TCF'er threatening suicide

[scottjf8]

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=392722

Dunno who is up now, but Mitchb2 is talking about taking 80 painkillers to off himself. Otherwise he might get a gun tomorrow.

JAP posted his phone # publicly so people could call him.

[dcheesi]

Scary stuff. Sounds like he's been contacted by the cops now. Still don't know what might happen going forward.

This guy has been posting about anti-depressants and withdrawal for a while now. Looks like he may have had a bad reaction. I hope he gets some help, before he does anything foolish.

[JustAllie]

I can't seem to get to TCF right now to check out the link. Scary stuff indeed! I hope Mitch makes it past this crisis and gets some professional help.

[SullyND]

JAP posted his phone # publicly so people could call him.


No matter what anyone thinks of JAP, those were some damn fine posts by her. I hope mitch is ok.

[Agatha]

Guy could be a troll. His wife had a stroke and he said that she WANTS him to commit suicide? Seems a bit farfetched. But, it could just be his brain not working right. He's got 2 kids (or so he says). No one should put their children through that.

The Sheriff's department got to his house, but he was asleep, according to Jafa. Hopefully he gets the help he needs.

[Adam1115]

Quitting antidepresents cold turkey is a bad move. It takes weeks to build up in your system, and subsequently if you quit taking them it takes weeks for them to be out of your system.

Suddenly your in this situation and even going back on the antidepressents is going to take a couple of weeks to help.

It's a BAD idea to be messing with your dose without doctor supervision....

[Joules1111]

Quitting antidepresents cold turkey is a bad move. It takes weeks to build up in your system, and subsequently if you quit taking them it takes weeks for them to be out of your system.

Suddenly your in this situation and even going back on the antidepressents is going to take a couple of weeks to help.

It's a BAD idea to be messing with your dose without doctor supervision....

I thought he posted (in another thread) that he had tapered off of them.

Here (this is in response to someone in the other thread saying he should have tapered off his dosage):
I did! Not only did I do half dose for 10 days, than half again for 10 days, but I thought I'd be safe and do 1/4 for 10 days.

[eddyj]

It sounds like he needed to stay on them, rather than taper off! Or find one that worked better for him, as opposed to going to nothing. Hopefully he will get the help he clearly needs.

[Adam1115]

Quitting antidepresents cold turkey is a bad move. It takes weeks to build up in your system, and subsequently if you quit taking them it takes weeks for them to be out of your system.

Suddenly your in this situation and even going back on the antidepressents is going to take a couple of weeks to help.

It's a BAD idea to be messing with your dose without doctor supervision....

I thought he posted (in another thread) that he had tapered off of them.

Here (this is in response to someone in the other thread saying he should have tapered off his dosage):
I did! Not only did I do half dose for 10 days, than half again for 10 days, but I thought I'd be safe and do 1/4 for 10 days.

Hmmm, well, that's good I guess. Still it should be done under close doctor supervision. It's very hard to convince someone with mental illness that they need to be on medication. Sometimes it's viewed as a crutch....

[Joules1111]

Hmmm, well, that's good I guess. Still it should be done under close doctor supervision. It's very hard to convince someone with mental illness that they need to be on medication. Sometimes it's viewed as a crutch....
Either a crutch or a failure. Still a stigma to it.

I absolutely agree with you that he should not have gone off of them without medical supervision. But at least he tried to wean himself off of them.

I did that once, because I felt so great that I decided I didn't need them (the ironic side of antidepressants). I was a mess after a week. This last time I quit them my doctor was on board and aware.

[TheIndependent]

http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=392722

Dunno who is up now, but Mitchb2 is talking about taking 80 painkillers to off himself. Otherwise he might get a gun tomorrow.

JAP posted his phone # publicly so people could call him.


i was going to tell the OP to make sure to take 200+ and then shoot himself, you know, just to make sure. but people would probably not like that brand of humor :)

[Guindalf]

Ok, first things first. I don't care what the circumstances are, JAP is WRONG to post this guy's phone number publicly.
If there is a perceived problem, she should alert the authorities, not allow a bunch of amateurs to be able to call him. After all, who are we to interfere?

Second, my personal view is that this is a plea for attention, maybe even a "sparkly" call for help!

Mitchb2 has been causing problems on TCF for a long time and, if he's real, has serious issues. My alternate persona was a victim of his when I dared to disagree with a comment he made about a TV show in the Now Playing forum a year or so ago. He searched through my posts and attacked several of them, even bumping old threads to do so - to the point of people asking if he and I had problems. I never reported it (didn't want to draw attention to myself), but it's possible others did as he disappeared for a short while after that.


disclaimer: I haven't actually seen his thread. Comments are based on prior knowledge of the guy and what's posted here.

[Skittles]

After all, who are we to interfere?Good people with the best of intentions offered out of caring hearts?

Second, my personal view is that this is a plea for attention, maybe even a "sparkly" call for help!Really, I think the situation is bad enough as it is. Is it really necessary to start speculation like that, even if you're 99.9% certain of it?

[Turtleboy]

Ok, first things first. I don't care what the circumstances are, JAP is WRONG to post this guy's phone number publicly.
If there is a perceived problem, she should alert the authorities, not allow a bunch of amateurs to be able to call him. After all, who are we to interfere?

Second, my personal view is that this is a plea for attention, maybe even a "sparkly" call for help!

Mitchb2 has been causing problems on TCF for a long time and, if he's real, has serious issues. My alternate persona was a victim of his when I dared to disagree with a comment he made about a TV show in the Now Playing forum a year or so ago. He searched through my posts and attacked several of them, even bumping old threads to do so - to the point of people asking if he and I had problems. I never reported it (didn't want to draw attention to myself), but it's possible others did as he disappeared for a short while after that.


disclaimer: I haven't actually seen his thread. Comments are based on prior knowledge of the guy and what's posted here.

:down::down::down:

Suddenly, I'm not too upset about your banning anymore. Bad bad form.

[heySkippy]

disclaimer: I haven't actually seen his thread. Comments are based on prior knowledge of the guy and what's posted here.
You really should have viewed the thread before posting all that.

[doom1701]

Ok, first things first. I don't care what the circumstances are, JAP is WRONG to post this guy's phone number publicly.
If there is a perceived problem, she should alert the authorities, not allow a bunch of amateurs to be able to call him. After all, who are we to interfere?

Second, my personal view is that this is a plea for attention, maybe even a "sparkly" call for help!

Mitchb2 has been causing problems on TCF for a long time and, if he's real, has serious issues. My alternate persona was a victim of his when I dared to disagree with a comment he made about a TV show in the Now Playing forum a year or so ago. He searched through my posts and attacked several of them, even bumping old threads to do so - to the point of people asking if he and I had problems. I never reported it (didn't want to draw attention to myself), but it's possible others did as he disappeared for a short while after that.


disclaimer: I haven't actually seen his thread. Comments are based on prior knowledge of the guy and what's posted here.

:down::down::down:

Suddenly, I'm not too upset about your banning anymore. Bad bad form.

Which part? I can't find anything in Guindalf's post that I disagree with at all.

(including his disclaimer--I haven't read the TC thread either)

[Turtleboy]

Ok, first things first. I don't care what the circumstances are, JAP is WRONG to post this guy's phone number publicly.
If there is a perceived problem, she should alert the authorities, not allow a bunch of amateurs to be able to call him. After all, who are we to interfere?

Second, my personal view is that this is a plea for attention, maybe even a "sparkly" call for help!

Mitchb2 has been causing problems on TCF for a long time and, if he's real, has serious issues. My alternate persona was a victim of his when I dared to disagree with a comment he made about a TV show in the Now Playing forum a year or so ago. He searched through my posts and attacked several of them, even bumping old threads to do so - to the point of people asking if he and I had problems. I never reported it (didn't want to draw attention to myself), but it's possible others did as he disappeared for a short while after that.


disclaimer: I haven't actually seen his thread. Comments are based on prior knowledge of the guy and what's posted here.

:down::down::down:

Suddenly, I'm not too upset about your banning anymore. Bad bad form.

Which part? I can't find anything in Guindalf's post that I disagree with at all.

(including his disclaimer--I haven't read the TC thread either)

Every part.

1. JAP was not wrong to post the phone number at the time with the knowledge that she had. It allowed more computer and technologically literate people to take steps that she did not know how to do on her on.

2. Is it a plea for attention? Possibly. Most suicide threats are, but he has obviously been going through a rough time, and attention is just what such a person needs. Better to err on the side of caution then have him kill himself. And a "sparkly" call for help? I've been around a lot longer than you, and knew both Pan Chun and Sparkle and the story behind it. I don't even know what that means. That he has two separate identities at TC? That would be you, not him.

3. Has he been causing "problems?" Maybe. Probably. But still, he's a person, a human being who was in pain and appeared to a reasonable observer to be seriously contempleting suicide. I've gotten in my share of tiffs at TC, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone; and would do my part to help anyone on TC out if they were in a tough spot.

LIke you said, you hadn't read the threads (or his previous threads over the past few days). You probably shouldn't have commetned.

Edit: "You" wasn't aimed at Doom.

[Guindalf]

Sorry, but I don't think this IS bad form. I'm merely stating what many people may be speculating. I'm not wishing harm on anyone, just putting possibilities up there.

1. TCF is a (semi) public forum with a lot of visitors. I would be extremely upset if my personal phone number was bandied around, no matter what the circumstances, so I still say JAP was wrong. Remember, we DO have people like Sparkle/Pan and many others who could use this to do no good. Not suggesting he himself would do anything, but remember there are many more visionaries out there!

2. If someone really needs to call for attention, are they really going to do it in Happy Hour on the Tivo Community forum? No matter how many "Good people with the best of intentions offered out of caring hearts" there are in the forum, there at least 10 times as many who aren't!
2.5 Are you SURE you've been around longer than I have? I've actually been around a loooooong time and I, too, remember the Pan/Sparkle debacle. And I DON'T have two separate identities at TC. Just the one, with two different names (and soon to be one only) - big difference. I don't hide behind any one or any thing.

3. I, too, don't wish harm on anyone. If you got that from my original post, I apologize. I merely think that some people may be too quick to judge (like TB, right here) and assume that what they are being told is the truth. I'm not saying he's lying, just mentioning that there's a possibility.


Oh and Jay, I didn't mean to suggest that it WAS Sparkle/Chan, just that is could be a similar thing. I happen to think that he also needed help!

[Mikkel_Knight]

Hey TB...

Speaking as someone who hasn't read the thread...

If JAP thought it was appropriate to just post his number and then let the "more computer and tech savy users" take the steps she didn't know.

Sorry. If she's a moderator on a website that has millions of hits a day, and doesn't know that most BASIC of rules (report acts of intended violence to the authorities immediately), then regardless of all her other flaws as a moderator, she shouldn't be one.

If nothing else, she should have contacted Block(head) and had him deal with it.

Again, this is coming from someone who has no idea who you're talking about, nor do I have the intention of viewing the thread.

[QueenBee]

If you read the thread you will see that JAP was at a birthday party for her step-daughter and couldn't get help for him. She posted the number in a kind of desperation, and stated it would be taken down. It was.

Maybe it wasn't the best move, but at least she was trying.

[heySkippy]

Sorry, but I don't think this IS bad form.
You're wrong. Have you read the thread yet?

[WhoMe]

If you read the thread you will see that JAP was at a birthday party for her step-daughter and couldn't get help for him. She posted the number in a kind of desperation, and stated it would be taken down. It was.

Maybe it wasn't the best move, but at least she was trying.

Was she really still at the party at 11:18 on a Sunday night when she posted the number? I have trouble believing that.

[Guindalf]

Sorry, but I don't think this IS bad form.
You're wrong. Have you read the thread yet?

No, I'm not allowed in there. That's why I haven't read it in the first place.

[Skittles]

1. TCF is a (semi) public forum with a lot of visitors. I would be extremely upset if my personal phone number was bandied around, no matter what the circumstances, so I still say JAP was wrong. Remember, we DO have people like Sparkle/Pan and many others who could use this to do no good. Not suggesting he himself would do anything, but remember there are many more visionaries out there! As others have said, you need to read the thread before commenting on it. Ann promised to remove it in the morning (and she did, at 11:13am CDT) and it was proven that the number in question no longer belonged to the gentleman in question anyway. However, it did help jafa track down the guy, and get the police there very quickly.

2. If someone really needs to call for attention, are they really going to do it in Happy Hour on the Tivo Community forum? No matter how many "Good people with the best of intentions offered out of caring hearts" there are in the forum, there at least 10 times as many who aren't! And those people didn't push him over the edge. No one goaded that person on. And the phone number is a moot point, as I mentioned above

3. I, too, don't wish harm on anyone. If you got that from my original post, I apologize. I merely think that some people may be too quick to judge (like TB, right here) and assume that what they are being told is the truth. I'm not saying he's lying, just mentioning that there's a possibility.The point here is this:

It doesn't matter if it was fake.
It doesn't matter if it was a cry for attention.
All that matters is that people acted on it as if it were real.

Put aside mitch for a second, because it's kind of obvious that you don't care for the guy and have a bit of a grudge against him. What if this were me? Or Sheryl? Or Gunnyman? What if any of us had posted this?

It wouldn't/shouldn't have mattered if it were real or fake. It's a cry for help either way. People acted on it as if it were real. And in my mind, that's exactly what they ought to do. Because if they hadn't? If they said to themselves "Well, he's probably just faking" and he DID kill himself? Imagine the pain, sorrow, and horror that those people would feel over his death, simply because they refused to act, or were unwilling to believe that the situation were real.

Ann did the right thing here, she tried to help. And a lot went on behind the scenes between her and jafa last night, from what I've been told. To find fault in her actions is in extremely poor taste, moreso if you're judging her based on this thread alone.

As far as any of us knows, she may have helped save a person's life last night. And to see people sit here and call her actions into question is truly disappointing to me.

Oh and Jay, I didn't mean to suggest that it WAS Sparkle/Chan, just that is could be a similar thing. To even make the comment is silly, though. And all it does is take an already sad and unfortunate situation and make it worse by exacerbating it.

