about one true diet. One size does not fit all and we are all an "experiment of one".
I went into Yahoo Groups yesterday and saw that this group is on "unmoderated" status. I emailed Dr. Herring yesterday to get his permission to quote him at Spark People and elsewhere, and let him know that I was the new administrator at SP Fast-5 group. He graciously gave it and offered me his support and help. About this group, he said, "The details that a lot of people on the Fast-5 group are sweating probably don't make as much difference as keeping a good attitude and spending time with friends, family and enjoying life." He's a wise and kind man.
I like Heather's idea for setting "ground rules" here. I'm not sure how it would be enforced, but it would be nice to make this a forum where everyone feels heard and respected, not bullied. And I might add: the majority of the people on this forum are respectful...it's a minor few who are causing problems, in my opinion.
I'm not leaving this forum either because I enjoy much of the intelligent, informative discussion. I like the Yahoo format better than Spark People too, but I promise to do my best to stamp out any evangelism there. But I've tried to start some interesting threads and am open to any suggestions. I don't like the emphasis on calorie counting that most of the groups there have, since I have been committed to intuitive eating the past 5 1/2 years. That's what attracted me to Fast-5....it's the solution I needed to reduce my portions without going on an "Accounting Diet".
I don't want to take anybody away from this group. I just want to offer an additional place to go to discuss our Fast-5 journey.
Best to all,
Joy
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment