Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2011, at 17:23:36
In reply to FYI for jussayin » jussayin, posted by 10derheart on June 17, 2011, at 16:32:03
> >>Couldn't have anything to do with a doctor posting pictures of his tot child in bath clothes as the only image on the site. Nope, people do that on social networks all the time. I mean, parents own children and their childrens image, and it's okay for a psychiatrist to post pictures of his tot child in bath clothes on a mental health forum. She's sure to appreciate that when she's old enough to know what happened.
>
> What an unusual way to view an entirely appropriate and innocent picture. Fascinating is one word for your remarks. There are others.
>
> FYI - that is my granddaughter, not Dr. Bob's "tot child" and she is not in "bath clothes," whatever those are. She just finished swimming at our local YMCA and was wearing a bathing suit and covered with a beach towel to dry off/keep warm. Don't know what in heaven's name you are implying is wrong with this picture, but FYI, she was fully covered, and I sent the pic to Dr. Bob as a suggestion since whatever one he'd been using previously bored me to tears and was old.
>
> And, as a matter of fact, even though I'd wager 98% of adults would never even consider this, I ***asked**** her if she cared if people she didn't know saw her cute picture on the computer and she said it was "okay." If she had said no, I would not have sent it to Dr. Bob. Not that this really makes sense since at 4, a child really does not have the maturity to evaluate such a question, and she very well may have said "okay" assuming it would make grandma happy. Kids do that at 4. However, our family believes in giving as much respect as her age level can possibly handle, so we try to give choices even a bit *before* understanding comes. I look forward to her asking me about it when she is older, which I doubt will ever happen. Why would she mind family showing an adorable pic to people?
>
> It's a cute picture of a lovely little girl. That is all it is. What you are thinking it represents, even if is were a child related to Dr. Bob, is beyond me. I am sorry you cannot appreciate it for what it is.
>
> -- 10derheart, perhaps according to this poster, a present/past part of the "clutch of mostly female regulars"10,
You wrote,[...What an xxxx way to view an entirely innocent and appropriate picture. xxxxx is one word.There are others...it's my granddaughter...don't know..what you are implying is wrong...at age 4, a child does not have the maturity to evaluate such a question...why would she mind?...What you are thinking is beyond me...youu cannot xxxxx...].
The poster, as I read the post, did not say that the pic of the tot was inappropriate.
The poster questioned as to if the posting could have anything to do with the subject as innitiated in the thread. I do not see how anyine could know who the tot is. And IMHO,some could reasonably think that since the owner of the site has posted his pic before, that the pic of the tot was in some way possible to be a child that the owner chose in some way. Now there is not a disclaimer to tell who the tot is.
Now as to if the posting of the tot's pic could have repercussions to the tot in the future, there are child psychiatrists that could answer that.
I do not see the poster implying anything by asking if the picture is related to the thread's question.
I do know what {projective} tests are when someone is shown a picture. Since there is not an explanation of the pic, then there could be projection by viewers.
I do not see where the poster declared as to if they did not appreciate the pic, but only wonderd if others had some reaction to that it is posted.
I think that the post is well-written to answer the question by the thread's innitiator from the poster's perspective . If we look at the whole post, there are numerous issues raised that IMHHO, have great merit and if discussed further here could have the potential to save lives or prevent one from getting a life-ruing condition. Looking at the whole post in its context, the one part about the picture of the child is only a part of the importance, and the whole is equal to the sum of it's parts. There may be people that think that the poster including the part about the picture of the child has some importance to them or maybe not.
What is important to me is that someone other than me has posted about some of my concerns. I thought that I was the {lone dissenter}.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:984958
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20110117/msgs/988570.html