[pseudonym]

1. TCF is a (semi) public forum with a lot of visitors. I would be extremely upset if my personal phone number was bandied around, no matter what the circumstances
No matter what the circumstances? What if the circumstances were exactly what they appeared to be?

[Skittles]

Hey TB...

Speaking as someone who hasn't read the thread...

If JAP thought it was appropriate to just post his number and then let the "more computer and tech savy users" take the steps she didn't know.

Sorry. If she's a moderator on a website that has millions of hits a day, and doesn't know that most BASIC of rules (report acts of intended violence to the authorities immediately), then regardless of all her other flaws as a moderator, she shouldn't be one.

If nothing else, she should have contacted Block(head) and had him deal with it.

Again, this is coming from someone who has no idea who you're talking about, nor do I have the intention of viewing the thread.Geoff, I love you, and you are my friend.

But like Guindalf, you're judging this with only half the facts. And it's wrong to come to the conclusions you've arrived at.

[Otto]

If I was this Mitch guy, I'd sue JAP for invasion of privacy. Or something anyway, giving away somebody's personal information like that has got to be illegal somehow.

I don't care what the guy posted, it is never right to do something like that.

If this guy really wants to off himself, then let him. It's his right to do so.

[DougF]

Was she really still at the party at 11:18 on a Sunday night when she posted the number? I have trouble believing that.

While pointing out Ann's faults is a neat game for some of you over here, I think you're reaching a bit there.

[Guindalf]

1. TCF is a (semi) public forum with a lot of visitors. I would be extremely upset if my personal phone number was bandied around, no matter what the circumstances, so I still say JAP was wrong. Remember, we DO have people like Sparkle/Pan and many others who could use this to do no good. Not suggesting he himself would do anything, but remember there are many more visionaries out there! As others have said, you need to read the thread before commenting on it. Ann promised to remove it in the morning (and she did, at 11:13am CDT) and it was proven that the number in question no longer belonged to the gentleman in question anyway. However, it did help jafa track down the guy, and get the police there very quickly.

2. If someone really needs to call for attention, are they really going to do it in Happy Hour on the Tivo Community forum? No matter how many "Good people with the best of intentions offered out of caring hearts" there are in the forum, there at least 10 times as many who aren't! And those people didn't push him over the edge. No one goaded that person on. And the phone number is a moot point, as I mentioned above

3. I, too, don't wish harm on anyone. If you got that from my original post, I apologize. I merely think that some people may be too quick to judge (like TB, right here) and assume that what they are being told is the truth. I'm not saying he's lying, just mentioning that there's a possibility.The point here is this:

It doesn't matter if it was fake.
It doesn't matter if it was a cry for attention.
All that matters is that people acted on it as if it were real.

Put aside mitch for a second, because it's kind of obvious that you don't care for the guy and have a bit of a grudge against him. What if this were me? Or Sheryl? Or Gunnyman? What if any of us had posted this?

It wouldn't/shouldn't have mattered if it were real or fake. It's a cry for help either way. People acted on it as if it were real. And in my mind, that's exactly what they ought to do. Because if they hadn't? If they said to themselves "Well, he's probably just faking" and he DID kill himself? Imagine the pain, sorrow, and horror that those people would feel over his death, simply because they refused to act, or were unwilling to believe that the situation were real.

Ann did the right thing here, she tried to help. And a lot went on behind the scenes between her and jafa last night, from what I've been told. To find fault in her actions is in extremely poor taste, moreso if you're judging her based on this thread alone.

As far as any of us knows, she may have helped save a person's life last night. And to see people sit here and call her actions into question is truly disappointing to me.

Oh and Jay, I didn't mean to suggest that it WAS Sparkle/Chan, just that is could be a similar thing. To even make the comment is silly, though. And all it does is take an already sad and unfortunate situation and make it worse by exacerbating it.

First, let me say that I agree with most of what you say. I'm not meaning to be confrontational or take anything away from the perceived seriousness of the situation. Just like a fire station must respond to every false alarm - just in case - I agree that the situation has to be taken seriously.

Second, I bear no grudges. What happened with him and I is history and hopefully wouldn't be repeated. I mentioned it as a reminder that someone's past actions reflect on how they are perceived. Not everything can be taken on face value, but if it WERE you, Sheryl or Gunny, it would have no less importance as to getting help, but I would take it a LOT more seriously because I know you all better (some even IRL).

I actually don't dislike Ann. I also don't just blindly jump on the mod-bashing bandwagon. However, I still feel that it was wrong to post this guy's number, whether it was removed later or not. Calling the authorities and giving it to them would be a far better solution, so no apology for that comment.

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one. I am responding on a thread that was started here and all my comments are based on that. I am unable to read the full thread and I may change my opinion if and when I do, but I make no apology for responding to a post on this forum.

Again, I'm not saying that we shouldn't respond and get help for the guy; I'm not implying that because he's caused trouble in the past his life is any less important than my own; and I'm certainly not trying to be provocative. I seem to have struck a nerve and some seem to think I'm uncaring. I'm not. Just stating things as I see them, for what they're worth.

[heySkippy]

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one.
You shot your mouth off on a subject you weren't really qualified to comment on. You acted like an internet dickwad and by golly, you're sticking to it.

Good for you, but you are 100% wrong. The tone and timbre of that thread was such that action was warranted. You might disagree with the precise method, but you weren't there.

[Skittles]

I actually don't dislike Ann. I also don't just blindly jump on the mod-bashing bandwagon. However, I still feel that it was wrong to post this guy's number, whether it was removed later or not. Calling the authorities and giving it to them would be a far better solution, so no apology for that comment.Consider this, though.

The number she posted wasn't the right one. And in fact, had she called the authorities and given them that number she'd posted, there's a possibility that they never would have found mitch in time to save him.

By contrast, though, jafa was able to do some legwork and helped lead the authorities to the guy.

So if by saving this guy's life, she posted someone's telephone number... is that wrong? In my mind, it's not. And to see it as such is kind of missing the larger picture. Phone numbers can be changed. Ann was trying to help, and in doing so, was probably directly responsible for saving this guy's life.

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one. I am responding on a thread that was started here and all my comments are based on that. I am unable to read the full thread and I may change my opinion if and when I do, but I make no apology for responding to a post on this forum. You're commenting on the entirety of the story when you admit to only knowing the pieces of it that are conveyed to you. That's pretty misguided.

[TheIndependent]

The tone and timbre of that thread was such that action was warranted. You might disagree with the precise method, but you weren't there.

i read the thread and i'll disagree that "action was warranted". it's a tivo message board, not a suicide hotline. people on that forum aren't responsible for anything related to the well being of anyone else, including anonymous / limited public profile posters (nor are they responsible here).

[JYoung]

Please.
People bashing Ann over this is like criticizing her for speeding while driving a critically injured person to the hospital.

I doubt that she made the decision to post that number lightly. She did it out of genuine concern in the hopes someone would be able to talk him down.
Fake threat or not.

[dslunceford]

If I was this Mitch guy, I'd sue JAP for invasion of privacy. Or something anyway, giving away somebody's personal information like that has got to be illegal somehow.

I don't care what the guy posted, it is never right to do something like that.

If this guy really wants to off himself, then let him. It's his right to do so.

I think her response was pretty appropriate given the threat. It's not like the phone was totally anonymous, it was pulled off a contact for his website...

[dslunceford]

The tone and timbre of that thread was such that action was warranted. You might disagree with the precise method, but you weren't there.

i read the thread and i'll disagree that "action was warranted". it's a tivo message board, not a suicide hotline. people on that forum aren't responsible for anything related to the well being of anyone else, including anonymous / limited public profile posters (nor are they responsible here).

"Action is warranted" is different than saying someone is "responsible for ...well being." Certainly there's no official responsibility. Some people feel a sense of personal or moral responsibility to help others in need, however, and that's what happened here.

[Guindalf]

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one.
You shot your mouth off on a subject you weren't really qualified to comment on. You acted like an internet dickwad and by golly, you're sticking to it.

Good for you, but you are 100% wrong. The tone and timbre of that thread was such that action was warranted. You might disagree with the precise method, but you weren't there.

Mac. If you're going to quote me, make sure you quote IN context with the WHOLE paragraph and not just the part that makes your comments look correct.

I am as qualified to comment on what was posted here as much as the next guy. If you don't like it, there's no need for name-calling and, just like you, I'm entitled to my opinion. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. Quid Pro Quo.

[DougF]

i read the thread and i'll disagree that "action was warranted". it's a tivo message board, not a suicide hotline. people on that forum aren't responsible for anything related to the well being of anyone else, including anonymous / limited public profile posters (nor are they responsible here).

The problem is that not everyone who is going to commit suicide is going to bother calling a suicide hotline.

If I were walking down the street in a strange neighborhood and I saw you about to off yourself, I'd consider it my duty to try and help you. Would you rather I just reminded myself that I was taking a walk and not working a suicide hotline and leave you to the business of killing yourself?

What happened at TCF last night/this morning was no different, IMO.

[JustAllie]

If this guy really wants to off himself, then let him. It's his right to do so.
Suicides and suicide attempts are usually a sign of mental illness, and to sit back and just watch it happen without doing anything to contact the authorities is like watching someone bleed to death on the street because it's their right to bleed.

[Gus]

You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong. Quid Pro Quo."Quid pro quo" does not mean "c'est la vie".

[kar74]

While Ann posting the phone number was a little odd, she had a moral obligation to fulfill.

I can't imagine the guilt a vast majority of us would have felt if nothing had been done to help this person and he acted on his threat.

[dslunceford]

[quote=pdjplano;82322]

If I were walking down the street in a strange neighborhood and I saw you about to off yourself, I'd consider it my duty to try and help you.

Geez, I'd try to stop them, not help them off themself... :2funny:

[TheIndependent]

Would you rather I just reminded myself that I was taking a walk and not working a suicide hotline and leave you to the business of killing yourself?

yes, actually. it's none of your business.


What happened at TCF last night/this morning was no different, IMO.

i agree it was no different. in neither case do i think those people should intercede.

[WhoMe]

While Ann posting the phone number was a little odd, she had a moral obligation to fulfill.

I can't imagine the guilt a vast majority of us would have felt if nothing had been done to help this person and he acted on his threat.

I'm in the minority. I would absolutely not felt guilty.

[Guindalf]

I actually don't dislike Ann. I also don't just blindly jump on the mod-bashing bandwagon. However, I still feel that it was wrong to post this guy's number, whether it was removed later or not. Calling the authorities and giving it to them would be a far better solution, so no apology for that comment.Consider this, though.

The number she posted wasn't the right one. And in fact, had she called the authorities and given them that number she'd posted, there's a possibility that they never would have found mitch in time to save him.

By contrast, though, jafa was able to do some legwork and helped lead the authorities to the guy.

So if by saving this guy's life, she posted someone's telephone number... is that wrong? In my mind, it's not. And to see it as such is kind of missing the larger picture. Phone numbers can be changed. Ann was trying to help, and in doing so, was probably directly responsible for saving this guy's life.

Sorry, but you can't justify the act because of the outcome. If I discover that my neighbor is a terrorist and is going to blow up a stadium full of people tomorrow, so I shoot him, I haven't just saved 60,000 innocent people, I've murdered one person. If I had reported him to the authorities and they ignored the threat, the blood is on their hands, not mine. The end does NOT justify the means and the fact that it was the wrong phone number actually ADDS to the problem, not justifies the situation.

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one. I am responding on a thread that was started here and all my comments are based on that. I am unable to read the full thread and I may change my opinion if and when I do, but I make no apology for responding to a post on this forum. You're commenting on the entirety of the story when you admit to only knowing the pieces of it that are conveyed to you. That's pretty misguided.


Again, I was commenting on what was posted on this forum, not the entire thread, so it should be taken as such. There was no attempt to comment on the situation in its entirety, which is why my original post had a disclaimer in it!

[BrettStah]

If I was this Mitch guy, I'd sue JAP for invasion of privacy. Or something anyway, giving away somebody's personal information like that has got to be illegal somehow.Phone numbers are not really private, are they? I know you can get an unlisted number, but if the guy had this number posted on his website (which is apparently where JAP got it from), then he really doesn't have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

[pseudonym]

Would you rather I just reminded myself that I was taking a walk and not working a suicide hotline and leave you to the business of killing yourself?

yes, actually. it's none of your business.

What planet do you live on?

[TheIndependent]

Would you rather I just reminded myself that I was taking a walk and not working a suicide hotline and leave you to the business of killing yourself?

yes, actually. it's none of your business.

What planet do you live on?

good rebuttal.

[Fofer]

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one. I am responding on a thread that was started here and all my comments are based on that. I am unable to read the full thread and I may change my opinion if and when I do, but I make no apology for responding to a post on this forum.

Again, I was commenting on what was posted on this forum, not the entire thread, so it should be taken as such. There was no attempt to comment on the situation in its entirety, which is why my original post had a disclaimer in it!

While I hear where you're coming from, I'd encourage you to take a step back and consider the consequences of posting such marked opinions about a sensitive subject. Especially when you readily admit you don't have easy access to the same basic, original information we're discussing.

Yes, you did put a disclaimer... but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous (at worst) or tactless (at best.)

While this is a separate forum, it's directly referencing content about a troubled human being on another well-known forum. If I had an opinion that might run against the grain on the matter, I'd show the community some respect by doing my damnedest to read the thread in question before spouting off and making waves. Even if it meant bypassing whatever ban was in place... fake account, using a proxy, asking someone to copy and paste the text here, whatever. I'd be embarrassed to try and communicate my opinions with authority, had I done any less.

And if that's just too inconvenient or annoying, well, I'd muster the strength to just keep my mouth shut on the subject. Yes, it sucks that you've gotten banned from a place that still holds your interest. Either get back on board in full force and participate politely, or be prepared for your opinions on the matter to be discounted heavily.

Did you expect a different response here?

Phone numbers are not really private, are they? I know you can get an unlisted number, but if the guy had this number posted on his website (which is apparently where JAP got it from), then he really doesn't have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Just to keep this discussion fed with facts, JAP didn't get the number off his "public website." She got it from WHOIS. Here's what she posted (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6249449#post6249449):

Like I said, I was celebrating my stepdaughters 30th birthday. I ceded control to Jafa - more because I couldn't even think what to do. I sent Jafa all the information I had: the IP addresses he'd just posted from, the ISP, all user information for his webpage. I posted the phone number after doing a whois on his webpage, knowing it could be incorrect, but in case Jafa wasn't able to find out, somebody could trace it and make sure it belonged to Mitch.

Now, I'm not sure what she's referring to when she says "all user information for his webpage" because if you enter a "Home Page URL" in your TCF UserCP, (under "Edit Profile,") then it shows up on your Member Profile page publicly. mitchb2 doesn't have one listed there.

JAP also went on in that post to apologize for the unexpected intrusion, but said that it was done out of caring and hope Mitch would come back and post soon.

That said, we've had similar situations on TCF in the past, with folks sleuthing to get a poster's private contact information in order to help. I don't recall them getting this same response. JAP was in a difficult spot and happened to be in a position to help. She did what she could, and I think she ultimately made the right call.

[pseudonym]

yes, actually. it's none of your business.

What planet do you live on?

good rebuttal.
It wasn't meant as a rebuttal.

How's this: if Doug were to find you in an Alzheimer's induced fugue, wandering around in your bathrobe looking for your long-dead grandmother's house, would you expect him to just mind his own business and let you do whatever you want?

[Marco]

if Doug were to find you in an Alzheimer's induced fugue, wandering around in your bathrobe looking for your long-dead grandmother's house, would you expect him to just mind his own business and let you do whatever you want?

Nobody _chooses_ to lose his mind to Alzheimer's.
At least some people voluntarily choose suicide.

[pseudonym]

if Doug were to find you in an Alzheimer's induced fugue, wandering around in your bathrobe looking for your long-dead grandmother's house, would you expect him to just mind his own business and let you do whatever you want?

Nobody _chooses_ to lose his mind to Alzheimer's.
At least some people voluntarily choose suicide.
You view a message board posting from a guy who's been weening himself off of antidepressants and is describing himself as being at the end of his rope as a sign of someone who's made a reasoned and duly considered decision to end his own life?

[bigpuma]

if Doug were to find you in an Alzheimer's induced fugue, wandering around in your bathrobe looking for your long-dead grandmother's house, would you expect him to just mind his own business and let you do whatever you want?

Nobody _chooses_ to lose his mind to Alzheimer's.
At least some people voluntarily choose suicide.

How do you determine which person is choosing to commit suicide vs. which person is mentally ill? How do you decide who to try and help and who not to?

[knownzero]

Given what I've read in that thread and what JAP's position was at the time, I agree with what she did. Skittles and Fofer have laid out the reasons why better than I can. It's possible that my view is tainted by one of my friends who tried to kill himself just minutes after talking to him and I still wish I had *some* sign or call for help to at least try to get him some help before he shot himself. Seeing a post like that, even if it was a hoax (although that's one hell of a long way to go for a hoax) it just screams to me to have someone get him some help immediately regardless of consequences.

[RegBarc]

if Doug were to find you in an Alzheimer's induced fugue, wandering around in your bathrobe looking for your long-dead grandmother's house, would you expect him to just mind his own business and let you do whatever you want?

Nobody _chooses_ to lose his mind to Alzheimer's.
At least some people voluntarily choose suicide.

How do you determine which person is choosing to commit suicide vs. which person is mentally ill? How do you decide who to try and help and who not to?

I think that the degree to which someone is mentally incapacitated is on a sliding scale. On one end, we have people who are bat-shit crazy. Totally, certifiably, bat-shit crazy. On the other end, we have people who, while they have certain diagnosed mental health conditions, have rational trains of thought.

With Mitch, there's no way for us Interwebs people to know which is which in his case. None of us, even if Psychiatrist, can make a remote diagnosis of his problems. So to come down on either side of the issue is really a flip of the coin. Either we don't buy into what he is choosing to do, or we believe he is closer to the "bat-shit crazy" end of the spectrum and assume the worse and notify local law enforcement.

That all being said...while I understand Mikkel's, Paul's, etc., position, I am coming down on the side of "bat-shit crazy" and that invading Mitch's personal rights to privacy are ultimately outweighed by the need to ensure his safety since Mitch clearly cannot judge what is or is not safe.

Ann took a chance by posting his phone number. I don't care of privacy rights when she posts the number. What concerns me the most is that there are equally bat-shit crazy people on the Interwebs who will not only call him, but call him and encourage him to end it all. TCF is a community moreso than most forums...but God damn, there are some fucking wackos out there. It conerns me these fucking wackos would have his number...but that concern is outweighed by trusting in innate goodness of our fellow man to call the right people to get Mitch help.

As a side note, if what he says is true about his wife telling him to go ahead and off himself...what a fucking bitch. I hope once he's better he files for divorce. There is absolutely, positively no excuse for that.

[pseudonym]

Nobody _chooses_ to lose his mind to Alzheimer's.
At least some people voluntarily choose suicide.

How do you determine which person is choosing to commit suicide vs. which person is mentally ill? How do you decide who to try and help and who not to?

I think that the degree to which someone is mentally incapacitated is on a sliding scale. On one end, we have people who are bat-shit crazy. Totally, certifiably, bat-shit crazy. On the other end, we have people who, while they have certain diagnosed mental health conditions, have rational trains of thought.

With Mitch, there's no way for us Interwebs people to know which is which in his case. None of us, even if Psychiatrist, can make a remote diagnosis of his problems. So to come down on either side of the issue is really a flip of the coin. Either we don't buy into what he is choosing to do, or we believe he is closer to the "bat-shit crazy" end of the spectrum and assume the worse and notify local law enforcement.

That all being said...while I understand Mikkel's, Paul's, etc., position, I am coming down on the side of "bat-shit crazy" and that invading Mitch's personal rights to privacy are ultimately outweighed by the need to ensure his safety since Mitch clearly cannot judge what is or is not safe.


Well, no, I feel pretty confident in judging that someone who is posting on the internet in the middle of the night asking how many pills he should take to kill himself effectively because his wife is telling him to do it and he just can't take all the stress anymore is in fact not acting from a rational train of thought (assuming it's not some kind of joke). I don't see much grey area there.

And, since we're talking about the stigma of mental illness in this thread, I'm not sure that referring to him as "bat-shit crazy" is exactly helping matters.

As a side note, if what he says is true about his wife telling him to go ahead and off himself...what a fucking bitch. I hope once he's better he files for divorce. There is absolutely, positively no excuse for that.
Can't argue with that.

[RegBarc]

How do you determine which person is choosing to commit suicide vs. which person is mentally ill? How do you decide who to try and help and who not to?

I think that the degree to which someone is mentally incapacitated is on a sliding scale. On one end, we have people who are bat-shit crazy. Totally, certifiably, bat-shit crazy. On the other end, we have people who, while they have certain diagnosed mental health conditions, have rational trains of thought.

With Mitch, there's no way for us Interwebs people to know which is which in his case. None of us, even if Psychiatrist, can make a remote diagnosis of his problems. So to come down on either side of the issue is really a flip of the coin. Either we don't buy into what he is choosing to do, or we believe he is closer to the "bat-shit crazy" end of the spectrum and assume the worse and notify local law enforcement.

That all being said...while I understand Mikkel's, Paul's, etc., position, I am coming down on the side of "bat-shit crazy" and that invading Mitch's personal rights to privacy are ultimately outweighed by the need to ensure his safety since Mitch clearly cannot judge what is or is not safe.


Well, no, I feel pretty confident in judging that someone who is posting on the internet in the middle of the night asking how many pills he should take to kill himself effectively because his wife is telling him to do it and he just can't take all the stress anymore is in fact not acting from a rational train of thought (assuming it's not some kind of joke). I don't see much grey area there.

Well, there's some people who can do these cries for help every so often, and I don't think it's 100% impossible that he's just chosen a new medium for these cries for help. I just think that if there's a 1% chance he is for real, than we'd best treat it like it's 100% he'll do it.

I think the grey area comes in where, assuming he's not drawing pictures of the spiders he sees all over his body, some rationality comes into play. Maybe not much, but there is a level of rational thought taking place and sometimes it's the rational thought, not the chemical imbalance, that causes us to make choices we'll forever regret or make choices we cannot take back.

And, since we're talking about the stigma of mental illness in this thread, I'm not sure that referring to him as "bat-shit crazy" is exactly helping matters.My apologies, the "bat-shit crazy" was moreso denoted to those on the far end of the scale. Like mumbling constantly, getting arrested for shoving commuters in front of trains, type of people. I'm not saying he was all the way over there, but he wasn't in a clear frame of mind either. I was just trying to point out he's closer to that end than the sane one of the scale.

[keirgrey]

Suicide is an escape from pain. It hurts so much that you want to do just about anything to make it stop. I don't know if that qualifies as selfish.

When I had my black day, the only thing that stopped me was knowing the ones I would leave behind and their puzzlement and hurt at what I had done. I couldn't bear to hurt my kids and my best friend so I chose not to.

[DougF]

Would you rather I just reminded myself that I was taking a walk and not working a suicide hotline and leave you to the business of killing yourself?

yes, actually. it's none of your business.


What happened at TCF last night/this morning was no different, IMO.

i agree it was no different. in neither case do i think those people should intercede.

Man, I used to be that cynical. I'm glad I'm not anymore. Something tells me you're not much of a community-minded fella.

Like it or not, if I find you about to kill yourself, I'm going to help you or get help for you. I'm gonna bet your family would appreciate it.

If Mitch was really about to take his own life last night, I'm certain his family is glad that a group of nutty internet strangers attempted to intervene.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Hey TB...

Speaking as someone who hasn't read the thread...

If JAP thought it was appropriate to just post his number and then let the "more computer and tech savy users" take the steps she didn't know.

Sorry. If she's a moderator on a website that has millions of hits a day, and doesn't know that most BASIC of rules (report acts of intended violence to the authorities immediately), then regardless of all her other flaws as a moderator, she shouldn't be one.

If nothing else, she should have contacted Block(head) and had him deal with it.

Again, this is coming from someone who has no idea who you're talking about, nor do I have the intention of viewing the thread.Geoff, I love you, and you are my friend.

But like Guindalf, you're judging this with only half the facts. And it's wrong to come to the conclusions you've arrived at.
Hey that's great.

Here's my "facts":
Somebody at TCF made a post that they were going to kill themselves.

JAP, a moderator @ TCF, made a decision to post the individual's phone number.

That's all I got Jay... that's all I'm going with, and by those two facts alone, are what my post was based on.

My conclusions, based on those two facts, are far from wrong, my friend...

[Mikkel_Knight]

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one.
You shot your mouth off on a subject you weren't really qualified to comment on. You acted like an internet dickwad and by golly, you're sticking to it.

Good for you, but you are 100% wrong. The tone and timbre of that thread was such that action was warranted. You might disagree with the precise method, but you weren't there.
qualified to comment on?

He made his comment on THIS particular thread here @ Main Square.

Which part of that makes him unqualified?

And internet dickwad?

How about a stiff fuck you for being an internet dickwad yourself?

Qualified to comment... where the fuck do you get off thinking you're the one that can deem whether or not someone is or isn't qualified to make a comment on a message board about a particular forum post of which they happened to read and have an opinion on.

He's even going out of his way to say that he HASN'T read the thread, and that his OPINION is based STRICTLY on THIS thread here on a completely DIFFERENT and SEPARATE forum.

Qualified to comment...

:rolleyes:

Tell him that he's misinformed and not working with all the facts (as Skittles and others have done), but don't call him an internet dickwad for having an opinion based on half the story... Just tell him that his opinion is flawed because he doesn't have all the facts and move about your merry way...

[Mikkel_Knight]

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one. I am responding on a thread that was started here and all my comments are based on that. I am unable to read the full thread and I may change my opinion if and when I do, but I make no apology for responding to a post on this forum.

Again, I was commenting on what was posted on this forum, not the entire thread, so it should be taken as such. There was no attempt to comment on the situation in its entirety, which is why my original post had a disclaimer in it!

While I hear where you're coming from, I'd encourage you to take a step back and consider the consequences of posting such marked opinions about a sensitive subject. Especially when you readily admit you don't have easy access to the same basic, original information we're discussing.

Yes, you did put a disclaimer... but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous (at worst) or tactless (at best.)

While this is a separate forum, it's directly referencing content about a troubled human being on another well-known forum. If I had an opinion that might run against the grain on the matter, I'd show the community some respect by doing my damnedest to read the thread in question before spouting off and making waves. Even if it meant bypassing whatever ban was in place... fake account, using a proxy, asking someone to copy and paste the text here, whatever. I'd be embarrassed to try and communicate my opinions with authority, had I done any less.

And if that's just too inconvenient or annoying, well, I'd muster the strength to just keep my mouth shut on the subject. Yes, it sucks that you've gotten banned from a place that still holds your interest. Either get back on board in full force and participate politely, or be prepared for your opinions on the matter to be discounted heavily.

Did you expect a different response here?

Phone numbers are not really private, are they? I know you can get an unlisted number, but if the guy had this number posted on his website (which is apparently where JAP got it from), then he really doesn't have a legitimate expectation of privacy.

Just to keep this discussion fed with facts, JAP didn't get the number off his "public website." She got it from WHOIS. Here's what she posted (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?p=6249449#post6249449):

Like I said, I was celebrating my stepdaughters 30th birthday. I ceded control to Jafa - more because I couldn't even think what to do. I sent Jafa all the information I had: the IP addresses he'd just posted from, the ISP, all user information for his webpage. I posted the phone number after doing a whois on his webpage, knowing it could be incorrect, but in case Jafa wasn't able to find out, somebody could trace it and make sure it belonged to Mitch.

Now, I'm not sure what she's referring to when she says "all user information for his webpage" because if you enter a "Home Page URL" in your TCF UserCP, (under "Edit Profile,") then it shows up on your Member Profile page publicly. mitchb2 doesn't have one listed there.

JAP also went on in that post to apologize for the unexpected intrusion, but said that it was done out of caring and hope Mitch would come back and post soon.

That said, we've had similar situations on TCF in the past, with folks sleuthing to get a poster's private contact information in order to help. I don't recall them getting this same response. JAP was in a difficult spot and happened to be in a position to help. She did what she could, and I think she ultimately made the right call.
The only thing that I see as a challenge is JAP should have contacted the authorities with the information that she had as well... That is all - no more, no less. It's great that she contacted Jafa, but it's more of a matter for authorities. That's all *shrug*

[Marc]

Hey, guys! A few of you are certainly getting your panties in a bunch here. There are personal attacks going on here, and I don't want to be doling out infractions tonight.

Please treat each other with some respect, okay?

[Ninny]

Wow.

I have to say I am really saddened by some of the comments I have read here.

In a perfect world, we would all know what is true and what is not.

In a perfect world, we would always "do the right thing".

In a perfect world, people would never be so sick or so sad that they would want to end their own lives.

But this is not a perfect world. None of us are perfect people, and we never will be.

But we can be kind. We can be humane. We can occasionally reach out to someone in pain. Or do the wrong thing for all the right reasons.

I said this in the thread at TCF, and I will say it again here.

I think those that took action last night are to be commended.

I would rather piss some people off then let someone die.

I would rather be made a fool of one million times on the chance that I could help save one life.

And for those of you who wouldn't - shame on you.

[scottjf8]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.

[Skittles]

Hey that's great.

Here's my "facts":
Somebody at TCF made a post that they were going to kill themselves.

JAP, a moderator @ TCF, made a decision to post the individual's phone number.

That's all I got Jay... that's all I'm going with, and by those two facts alone, are what my post was based on.

My conclusions, based on those two facts, are far from wrong, my friend...Geoff, do you remember a few years ago when you were participating in the Big Brother threads? You got royally pissed at another poster when they started making judgments and posting accusations about a certain group in the house.

You were pissed because the person in question was casting that judgment and making those assumptions using a very, very limited set of facts.

And you knew more that there was a much bigger picture. You knew there was more to the story, there was more data. You offered it to him on a silver platter, and he refused to look at it, for no other reason than he'd made his opinion, and he wouldn't sway from it.

This is just like that situation, Geoff.

You don't know the circumstances behind the situation, and you don't know what the details are. Instead, you are calling out someone based on an extremely limited re-telling of events, one that's limited to this thread. And like that situation in the past, you've already outright refused to look at the full picture.

Tell me you can't see the parallels here.

Geoff, I love you. But coming to conclusions like the one you've posted, based on half the facts? It's so wrong. If you'd read the thread and still arrived at this conclusion? I'd eventually accept the difference of opinions, even if it really hurt me that you still felt that way. But making conclusions based on a half story isn't right, Geoff.

She saved someone's life, Geoff. She did what she did because she was concerned that this person was going to legitimately take their life. And again, if she HADN'T posted it, Mitch could well have been dead right now.

If she hadn't posted it, and Mitch had died? JAP would be spending a long time, a very long time, wondering if her hesitation and reluctance to post a phone number prevented her from saving him.

And in the end? It's just an f'ing phone number.

What if it was me, Geoff?

What if I'd made a post like that, and Ann's posting of my phone number was the direct cause for my life being saved? Would you be thankful that she'd saved my life, or would you be angry that she posted my phone number?

Phone numbers can be changed. But you've got only one life.

[doom1701]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.

If those are the only two names needing to be mentioned, then this thread should just be closed and everyone should find something else to discuss. There are some pretty vile comments being made on both sides of this issue.

[Sue Ann]

If I ever post something like that please publish my name, address, phone number, social security number , credit card number, paypal password, bra size, age .. whatever it takes to get me the help I may or may not need.

Thank you.

[Turtleboy]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.

If those are the only two names needing to be mentioned, then this thread should just be closed and everyone should find something else to discuss. There are some pretty vile comments being made on both sides of this issue.

Vile comments made on the side of the issue that was in favor of saving someone's life?

Shame on you.

[TheIndependent]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.

lol, i stepped away, but work keeps demanding i sit back down :)

dunno why people would be upset about what i said, i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions (i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post). you are free to disagree with my view, no skin off my back.

[Marc]

(i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post)
No, it wasn't your post to which I was referring.

Specifically, it was the use of "internet dickwad" by heySkippy and Mikkel_Knight that I considered to be attacks and found to be inappropriate.

I am concerned that perhaps this particular topic is too heated for rational discussion, and that's a shame because I find this particular topic to be quite interesting when discussed calmly and intellectually.

[TheIndependent]

(i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post)
No, it wasn't your post to which I was referring.

Specifically, it was the use of "internet dickwad" by heySkippy and Mikkel_Knight that I considered to be attacks and found to be inappropriate.

I am concerned that perhaps this particular topic is too heated for rational discussion, and that's a shame because I find this particular topic to be quite interesting when discussed calmly and intellectually.

ah, i c, i'm usually the internet dickwad so i just assumed i did something wrong :)

i agree it's an interesting discussion, it's a question of interference and insertion into another's life that certainly has multiple facets to it. i'm more of a 'leave it alone' if it isn't my friends/family kind of person, most involved in internet discussion boards, by nature, are more meddling i guess {some may call it cold hearted versus'good hearted perhaps}.

[WhoMe]

Hey that's great.

Here's my "facts":
Somebody at TCF made a post that they were going to kill themselves.

JAP, a moderator @ TCF, made a decision to post the individual's phone number.

That's all I got Jay... that's all I'm going with, and by those two facts alone, are what my post was based on.

My conclusions, based on those two facts, are far from wrong, my friend...Geoff, do you remember a few years ago when you were participating in the Big Brother threads? You got royally pissed at another poster when they started making judgments and posting accusations about a certain group in the house.

You were pissed because the person in question was casting that judgment and making those assumptions using a very, very limited set of facts.

And you knew more that there was a much bigger picture. You knew there was more to the story, there was more data. You offered it to him on a silver platter, and he refused to look at it, for no other reason than he'd made his opinion, and he wouldn't sway from it.

This is just like that situation, Geoff.

You don't know the circumstances behind the situation, and you don't know what the details are. Instead, you are calling out someone based on an extremely limited re-telling of events, one that's limited to this thread. And like that situation in the past, you've already outright refused to look at the full picture.

Tell me you can't see the parallels here.

Geoff, I love you. But coming to conclusions like the one you've posted, based on half the facts? It's so wrong. If you'd read the thread and still arrived at this conclusion? I'd eventually accept the difference of opinions, even if it really hurt me that you still felt that way. But making conclusions based on a half story isn't right, Geoff.

She saved someone's life, Geoff. She did what she did because she was concerned that this person was going to legitimately take their life. And again, if she HADN'T posted it, Mitch could well have been dead right now.

If she hadn't posted it, and Mitch had died? JAP would be spending a long time, a very long time, wondering if her hesitation and reluctance to post a phone number prevented her from saving him.

And in the end? It's just an f'ing phone number.

What if it was me, Geoff?

What if I'd made a post like that, and Ann's posting of my phone number was the direct cause for my life being saved? Would you be thankful that she'd saved my life, or would you be angry that she posted my phone number?

Phone numbers can be changed. But you've got only one life.

Truth be told nobody knows the whole story, on that note no one knows the whole story about Visionary. For all we know he is mentally ill, but that doesn't stop you and others from mocking him and making fun of him and coming here to yuck it up at his expense.

[Michael]

(i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post)


I am concerned that perhaps this particular topic is too heated for rational discussion, and that's a shame because I find this particular topic to be quite interesting when discussed calmly and intellectually.

This one has all the ingredients for a blood bath. JAP is involved and that's enough for some people...

I didn't watch this unfold, so I can't imagine what it was like for those involved. I have read the thread over there and have chosen to stay out of it since I wasn't involved as it occurred. I doubt that MitchB is going to take my well wishes as the proverbial straw to seek help. If last night's thread was a cry for help, he got it. If it were a stunt to seek attention, he got it as well. If the man is intent on killing himself, a messageboard won't stop him on his next attempt. The community did something wonderful last night and people really should only take that away from those events. I for one applaud Jafa and JAP and everyone that were concerned for another human's life.


On a side note:

If there is this great swimming pool that I love to go to, but there are a couple of lifeguards there that I hate. They let some people dive in and others not, they let some people run around the edge and others not. I have asked the pool owners to get rid of them and they don't budge, I either learn to suck it up or I move on to another pool and that is what I would suggest anyone that can't get over their hatred for JAP, Lang or whomever should do.

[HeyItsCory]

If I ever post something like that please publish my name, address, phone number, social security number , credit card number, paypal password, bra size, age .. whatever it takes to get me the help I may or may not need.

Thank you.
Just in case, I think you should supply us with that information.

Bra size first. :coolsmiley:

[Mikkel_Knight]

I forget where I read that pointing out someone's flaws was the same as hating them.

I forget where I read that some of you know the full story and are privy to the entire saga.

Jay, my last few posts have nothing to do with whoever this character Mitch happens to be. I'm simply pointing out that JAP should have contacted the authorities instead of (or at least in addition to) posting a phone number and then washing her hands of it. You and others who refuse to acknowledge that trying to prop Ann up or defend her for whatever reason is mind-blowing.

TB - vile is vile, is it not? Or does that rule only apply to what you find acceptable in your mind? Sit down.

Scott - you get someone calling someone an internet dickwad, I couldn't help but point out the hypocrisy there...

I'll see if I can't find this thread today and have a go at it. I'm thinking the opinion I have about JAP not contacting the authorities will stand since nobody here who HAS read the thread seems to be telling me that she actually did.

What I think y'all fail to recognize is that I'm relatively thankful that he may have been saved. I don't recognize the user name, so I couldn't tell you that I'm overjoyed with happiness, but he is somebody's husband, somebody's son, somebody's friend and that right there is enough to feel thankful.

Y'all seem to be pointing a finger towards me jumping to a conclusion that winds up being total bullshit. Those of you thumbing your nose at me saying "shame on me"? HA! Shame on you for doing the same thing you accuse me of. Talk about hypocrisy.

[Mikkel_Knight]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.

If those are the only two names needing to be mentioned, then this thread should just be closed and everyone should find something else to discuss. There are some pretty vile comments being made on both sides of this issue.

Vile comments made on the side of the issue that was in favor of saving someone's life?

Shame on you.
Interesting how some people seem to want to take a moral high ground and throw their jabs from that position towards anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with them and claim superiority because of it.

[pseudonym]

Interesting how some people seem to want to take a moral high ground and throw their jabs from that position towards anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with them and claim superiority because of it.
You aren't exactly making that tough to do by going on obscenity-laced rants everytime someone says something you don't want to hear.

[Turtleboy]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.

If those are the only two names needing to be mentioned, then this thread should just be closed and everyone should find something else to discuss. There are some pretty vile comments being made on both sides of this issue.

Vile comments made on the side of the issue that was in favor of saving someone's life?

Shame on you.
Interesting how some people seem to want to take a moral high ground and throw their jabs from that position towards anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with them and claim superiority because of it.

Being concerned that someone was about to commit suicide and helping prevent it is the moral high ground.

[IndyJones1023]

i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions
Any place, anywhere, any time is good for suicide prevention.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Interesting how some people seem to want to take a moral high ground and throw their jabs from that position towards anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with them and claim superiority because of it.
You aren't exactly making that tough to do by going on obscenity-laced rants everytime someone says something you don't want to hear.
yeah - funny thing about that...

I'm not trying to take any kind of moral high ground now, am I...

[Mikkel_Knight]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.



Vile comments made on the side of the issue that was in favor of saving someone's life?

Shame on you.
Interesting how some people seem to want to take a moral high ground and throw their jabs from that position towards anyone who doesn't fall in lockstep with them and claim superiority because of it.

Being concerned that someone was about to commit suicide and helping prevent it is the moral high ground.
Not sure where you can find that I said I didn't care... but I encourage you to look... Glass houses TB... glass houses...

[Otto]

I have to say I am really saddened by some of the comments I have read here.
I agree with that, but from the other side of the coin.

In a perfect world, we would all know what is true and what is not.
In a perfect world, we would always "do the right thing".
True, but in this world, we disagree on what the "right thing" is. And what you have to understand is that that is okay too.

And for those of you who wouldn't - shame on you.
See, I see this from the other angle. Those people who would do what you want are, in my opinion, wrong.

I think it is wrong to interfere with another person's personal life.

I think that if somebody wants to kill themselves, then that is their own right and it is wrong for you or anybody else to interfere.

I think that posting somebody's contact information without their consent to a bunch of strangers on the internet is an abominable, horrifying action.

I respect people's personal privacy. It is not worth invasion of privacy just because you think that somebody's life is at stake.

Life, after all, is cheap. It's made on a regular basis by unskilled labor. But privacy, freedom, these are things that we must protect, at all costs, against the tyranny of the "well-meaning person".

Being concerned that someone was about to commit suicide and helping prevent it is the moral high ground.
Morality is relative. Your moral high ground is not mine, and evidently not that of some other people in this thread. Consider for a moment that you are not in the right, because this sort of thing is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact or absolutes.

Just my 2 cents, and an attempt to calm people down. You can disagree with somebody without it being a matter of right or wrong.

[doom1701]

MK and pdjplano - dudes, step the heck away from your keyboards. Now.

kthxbye.

If those are the only two names needing to be mentioned, then this thread should just be closed and everyone should find something else to discuss. There are some pretty vile comments being made on both sides of this issue.

Vile comments made on the side of the issue that was in favor of saving someone's life?

Shame on you.

No, I didn't make the vile comments on the side of the issue that was in favor of "saving someone's life". In fact, I haven't made any vile comments at all.

Who are you referring to?

[pseudonym]

I think it is wrong to interfere with another person's personal life.
You must be very lonely, then.

I think that if somebody wants to kill themselves, then that is their own right and it is wrong for you or anybody else to interfere.
Do you believe that there is such a thing as mental illness?

[eddyj]

I think it is wrong to interfere with another person's personal life.

I think that if somebody wants to kill themselves, then that is their own right and it is wrong for you or anybody else to interfere.
See, here is where I both agree and violently disagree with you. I do believe that people should be allowed to end their own lives. But I need to be convinced that this is a "rational" decision. Yeah, that may be a slippery slope, but so be it. This guy at TCF is clearly having some mental issues (you may not have seen his threads on going off his antidepressants and such). In a case like his, I do not, cannot, believe that standing by and not helping could possibly be a good idea. If someone is drowning, do you just stand by, since it is their right to drown? I see little difference.

Now, show me someone with a terminal disease, or in chronic pain, or whatever, that has, in his sound mind, decided to end it, and I will not have a problem. But someone incapable of clear thinking and decision making is more like the drowning guy.

[Ninny]

I guess I don't think life is cheap.

I have experienced a lot of loss in my life - so perhaps I am operating from a different perspective.

But honestly, I don't think I would have operated any differently 5 or 10 or 20 years ago.

If someone needs help, I will try to help.

[IndyJones1023]

See, here is where I both agree and violently disagree with you. I do believe that people should be allowed to end their own lives. But I need to be convinced that this is a "rational" decision. Yeah, that may be a slippery slope, but so be it. This guy at TCF is clearly having some mental issues (you may not have seen his threads on going off his antidepressants and such). In a case like his, I do not, cannot, believe that standing by and not helping could possibly be a good idea. If someone is drowning, do you just stand by, since it is their right to drown? I see little difference.

Now, show me someone with a terminal disease, or in chronic pain, or whatever, that has, in his sound mind, decided to end it, and I will not have a problem. But someone incapable of clear thinking and decision making is more like the drowning guy.

+∞

[Otto]

See, here is where I both agree and violently disagree with you. I do believe that people should be allowed to end their own lives. But I need to be convinced that this is a "rational" decision. Yeah, that may be a slippery slope, but so be it.
It is a very slippery slope, indeed. I mean, whether the decision is "rational" or not is really not your call to make. Who are you to decide whether somebody else lives or dies? What gives you the right to make their decision for them, taking away their right to choose?

This guy at TCF is clearly having some mental issues (you may not have seen his threads on going off his antidepressants and such). In a case like his, I do not, cannot, believe that standing by and not helping could possibly be a good idea. If someone is drowning, do you just stand by, since it is their right to drown? I see little difference.
I don't read TCF at all, so clearly I don't know if he's nuts or not, but it's still really not my call to make regardless of that.

The difference between a drowning person and somebody who explicitly tells you that they are going to commit suicide is obvious, or it should be. When you see a drowning person, you have no idea why they are drowning. When somebody tells you they're committing suicide, then you know that they are trying to die. The difference is one of intentions, not one of rationality or sanity. If the drowning person tells you not to save them, then you should not save them. Period. It's their choice, not yours, regardless of circumstance.

People have the right to make unsane or unsafe choices, even when not in a sound mind. Would you stop somebody from skydiving, or racecar driving, or some other risky life-threatening activity?

[Mikkel_Knight]

I think it is wrong to interfere with another person's personal life.

I think that if somebody wants to kill themselves, then that is their own right and it is wrong for you or anybody else to interfere.
Here's where I disagree with you. It's generally accepted by expert after expert that when someone says they're going to kill themselves, it's a cry out for help. If someone really wants to kill themselves and has made the decision to do so, it is also generally accepted that they just do so without warning people. It appears as if Mitch gave a warning (thus, a cry for help).

I do believe that you are correct in that certain cases warrant the general population essentially minding their own business when it comes to someone's choice/decision to end their own life (as detailed above by Eddy), but - as with everything - there isn't any one single answer that's 100% always right and infallable.

[Mikkel_Knight]

See, here is where I both agree and violently disagree with you. I do believe that people should be allowed to end their own lives. But I need to be convinced that this is a "rational" decision. Yeah, that may be a slippery slope, but so be it.
It is a very slippery slope, indeed. I mean, whether the decision is "rational" or not is really not your call to make. Who are you to decide whether somebody else lives or dies? What gives you the right to make their decision for them, taking away their right to choose?

This guy at TCF is clearly having some mental issues (you may not have seen his threads on going off his antidepressants and such). In a case like his, I do not, cannot, believe that standing by and not helping could possibly be a good idea. If someone is drowning, do you just stand by, since it is their right to drown? I see little difference.
I don't read TCF at all, so clearly I don't know if he's nuts or not, but it's still really not my call to make regardless of that.

The difference between a drowning person and somebody who explicitly tells you that they are going to commit suicide is obvious, or it should be. When you see a drowning person, you have no idea why they are drowning. When somebody tells you they're committing suicide, then you know that they are trying to die. The difference is one of intentions, not one of rationality or sanity. If the drowning person tells you not to save them, then you should not save them. Period. It's their choice, not yours, regardless of circumstance.

People have the right to make unsane or unsafe choices, even when not in a sound mind. Would you stop somebody from skydiving, or some other risky life-threatening activity?
If you're going to equate skydiving with suicide, there's no real way to have a debate with you...

[pseudonym]

People have the right to make unsane or unsafe choices, even when not in a sound mind.
No, they don't.

[Otto]

People have the right to make unsane or unsafe choices, even when not in a sound mind.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Freedom to choose is the most basic freedom there is. All other freedoms stem from it.

Again, would you attempt to stop somebody from a risky activity? Or is suicide the only case you would attempt to intervene? Where, exactly, is the line?

[TheIndependent]

i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions
Any place, anywhere, any time is good for suicide prevention.

we'll agree to disagree on this one. i would never interfere with a stranger committing suicide. not my business, not my responsibility, and in many cases, not safe. i s'pose my view of your privacy outweighs my view of your decision to end your own life.

[Demandred]

I'm simply pointing out that JAP should have contacted the authorities instead of (or at least in addition to) posting a phone number and then washing her hands of it. You and others who refuse to acknowledge that trying to prop Ann up or defend her for whatever reason is mind-blowing.

She didn't have the tools at her disposal to allow her to deal with the situation effectively. She assumed (correctly) that at least one of the internet nerds on TCF did. I don't know what those tools were, but I doubt that I could have found the guy myself using the IP address he posted from. Jafa did. I might be able to do a better job than JAP of locating the guy, but I doubt I could have done as good of a job as quickly as Jafa did. If you read the thread :) you will see that JAP did check in as soon as she got back to her computer.

[Gus]

we'll agree to disagree on this one. i would never interfere with a stranger committing suicide. not my business, not my responsibility, and in many cases, not safe. i s'pose my view of your privacy outweighs my view of your decision to end your own life.What if it weren't a stranger? What if it were your wife or child? Would you try to stop your wife from killing herself?

[pseudonym]

People have the right to make unsane or unsafe choices, even when not in a sound mind.
No, they don't.
Of course they do. Freedom to choose is the most basic freedom there is. All other freedoms stem from it.

Again, would you attempt to stop somebody from a risky activity? Or is suicide the only case you would attempt to intervene? Where, exactly, is the line?

Legally, you're just wrong. There are provisions of the law specifically designed to stop people who are "not in a sound mind" from making "unsane or unsafe choices". And the first step in invoking those laws is for those around that person to alert first responders and mental health resources, which is exactly what happened in the TCF thread.

[pseudonym]

i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions
Any place, anywhere, any time is good for suicide prevention.

we'll agree to disagree on this one. i would never interfere with a stranger committing suicide. not my business, not my responsibility, and in many cases, not safe. i s'pose my view of your privacy outweighs my view of your decision to end your own life.
Hell of a lot of good privacy does a dead man.

[Otto]

Legally, you're just wrong. There are provisions of the law specifically designed to stop people who are "not in a sound mind" from making "unsane or unsafe choices". And the first step in invoking those laws is for those around that person to alert first responders and mental health resources, which is exactly what happened in the TCF thread.
Then the law is wrong. But the law often is wrong, so no surprises there.

Hell of a lot of good privacy does a dead man.
Dead men's privacy often needs the most protection, since they are unable to protect it themselves.

[doom1701]

Any place, anywhere, any time is good for suicide prevention.

we'll agree to disagree on this one. i would never interfere with a stranger committing suicide. not my business, not my responsibility, and in many cases, not safe. i s'pose my view of your privacy outweighs my view of your decision to end your own life.
Hell of a lot of good privacy does a dead man.

Ironically, I think I heard President Bush say that very thing once...:rolleyes:

[Demandred]

I think that if somebody wants to kill themselves, then that is their own right and it is wrong for you or anybody else to interfere.

Well then I think the lesson learned for all of us here is, if you want to kill yourself in private, do not post about it on TCF. Posting about it on TCF may just get you a visit from the local sheriff.

:up::up::up: to JAP and Jafa IMO.

[IndyJones1023]

Yeah, I don't see how you can miss the blatantly obvious. The guy was calling out for help. If he really wanted to do it, he wouldn't post about it.

[TheIndependent]

we'll agree to disagree on this one. i would never interfere with a stranger committing suicide. not my business, not my responsibility, and in many cases, not safe. i s'pose my view of your privacy outweighs my view of your decision to end your own life.What if it weren't a stranger? What if it were your wife or child? Would you try to stop your wife from killing herself?

yes. i treat strangers differently than those i know / care for.

[Langree]

Wow, some of the posts here surprise me, one person's doesn't. Sad.

Add me to the list that if I'm ever in such a dark place, to the point you think I'm a danger to myself, I'd sure hope someone would take steps to help me.

[DougF]

we'll agree to disagree on this one. i would never interfere with a stranger committing suicide. not my business, not my responsibility, and in many cases, not safe. i s'pose my view of your privacy outweighs my view of your decision to end your own life.What if it weren't a stranger? What if it were your wife or child? Would you try to stop your wife from killing herself?

yes. i treat strangers differently than those i know / care for.

Well, then imagine that during my stroll down your street I happen upon your wife about to kill herself. She's clearly having some sort of mental problem and I could help her if I chose to. Would you want me to respect her privacy?

[Mikkel_Knight]

I think that if somebody wants to kill themselves, then that is their own right and it is wrong for you or anybody else to interfere.

Well then I think the lesson learned for all of us here is, if you want to kill yourself in private, do not post about it on TCF. Posting about it on TCF may just get you a visit from the local sheriff.

:up::up::up: to JAP and Jafa IMO.
Actually, I think the lesson is that posting about how you're thinking about and/or going to kill yourself is different than just simply doing so without telling others, however, both are serious in nature and generally show that there is a larger underlying problem (terminal cases excluded).

[Gus]

we'll agree to disagree on this one. i would never interfere with a stranger committing suicide. not my business, not my responsibility, and in many cases, not safe. i s'pose my view of your privacy outweighs my view of your decision to end your own life.What if it weren't a stranger? What if it were your wife or child? Would you try to stop your wife from killing herself?

yes. i treat strangers differently than those i know / care for.So you respect the privacy of a stranger more than you respect the privacy of people you know/care for. Does that make sense? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[TheIndependent]

What if it weren't a stranger? What if it were your wife or child? Would you try to stop your wife from killing herself?

yes. i treat strangers differently than those i know / care for.So you respect the privacy of a stranger more than you respect the privacy of people you know/care for. Does that make sense? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

not at all.

[Ninny]

When the Nazis came for the communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist),
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat),
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union),
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews),
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.



This is what happens when you don't get involved.

This will NEVER be me.

[Gus]

yes. i treat strangers differently than those i know / care for.So you respect the privacy of a stranger more than you respect the privacy of people you know/care for. Does that make sense? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

not at all.Care to explain why?

[TheIndependent]

So you respect the privacy of a stranger more than you respect the privacy of people you know/care for. Does that make sense? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

not at all.Care to explain why?

i can try :)

to me, people you know/care about are those that influence your life in some way and so their actions have impact. kids, for example, must be guided and taught as they are raised, family members {aunts, cousins, parents} are integral parts of your life (in many cases, not all obviously). i'm responsible for many in this group, and involved with others that are either responsible themselves or directly impacted by the actions of those in the circle.

strangers have no impact, no familiarity, no influence, and no concern in my life. while i can empathize with others and understand what they are going through and can feel bad when something bad happens to them, it doesn't mean i'm going to be involved in actions related to them in any way. their level of privacy is high/almost 100% - i'm just not going to get involved with them in any way.

not sure that explains my view well, but hopefully you get the idea. i'm not a "it takes a village" person or a "i am my brother's keeper" type when it really isn't my brother {and i realize that's not 'popular' today, especially in today's political climate/views}

[BrettStah]

Paul, did you miss Doug's question in post #104 (http://www.mainsquare.org/showpost.php?p=82496&postcount=104)?

[Huntwood]

Yeah, I don't see how you can miss the blatantly obvious. The guy was calling out for help. If he really wanted to do it, he wouldn't post about it.It's not really blatantly obvious to me. He explained clearly that he doesn't want "a hug" or help or other intervention... that all he was basically doing was posting a question to the SOAK so that he can avoid making a technical mistake of just injuring, instead of killing, himself. (I can see how could could have been a supremely important question for him, as he didn't want to wake up in pain in some hospital, perhaps even marred with a new lifelong disability.)

It's possible that underlying all this was an unspoken request for help, but in my mind, it's not obvious, and certainly not blatantly obvious.

[TheIndependent]

Paul, did you miss Doug's question in post #104 (http://www.mainsquare.org/showpost.php?p=82496&postcount=104)?

yeah, missed that :)

to the question

Well, then imagine that during my stroll down your street I happen upon your wife about to kill herself. She's clearly having some sort of mental problem and I could help her if I chose to. Would you want me to respect her privacy?

first off i don't buy your scenario or setup. i'd guess that you'd not be able to determine that she a) is about to kill herself or b) that she has a mental problem. for all you know, she may have a gun out and is acting hysterically because someone is after her to steal her purse or rape her.

[TheIndependent]

When the Nazis came for the communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist),
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat),
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union),
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews),
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.



This is what happens when you don't get involved.

This will NEVER be me.


i fail to see how this particular passage relates to suicide prevention.

[Fofer]

Specifically, it was the use of "internet dickwad" by heySkippy and Mikkel_Knight that I considered to be attacks and found to be inappropriate.

"internet dickwad" is the rough equivalent to "troll" in my mind. Bad, yes... but not so bad. The "internet" preface makes it less personal.

I do think MK crossed the line when he prefaced it with, "How about a stiff fuck you..." however.

Clearly this is a tense and sensitive subject. And I'm sure its frustrating for folks who earnestly want to participate but are restricted from easily reading all of the content on TCF. Even moreso when their opinions are discounted as a result. Alas, them's the breaks.

If I walked into a bar where everyone was talking heatedly about the Presidential debate -- and I hadn't seen the Presidential debate -- I wouldn't roll up my sleeves and engage in the discussion about the debate. I'd keep my mouth shut out of respect for the participants.

She saved someone's life, Geoff.
Let's not go overboard now. I'm not discounting what she did -- as I posted above, I think she made the correct, if not difficult decision. But didn't jafa post that when the police showed up, the homeowner was safe and sleeping and not in any danger? Or has new information been posted? For all we know at this point, Mitch was just bluffing for attention, and the resulting embarrassment might have made his situation worse. We might never know. I do commend JAP for doing what she could, her actions were kind and in line with being "better safe than sorry." But to label her a "lifesaver" at this point is a bit dramatic.

Jay, my last few posts have nothing to do with whoever this character Mitch happens to be. I'm simply pointing out that JAP should have contacted the authorities instead of (or at least in addition to) posting a phone number and then washing her hands of it.

If that's all you're pointing out, then that's easy to discuss. Could she have handled the situation better? Sure. She could have contacted the authorities. A suicide prevention counselor. She could have PM'ed Mitch directly and written the most elegant, comforting prose. She could have offered to be his best friend and visit, and help improve his life. But she didn't. She did what she could, in the limited time she had, with the small sliver of hope that he might actually be helping him in some way. To condemn her for not handling it "perfectly" is what's upsetting most folks, I think. I think the point many of us are trying to make is, her intentions were coming from the right place, and it's better for her to have done something imperfectly, than to have done nothing at all. Clearly, many folks would have chosen the latter, and the life of one troubled human being might have been lost as a result. Say what you want about his right to end it all, whether he's of clear mind to make that decision or not, but sympathy for his family and children pushes me to opinion that JAP acted reasonably.

[Langree]

When the Nazis came for the communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist),
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat),
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union),
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews),
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.



This is what happens when you don't get involved.

This will NEVER be me.


i fail to see how this particular passage relates to suicide prevention.

It's about getting involved, about caring what happens to others, even if you don't know them and their fate would have no impact on your life.

They might have a family, children, people that care about them, and your actions could be all the difference it takes to whether they live without the person, or with.

[DougF]

Well, then imagine that during my stroll down your street I happen upon your wife about to kill herself. She's clearly having some sort of mental problem and I could help her if I chose to. Would you want me to respect her privacy?

first off i don't buy your scenario or setup. i'd guess that you'd not be able to determine that she a) is about to kill herself or b) that she has a mental problem. for all you know, she may have a gun out and is acting hysterically because someone is after her to steal her purse or rape her.

Regardless of my scenario or your purchase of it, the question is valid and I don't think you answered it. Of course, you're not obligated to, but I'd love to hear your answer.

Would you want a stranger to help your wife if she were about to commit suicide?

[DougF]

When the Nazis came for the communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist),
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat),
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union),
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews),
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.



This is what happens when you don't get involved.

This will NEVER be me.


i fail to see how this particular passage relates to suicide prevention.

It's about getting involved, about caring what happens to others, even if you don't know them and their fate would have no impact on your life.

They might have a family, children, people that care about them, and your actions could be all the difference it takes to whether they live without the person, or with.

What he said. Plus, we're all part of some community. It might be your town, your neighborhood, your school, your friends...whatever. Even if you have none of that, you're still a human being and there are people on this Earth who have never met you but care if you are suffering. You may not want it but they are out there and I bet someday you'll be glad they are.

[Ninny]

When the Nazis came for the communists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist),
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat),
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union),
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jews),
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.



This is what happens when you don't get involved.

This will NEVER be me.


i fail to see how this particular passage relates to suicide prevention.
Honestly, if you can't see it then I am not sure it warrants further discussion.

[Joules1111]

dunno why people would be upset about what i said, i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions (i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post). you are free to disagree with my view, no skin off my back.
Clearly Mitch should have found the "Suicide Community Forum (SCF)" , opened a new account, and started his thread there. :rolleyes:

Personally I'd rather offend someone with my awkward attempt to help them when they are in a bad situation, as opposed to keeping to myself and possibly letting my fellow man kill himself because he can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

[TheIndependent]

dunno why people would be upset about what i said, i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions (i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post). you are free to disagree with my view, no skin off my back.
Clearly Mitch should have found the "Suicide Community Forum (SCF)" , opened a new account, and started his thread there. :rolleyes:


that would have been more appropriate, yes, there are many such forums and centers (including call centers) that he could have utilized.

Personally I'd rather offend someone with my awkward attempt to help them when they are in a bad situation, as opposed to keeping to myself and possibly letting my fellow man kill himself because he can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

that's certainly your right.


Honestly, if you can't see it then I am not sure it warrants further discussion.

goes both ways. the passage quoted isn't related to helping people from themselves or getting involved in personal matters where they may be contemplating suicide.

[WhoMe]

dunno why people would be upset about what i said, i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions (i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post). you are free to disagree with my view, no skin off my back.
Clearly Mitch should have found the "Suicide Community Forum (SCF)" , opened a new account, and started his thread there. :rolleyes:

Personally I'd rather offend someone with my awkward attempt to help them when they are in a bad situation, as opposed to keeping to myself and possibly letting my fellow man kill himself because he can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

So how many of you super hero's are going to track down Visionary and get him proper medical attention, clearly he's harming himself by self medicating. He's been crying out to you for months but no one has answered his calls.

Please somebody help him, it's a slow death that can be avoided.

[DougF]

So how many of you super hero's are going to track down Visionary and get him proper medical attention, clearly he's harming himself by self medicating. He's been crying out to you for months but no one has answered his calls.

Please somebody help him, it's a slow death that can be avoided.

I just did a search on Visionary's posts and I can't find where he has talked about taking his own life. Could you post the link, super hero'?

[Langree]

dunno why people would be upset about what i said, i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions (i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post). you are free to disagree with my view, no skin off my back.
Clearly Mitch should have found the "Suicide Community Forum (SCF)" , opened a new account, and started his thread there. :rolleyes:

Personally I'd rather offend someone with my awkward attempt to help them when they are in a bad situation, as opposed to keeping to myself and possibly letting my fellow man kill himself because he can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

So how many of you super hero's are going to track down Visionary and get him proper medical attention, clearly he's harming himself by self medicating. He's been crying out to you for months but no one has answered his calls.

Please somebody help him, it's a slow death that can be avoided.


:rolleyes:
Not at all the same.

[Joules1111]

dunno why people would be upset about what i said, i just don't think a forum dedicated to a video recording device is any place for suicide interventions (i don't think i made any personal attacks, to marc's post). you are free to disagree with my view, no skin off my back.
Clearly Mitch should have found the "Suicide Community Forum (SCF)" , opened a new account, and started his thread there. :rolleyes:

Personally I'd rather offend someone with my awkward attempt to help them when they are in a bad situation, as opposed to keeping to myself and possibly letting my fellow man kill himself because he can't see a light at the end of the tunnel.

So how many of you super hero's are going to track down Visionary and get him proper medical attention, clearly he's harming himself by self medicating. He's been crying out to you for months but no one has answered his calls.

Please somebody help him, it's a slow death that can be avoided.

I mentioned "super hero's"? Where? I was only speaking of my own actions. Please don't attribute things to me that I didn't say.

[pseudonym]

first off i don't buy your scenario or setup. i'd guess that you'd not be able to determine that she a) is about to kill herself or b) that she has a mental problem. for all you know, she may have a gun out and is acting hysterically because someone is after her to steal her purse or rape her.
Are you suggesting that a guy who has been posting that he is on antidepressants but is taking himself off, has a wife who recently had a stroke and is telling him that she wishes he would kill himself, and is now asking for suicide tips late one night on an internet forum doesn't have a mental problem?

[Huntwood]

While Mikkel's response to "internet dickwad" was a bit harsh, I understand his reaction, and don't overly fault him for it. Even though not everybody agrees with Guindalf, I think he stated his position reasonably tactfully, and to be honest I'm undecided as to whether I agree or disagree with him. Regardless, due to the civil and intelligent tone of Guindalf's posts, I thought "internet dickwad" was itself harsh, out of left field, undeserved, and I would construe it as a personal insult. I therefore don't really hold Mikkel's response against him. I think he is less at fault than heySkippy was.

[TheIndependent]

Are you suggesting....

no

[Mikkel_Knight]

Specifically, it was the use of "internet dickwad" by heySkippy and Mikkel_Knight that I considered to be attacks and found to be inappropriate.

"internet dickwad" is the rough equivalent to "troll" in my mind. Bad, yes... but not so bad. The "internet" preface makes it less personal.

I do think MK crossed the line when he prefaced it with, "How about a stiff fuck you..." however.
Absolutely. And I purposely did that. Skippy trying to be some kind of white knight in shining armor high above the low-life vagrant Guindalf all the while pointing out that Guindalf was the internet dickwad.

So, I pointed out that Skippy was, in fact, being a major internet dickwad himself.

The fact that I was or wasn't being an asshole about it has no bearing on that separate truth.
If that's all you're pointing out, then that's easy to discuss. Could she have handled the situation better? Sure. She could have contacted the authorities. A suicide prevention counselor. She could have PM'ed Mitch directly and written the most elegant, comforting prose. She could have offered to be his best friend and visit, and help improve his life. But she didn't. She did what she could, in the limited time she had, with the small sliver of hope that he might actually be helping him in some way. To condemn her for not handling it "perfectly" is what's upsetting most folks, I think. I think the point many of us are trying to make is, her intentions were coming from the right place, and it's better for her to have done something imperfectly, than to have done nothing at all. Clearly, many folks would have chosen the latter, and the life of one troubled human being might have been lost as a result. Say what you want about his right to end it all, whether he's of clear mind to make that decision or not, but sympathy for his family and children pushes me to opinion that JAP acted reasonably.
Could she have handled the situation better? Yup. SHOULD she have? Yup. Considering the legalities involved, I can't believe TCF (which is a firm, solid business by all accounts) doesn't have some kind of policy in place for this particular event. I can only imagine that there's some kind of policy to report child pornography to the proper authorities, why not suicide? If nothing else, this episode has got to be good for TCF (the Business) in that it shows that a policy needs to be in place.

[walters]

Considering the legalities involved, I can't believe TCF (which is a firm, solid business by all accounts) doesn't have some kind of policy in place for this particular event. I can only imagine that there's some kind of policy to report child pornography to the proper authorities, why not suicide? If nothing else, this episode has got to be good for TCF (the Business) in that it shows that a policy needs to be in place.

Nah, they've shown themselves in the past to be purely reactive in this respect. Case in point: they now know that in order to offer a giveaway they must offer a "no purchase necessary" option. ;)


(my reward for pointing this out to them was getting my alias discovered and banned)

[BrettStah]

Well, then imagine that during my stroll down your street I happen upon your wife about to kill herself. She's clearly having some sort of mental problem and I could help her if I chose to. Would you want me to respect her privacy?

first off i don't buy your scenario or setup. i'd guess that you'd not be able to determine that she a) is about to kill herself or b) that she has a mental problem. for all you know, she may have a gun out and is acting hysterically because someone is after her to steal her purse or rape her.

That's called deflecting the question, I think. For the sake of this hypothetical question, just assume that your wife is indeed threatening the commit suicide on a public street - do you want everyone to just go about their business and ignore her, or do you want someone to stop her?

(If it helps to imagine this happening, pretend that she accidentally ingested some medication that has temporarily screwed up her thought processes, and she's now delusional and suicidal - it will wear off within a few hours if she doesn't kill herself first.)

[Mikkel_Knight]

Considering the legalities involved, I can't believe TCF (which is a firm, solid business by all accounts) doesn't have some kind of policy in place for this particular event. I can only imagine that there's some kind of policy to report child pornography to the proper authorities, why not suicide? If nothing else, this episode has got to be good for TCF (the Business) in that it shows that a policy needs to be in place.

Nah, they've shown themselves in the past to be purely reactive in this respect. Case in point: they now know that in order to offer a giveaway they must offer a "no purchase necessary" option. ;)


(my reward for pointing this out to them was getting my alias discovered and banned)
I stand corrected - you're absolutely right Walters... absolutely right...

[JustAllie]

Considering the legalities involved, I can't believe TCF (which is a firm, solid business by all accounts) doesn't have some kind of policy in place for this particular event. I can only imagine that there's some kind of policy to report child pornography to the proper authorities, why not suicide? If nothing else, this episode has got to be good for TCF (the Business) in that it shows that a policy needs to be in place.
Hmmm....

Should this forum have a policy about how to handle issues like suicide threats?

Marc doesn't run it as a business, but the fact that it came up at TCF highlights the potential for it to happen on any forum.

Marc is a very thoughtful and fair-minded guy, and I'd hate for him to be put in a bad position in the future trying to figure out what is the appropriate thing to do if somebody who is clearly dealing with mental health issues starts asking for advice on how many painkillers it would take to kill themselves.

[pseudonym]

Are you suggesting....

no
Good. Then, by your logic, intervening in the case of the TCF poster would be the right thing to to.

[TheIndependent]

Are you suggesting....

no
Good. Then, by your logic, intervening in the case of the TCF poster would be the right thing to to.

wrong

i don't fault anyone for intervening, i just wouldn't, as i've said.

[Marc]

Marc doesn't run it as a business, but the fact that it came up at TCF highlights the potential for it to happen on any forum.
In the interest of full disclosure, I don't intend to run Main Square as a for profit business. I do declare what income I receive and what expenses I have on a Schedule C to be legal with the IRS. My goal is to minimize the income to the point that the expenses are just covered, hence last year's decrease and pro-rated subscription length increase.

Marc is a very thoughtful and fair-minded guy, and I'd hate for him to be put in a bad position in the future trying to figure out what is the appropriate thing to do if somebody who is clearly dealing with mental health issues starts asking for advice on how many painkillers it would take to kill themselves.
You know what would bug me? It wouldn't be having to be in the position of trying to figure out the right course of action, it'd be all the judgments made about my decision the next day. Regardless of my personal beliefs, I'd be expected to do something about the situation.

If I chose inaction, I'd be afraid that I could be found civilly liable, and that's just wrong in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that I am not supposed to be in a role of responsibility for the health and welfare of the forum's members, yet when something bad happens to someone, people seek out someone to blame, and if someone was found to have been complicit through their inaction, well, they become an easy target.

[Ereth]

So you are saying that moderators have rules similar to robots?

The First Rule states that Moderators may not harm a member, nor allow a member to come to harm through inaction?



To add to the "privacy" discussion, I'd like to relate this to my own case some time back where I posted some symptoms that some users thought might indicate a heart attack. I then went offline for several hours to hang out with some real life friends. People in TCF were concerned that I had a serious medical condition or might even be in distress. They searched for, and found, my home phone number and at least two of them called me (coincidentally at the same time).

I was not bothered by this. Rather, I was touched by their concern and their compassion. The fact that they went out of their way to find me and to ascertain that I was ok (and to urge me to take action to remain that way) indicated that they cared. I was not in the least worried about them "violating my privacy". I think that's a bogus concern. Those people, that night, and the others in the thread worried about my safety, are to be commended for their humanity, and the ones in the thread that prompted this discussion should be commended as well.

I have great respect for Otto and don't normally disagree with him, but in this case, I do. We DO need to protect our rights, from our Government and from Corporations and even organized busybodies. But not from friends or even well-meaning neighbors. If my neighbor starts peeping in my window because he wants to see a show, that's one thing, but if he peeps in because he has reason to fear for my safety and wants to check on me, that's a different thing entirely.

[BrettStah]

no
Good. Then, by your logic, intervening in the case of the TCF poster would be the right thing to to.

wrong

i don't fault anyone for intervening, i just wouldn't, as i've said.

Did you miss the very insightful post #131 (http://www.mainsquare.org/showpost.php?p=82568&postcount=131)? ;)

[davebogart]

As for not reading the thread before posting, I think I covered that one.
You shot your mouth off on a subject you weren't really qualified to comment on. You acted like an internet dickwad and by golly, you're sticking to it.

Good for you, but you are 100% wrong. The tone and timbre of that thread was such that action was warranted. You might disagree with the precise method, but you weren't there.
qualified to comment on?

He made his comment on THIS particular thread here @ Main Square.

Which part of that makes him unqualified?

And internet dickwad?

How about a stiff fuck you for being an internet dickwad yourself?

Qualified to comment... where the fuck do you get off thinking you're the one that can deem whether or not someone is or isn't qualified to make a comment on a message board about a particular forum post of which they happened to read and have an opinion on.

He's even going out of his way to say that he HASN'T read the thread, and that his OPINION is based STRICTLY on THIS thread here on a completely DIFFERENT and SEPARATE forum.

Qualified to comment...

:rolleyes:

Tell him that he's misinformed and not working with all the facts (as Skittles and others have done), but don't call him an internet dickwad for having an opinion based on half the story... Just tell him that his opinion is flawed because he doesn't have all the facts and move about your merry way...
Never have I read a post that makes more sense that that one. Not even from Fofer, who has the gift of being able to make the ludicrous seem reasonable. But with this skippy dude you're talking to a brick wall.

[Huntwood]

So you are saying that moderators have rules similar to robots?

The First Rule states that Moderators may not harm a member, nor allow a member to come to harm through inaction?IIRC, Asimov's Second Law of Robotics says that a Moderator must obey the command of a member, as long as it doesn't violate the first law. I look forward to trying that one out. :laugh:

[Fofer]

Never have I read a post that makes more sense that that one. Not even from Fofer, who has the gift of being able to make the ludicrous seem reasonable.


:cool::up:





waitaminute...


:huh:

[grondramb]

If I chose inaction, I'd be afraid that I could be found civilly liable, and that's just wrong in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that I am not supposed to be in a role of responsibility for the health and welfare of the forum's members, yet when something bad happens to someone, people seek out someone to blame, and if someone was found to have been complicit through their inaction, well, they become an easy target.

That's a big concern these days before the fact and after the fact. but in my experience, the actual event brings a kind of clarity.

I once had an experience where a girl i cared about slit her wrist in front of me.

My philosophy on this had never been tested but in the moment it was clear I believed I had no right to decide for her what to do with life.

She had cut across the vein rather than along it so I sat down 10 feet away and waited. The moment she had regret and asked for help, I helped her.

It would not surprise me if Ann found similar clarity and she did what she thought was right.


And you are likely right that the worst of it is the all the judgements from others afterward. That makes me even less inclined to criticize her although my decision was much different.

I suppose though, that by posting as he did, he was, in a way, asking for help.

[Demandred]

I once had an experience where a girl i cared about slit her wrist in front of me.

My philosophy on this had never been tested but in the moment it was clear I believed I had no right to decide for her what to do with life.

No way I could ever do that. Even if it was a stranger. It's just not in me to stand by and watch someone die.

[bigpuma]

If I chose inaction, I'd be afraid that I could be found civilly liable, and that's just wrong in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that I am not supposed to be in a role of responsibility for the health and welfare of the forum's members, yet when something bad happens to someone, people seek out someone to blame, and if someone was found to have been complicit through their inaction, well, they become an easy target.

That's a big concern these days before the fact and after the fact. but in my experience, the actual event brings a kind of clarity.

I once had an experience where a girl i cared about slit her wrist in front of me.

My philosophy on this had never been tested but in the moment it was clear I believed I had no right to decide for her what to do with life.

She had cut across the vein rather than along it so I sat down 10 feet away and waited. The moment she had regret and asked for help, I helped her.

It would not surprise me if Ann found similar clarity and she did what she thought was right.


And you are likely right that the worst of it is the all the judgements from others afterward. That makes me even less inclined to criticize her although my decision was much different.

I suppose though, that by posting as he did, he was, in a way, asking for help.

IANAL but I am guessing that had she died and you sat there and did nothing you would have broken some laws.

[grondramb]

I once had an experience where a girl i cared about slit her wrist in front of me.

My philosophy on this had never been tested but in the moment it was clear I believed I had no right to decide for her what to do with life.

No way I could ever do that. Even if it was a stranger. It's just not in me to stand by and watch someone die.

Before that happened she likely would have become unconscious and become unable to express regret which might have put it in a different ethical category.

[Huntwood]

IANAL but I am guessing that had she died and you sat there and did nothing you would have broken some laws.Then Kavorkian is an even greater criminal.

[grondramb]

IANAL but I am guessing that had she died and you sat there and did nothing you would have broken some laws.



Entirely possible. But at the moment, the law made no difference - it was life and death and right and wrong.

i guess that's why the rules of engagement have to be so carefully drilled into soldiers before they get into combat -in a crisis situation, protocol does not come as naturally as instinct.

[Fofer]

Then Kavorkian is an even greater criminal.

Well, um, yeah. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and spent 8 years in prison. Kind of a different scenario, though, and I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but... yeah, whatever.

[pseudonym]

This thread has taken a bizarre turn. Who'd have thought that a sizable minority here feel that best practice in suicide intervention is to sit back and watch?

I say here because there's nowhere else in the world, save maybe the Ayn Rand Objectivist Summer Camp (check out our new paintball range -- no teams, every man for himself!), where this is viewed as a rational course of action.

[Huntwood]

Then Kavorkian is an even greater criminal.

Well, um, yeah. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and spent 8 years in prison. Kind of a different scenario, though, and I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but... yeah, whatever.

The relevance is that Kavorkian took a much more active role in the suicides than just sitting back and watching, and yet many people are philosphically okay with what he did. I assume those people would be even more okay with what grondramb did.

[Turtleboy]

If I chose inaction, I'd be afraid that I could be found civilly liable, and that's just wrong in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that I am not supposed to be in a role of responsibility for the health and welfare of the forum's members, yet when something bad happens to someone, people seek out someone to blame, and if someone was found to have been complicit through their inaction, well, they become an easy target.

That's a big concern these days before the fact and after the fact. but in my experience, the actual event brings a kind of clarity.

I once had an experience where a girl i cared about slit her wrist in front of me.

My philosophy on this had never been tested but in the moment it was clear I believed I had no right to decide for her what to do with life.

She had cut across the vein rather than along it so I sat down 10 feet away and waited. The moment she had regret and asked for help, I helped her.

It would not surprise me if Ann found similar clarity and she did what she thought was right.


And you are likely right that the worst of it is the all the judgements from others afterward. That makes me even less inclined to criticize her although my decision was much different.

I suppose though, that by posting as he did, he was, in a way, asking for help.

IANAL but I am guessing that had she died and you sat there and did nothing you would have broken some laws.

It depends. See e.g. Seinfeld finale.

[pseudonym]

Then Kavorkian is an even greater criminal.

Well, um, yeah. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and spent 8 years in prison. Kind of a different scenario, though, and I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but... yeah, whatever.

The relevance is that Kavorkian took a much more active role in the suicides than just sitting back and watching, and yet many people are philosphically okay with what he did. I assume those people would be even more okay with what grondramb did.
Bad assumption. There's a big difference between making a considered, deliberative decision to end your life with the assistance of a physician because of a degenerative terminal disease and grabbing a knife and hacking at your wrists while someone watches.

[Ninny]

FWIW, I think there is a HUGE difference between assisted suicide such as those Kavorkian was involved with, and the situation on TCF.

In the Kavorkian assisted suicides, the people he was helping were terminally ill, in pain and looking for a humane release from their suffering. They were not mentally ill, were of sound mind, and IMO had the right to make the choice to die under their circumstances.

This is a far cry from the TCF situation, which involved someone who is - whether permanently or temporarily - mentally impaired and crying out for help/attention/whatever. For me, there is a moral imperative to help someone who is clearly incapable of helping themselves.

Clearly none of this is black and white - there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. But I know that if I were in trouble, and not in my right ming, I would hope someone would try to help me...

EDIT - or what pseudonym said in a shorter more concise post!

[Fofer]

Then Kavorkian is an even greater criminal.

Well, um, yeah. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and spent 8 years in prison. Kind of a different scenario, though, and I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but... yeah, whatever.

The relevance is that Kavorkian took a much more active role in the suicides than just sitting back and watching, and yet many people are philosphically okay with what he did. I assume those people would be even more okay with what grondramb did.

There's a distinction, however, in that Kevorkian claims to only have assisted with the suicides of terminally ill adult patients who had full decisional capacity. grondamb's distraught girlfriend, or Mitch contemplating how many pills to take to end his depression, are vastly different situations.

Besides, Kevorkian's case has already been processed by the judicial system, and yes, it was determined that he'd committed a crime. So I was a bit confused by Huntwood's "revelation."

[JustAllie]

This thread has taken a bizarre turn. Who'd have thought that a sizable minority here feel that best practice in suicide intervention is to sit back and watch?

I say here because there's nowhere else in the world, save maybe the Ayn Rand Objectivist Summer Camp (check out our new paintball range -- no teams, every man for himself!), where this is viewed as a rational course of action.
Yeah, I've kind of noticed that too.

[Huntwood]

Besides, Kevorkian's case has already been processed by the judicial system, and yes, it was determined that he'd committed a crime. So I was a bit confused by Huntwood's "revelation."To me, that's irrelevant. I'm not talking about whether what grondramb did was legal or not, but whether it was ethically okay. Many people think that what Kavorkian did was ethically okay. However, Ninny made a good point with her rubutal, so I will concede to her argument. (Pseudonym, might have been more concise, but to be honest, I didn't really absorb his logic fully until I read Ninny's post - i.e. Ninny was more understandable to me.)

[Otto]

They searched for, and found, my home phone number and at least two of them called me (coincidentally at the same time).

I was not bothered by this. Rather, I was touched by their concern and their compassion.
You're definitely not me then, because I would have been seriously fucking pissed off.

For future reference, while I welcome contact from anybody for any reason, stick to electronic communication. If I don't give you my phone number and tell you to call me, don't do it.

I have great respect for Otto and don't normally disagree with him, but in this case, I do. We DO need to protect our rights, from our Government and from Corporations and even organized busybodies. But not from friends or even well-meaning neighbors. If my neighbor starts peeping in my window because he wants to see a show, that's one thing, but if he peeps in because he has reason to fear for my safety and wants to check on me, that's a different thing entirely.
I don't agree with this in the slightest. We need to protect our rights from everything that threatens them, and the good-intentions of well-meaning people is absolutely included in that. I would place it as a top priority, in point of fact, because the odds of my neighbors spying on me are much higher than the odds of the government spying on me. If my neighbor wants to know how I am, he can ask me. Peeping in my window is a good way to get shot (metaphorically speaking of course, because peeping in my actual window is a good way to fall 6 stories to your death, but hey...).

My life. My business. My problem. It is not yours or anybody else's place to interfere in my life. Ever. For any reason. Period. Any attempts to do so will be met with swift and violent retaliation, at all times.

[walters]

My life. My business. My problem. It is not yours or anybody else's place to interfere in my life. Ever. For any reason. Period. Any attempts to do so will be met with swift and violent retaliation, at all times.

Yikes. Given that I didn't know this about you until now, is there some sort of sign you guys use to get this point across in advance? Seems like mistakes in this area could be sort of costly.

[BrettStah]

My life. My business. My problem. It is not yours or anybody else's place to interfere in my life. Ever. For any reason. Period. Any attempts to do so will be met with swift and violent retaliation, at all times.
How about the following hypothetical scenarios:

1) Your neighbor notices smoke billowing from your house (and not from the chimney). Do you want your neighbor to call the fire department? Do you want your neighbor to try to ascertain if you're unconscious in the house and to possibly save you if the fire department can't get there in short order?

2) You are at a bar and someone slips something in one of your drinks without you realizing it. Whatever they slip into the drink makes you temporarily paranoid and delusional (more than normal ;)), and in your delusional state you decide that you can now fly, and proceed to tell everyone that you will now go jump off of the tallest building in town. Do you want everyone to let you do that, or would you want them to stop you until your temporary impairment wears off?

3) You suddenly collapse on a public street. A doctor is nearby, and can save you (via CPR, for example). Do you want the doctor to do so, or leave you alone?

[eddyj]

In Otto's World, leave him alone in all 3 cases, I guess.

[bigpuma]

Then Kavorkian is an even greater criminal.

Well, um, yeah. Jack Kevorkian was convicted of second-degree murder and spent 8 years in prison. Kind of a different scenario, though, and I'm not sure how relevant it is to this discussion, but... yeah, whatever.

The relevance is that Kavorkian took a much more active role in the suicides than just sitting back and watching, and yet many people are philosphically okay with what he did. I assume those people would be even more okay with what grondramb did.

Those are not even a little bit the same. I am ok with a rational person taking his/her own life to avoid a painful death. I am not ok with someone who is mentally ill and not thinking rationally taking his/her own life without at least trying to help.

ETA: Or what Ninny said.

[Ereth]

They searched for, and found, my home phone number and at least two of them called me (coincidentally at the same time).

I was not bothered by this. Rather, I was touched by their concern and their compassion.
You're definitely not me then, because I would have been seriously fucking pissed off.

For future reference, while I welcome contact from anybody for any reason, stick to electronic communication. If I don't give you my phone number and tell you to call me, don't do it.

I have great respect for Otto and don't normally disagree with him, but in this case, I do. We DO need to protect our rights, from our Government and from Corporations and even organized busybodies. But not from friends or even well-meaning neighbors. If my neighbor starts peeping in my window because he wants to see a show, that's one thing, but if he peeps in because he has reason to fear for my safety and wants to check on me, that's a different thing entirely.
I don't agree with this in the slightest. We need to protect our rights from everything that threatens them, and the good-intentions of well-meaning people is absolutely included in that. I would place it as a top priority, in point of fact, because the odds of my neighbors spying on me are much higher than the odds of the government spying on me. If my neighbor wants to know how I am, he can ask me. Peeping in my window is a good way to get shot (metaphorically speaking of course, because peeping in my actual window is a good way to fall 6 stories to your death, but hey...).

My life. My business. My problem. It is not yours or anybody else's place to interfere in my life. Ever. For any reason. Period. Any attempts to do so will be met with swift and violent retaliation, at all times.

Hmmm. Either you've kept this facet of your personality well hidden all these years or you've changed since I last spoke with you.

Either way, you are wrong. No man is an island. We all need help eventually. Maybe you haven't so far, but you will. And when you do, I hope you reconsider this position of yours.

[Otto]

How about the following hypothetical scenarios:
#1 is not at all comparable, if there's smoke actually visible outside the place. No "spying" is needed to see the stuff, it's not like they're looking inside the house. As far as saving the person inside, it's reasonable to assume that it is not a suicide attempt. I think I've already made this clear earlier, that knowing somebody's intentions vs. not knowing them are different cases.

#2 is ridiculous. I've taken *lots* of drugs in my lifetime, and they simply do not do what you are suggesting. Please stop paying so much attention to the media.

#3: Same as #1. It's all about knowledge of intent. It is reasonable for a human being to save another. It is NOT reasonable for a human being to save another from themselves.

[Otto]

Hmmm. Either you've kept this facet of your personality well hidden all these years or you've changed since I last spoke with you.
At what point did I ever suggest otherwise to you? I'm very much in favor of personal privacy and always have been.

No man is an island. We all need help eventually.
When I need help, I will ask for it. I am not above asking for help when required.

But if I do not ask for your assistance, if I do not actually invite you in, then please feel free to stay right the hell out of my personal life.

[IndyJones1023]

It's not one's life we're interfering with when trying to prevent suicide. It's their death we're trying to avoid.

We need all the humans we can when the aliens invade.

[IndyJones1023]

No man is an island. We all need help eventually.
When I need help, I will ask for it. I am not above asking for help when required.

But if I do not ask for your assistance, please feel free to stay right the hell out of my personal life.

Here's where you can't see the forest for the trees.

In most cases, people can't ask for help. And when they do, it's in a form that's indirect. Such as starting a thread asking how to kill yourself. That's a cry for help. Sometimes the brain doesn't process things properly. You may not be capable of asking for help when you need it most. But others can see the signs.

[Otto]

It's not one's life we're interfering with when trying to prevent suicide. It's their death we're trying to avoid.
A person's death is the most private part of their life, who are you to interfere?

In most cases, people can't ask for help. And when they do, it's in a form that's indirect. Such as starting a thread asking how to kill yourself. That's a cry for help. Sometimes the brain doesn't process things properly. You may not be capable of asking for help when you need it most. But others can see the signs.
Bah. I dismiss that notion entirely as new-age fruity bullshit nonsense.

People who cannot ask for help are not worth helping. This whole modern idea that things are beyond your control, including control over your own situation/mind/life is complete horseshit, of the highest caliber. I do not hold with that concept. You do have control over your life, the idea that you do not is nothing more than a lack of personal responsibility.

[TreborPugly]

Never have I read a post that makes more sense that that one. Not even from Fofer, who has the gift of being able to make the ludicrous seem reasonable.


:cool::up:





waitaminute...


:huh:

It made me laugh... :) I think you can take it as a compliment from someone who disagrees with you a lot?

[Ereth]

#1 is not at all comparable, if there's smoke actually visible outside the place. No "spying" is needed to see the stuff, it's not like they're looking inside the house. As far as saving the person inside, it's reasonable to assume that it is not a suicide attempt. I think I've already made this clear earlier, that knowing somebody's intentions vs. not knowing them are different cases.

And yet, in your response to my first post you contradict this.

I posted symptoms that I did not understand. I gave no intention of wanting to die. In fact, I asked people what they thought the symptoms might mean and if they thought I should go to a doctor. Then I went away for about 6 hours. No posts at all. Some people thought those symptoms could have indicated a heart attack (in specific, the fact that I had numbness in one leg that over the course of a couple of hours spread to include both legs and one arm). The fact that I had not posted in so long made them fear that I had HAD a heart attack and was unable to post so they sought me out, to send aid if such were needed. This is VERY much like seeing the smoke coming from your home, and yet you replied that you would have been very angry had they tried to help you as they did me.

It is most certainly reasonable to assume I was not attempting suicide by heart attack.

[Ereth]

It's not one's life we're interfering with when trying to prevent suicide. It's their death we're trying to avoid.
A person's death is the most private part of their life, who are you to interfere?

In most cases, people can't ask for help. And when they do, it's in a form that's indirect. Such as starting a thread asking how to kill yourself. That's a cry for help. Sometimes the brain doesn't process things properly. You may not be capable of asking for help when you need it most. But others can see the signs.
Bah. I dismiss that notion entirely as new-age fruity bullshit nonsense.

People who cannot ask for help are not worth helping. This whole modern idea that things are beyond your control, including control over your own situation/mind/life is complete horseshit, of the highest caliber. I do not hold with that concept. You do have control over your life, the idea that you do not is nothing more than a lack of personal responsibility.

So, if you get hit on the head and fall down unconscious and are bleeding out, we should just watch, because you are not specifically asking for help?

You should most definitely wear a Medic Alert bracelet alerting people to this fact, as people tend to want to help those in need, even sometimes taking risks to their own lives to do so.

[IndyJones1023]

Bah. I dismiss that notion entirely as new-age fruity bullshit nonsense.

People who cannot ask for help are not worth helping. This whole modern idea that things are beyond your control, including control over your own situation/mind/life is complete horseshit, of the highest caliber. I do not hold with that concept. You do have control over your life, the idea that you do not is nothing more than a lack of personal responsibility.
Clearly you are not worth saving anyway.

[Otto]

It is most certainly reasonable to assume I was not attempting suicide by heart attack.
However, it is not reasonable to assume that you collapsed and were unable to help yourself, or were not already receiving help, or that you indeed had had a heart attack vs. any one of the myriad other conditions that could have caused similar symptoms. It is certainly not enough to call you from across the country and/or alert authorities to a possible problem.

Yes, I would be extremely pissed, because posting questions about numbness on a forum is a wholly different situation than smoke billowing out of a home. The latter indicates the need for immediate emergency response from nearby people. The former does not indicate the need for emergency response from across the country.

[DougF]

It's not one's life we're interfering with when trying to prevent suicide. It's their death we're trying to avoid.

We need all the humans we can when the aliens invade.

+1

One of the people we save could be the alcoholic crop duster who kamikazes the alien ship when the rest of us morons run out of missiles.

[IndyJones1023]

It's not one's life we're interfering with when trying to prevent suicide. It's their death we're trying to avoid.

We need all the humans we can when the aliens invade.

+1

One of the people we save could be the alcoholic crop duster who kamikazes the alien ship when the rest of us morons run out of missiles.
Never underestimate Alcoholic Crop Duster Americans.

[Otto]

So, if you get hit on the head and fall down unconscious and are bleeding out, we should just watch, because you are not specifically asking for help?
No. I refer you to my previous response to you on this topic, specifically the answer to situation number 3.

Clearly you are not worth saving anyway.
Clearly you're not worth talking to. Welcome to my ignore list, you are guest #6.

[IndyJones1023]

I am not a number!

[BrettStah]

#1 is not at all comparable, if there's smoke actually visible outside the place. No "spying" is needed to see the stuff, it's not like they're looking inside the house. As far as saving the person inside, it's reasonable to assume that it is not a suicide attempt. I think I've already made this clear earlier, that knowing somebody's intentions vs. not knowing them are different cases.Maybe you're trying to kill yourself by burning down your house.
#2 is ridiculous. I've taken *lots* of drugs in my lifetime, and they simply do not do what you are suggesting. Please stop paying so much attention to the media.You're doing the same thing that pdjplano did with a similar question - deflecting. For the sake of this question, assume that one or more drugs (legal or illegal) will make you paranoid delusional to the point that you think you can fly. Do you want people to stop you or not?

[Langree]

I am not a number!

I think I'm on his list too...

good company.

[Huntwood]

So, if you get hit on the head and fall down unconscious and are bleeding out, we should just watch, because you are not specifically asking for help?I get the impression that he means if he's conscious. If he's unconcious and can't ask for help, and is in public view (e.g. bleeding in the street), I suspect he would appreciate being helped.

ETA: I see he already answered this.

[Langree]

will make you paranoid delusional

More then usual?

[Guindalf]

Wow - what an emotive thread! I'm glad I had the sense to back out after I got attacked for my comments, which were mild in comparison to a lot of what's been discussed since!! Let's just say I know a lot more about certain people that were just suspicions before.

The reason for this post is to find out if there have been any updates on TCF from the original story? I wouldn't want to make any more comments without knowing all the facts lest others consider me worthy of my ban or an internet dickwad!

[Huntwood]

The reason for this post is to find out if there have been any updates on TCF from the original story? I wouldn't want to make any more comments without knowing the facts!As long as we understand the context/background of your comments (e.g. you didn't read the TCF thread), I think it's okay to not know all the facts. Your opinions are no less valid, if at least in a hypothetical sense.

[Ereth]

It is most certainly reasonable to assume I was not attempting suicide by heart attack.
However, it is not reasonable to assume that you collapsed and were unable to help yourself, or were not already receiving help, or that you indeed had had a heart attack vs. any one of the myriad other conditions that could have caused similar symptoms. It is certainly not enough to call you from across the country and/or alert authorities to a possible problem.

Yes, I would be extremely pissed, because posting questions about numbness on a forum is a wholly different situation than smoke billowing out of a home. The latter indicates the need for immediate emergency response from nearby people. The former does not indicate the need for emergency response from across the country.

I'm certain you are familiar with risk tables. So lets look at this logically.

A prolific poster who tends to not be able to avoid posting for more than a couple hours, even while at work, posts symptoms of increasing numbness and disappears for a long time. It is known that this poster lives alone and likely nobody outside the forum even knows he is experiencing these symptoms.

1. He could have had a heart attack.
2. He could be busy and just not near the forum.
3. He could have gone to the doctor.

If you are concerned, what are the possible outcomes?

1. He is hurt and needs help.
2. He is unhurt and doesn't need help.

What happens if you do nothing?

Case 1: he dies
Case 2: he's fine and life goes on as normal

What happens if you do something?

Case 1: You might save his life
Case 2: You might annoy him

Given the choice between possibly annoying someone and possibly saving their life, the logical choice is to act. The difference between annoying them and letting them die is hardly an equal balance.

So if it were in my power to save you, Otto, I would do so, even if I knew it would gain me your enmity and animosity for the rest of your life. It seems a rational course of action to me, and I'm sorry you don't agree.

[Langree]

Mitch's account shows no activity since 10:53 Monday morning.

[TreborPugly]

Oh, and now that Dave and Fofer have outed me as a lurker in this thread, I guess I'll post my thoughts.


1. Privacy: If you post on a public forum, and it takes the people reading that forum 15 minutes to obtain your phone number, then any privacy you had was illusory anyway. Anyone as serious about their privacy as Otto's describing needs to take initiative in protecting it. Now if JAP used nominally private information to track mitch down, then maybe there is some room for complaint. But realistically, we should expect to be trackable when making public communications.
2. Right to suicide: I think I support this, even in the case of people who might be mentally ill. Anyone with a personal relationship, and really knows the person - what they do is up to them and any judgments about their actions should be made in the context of their personal relationship, not general ethical or legal restrictions. For the rest of us - it's too hard to really judge. But if someone wants to exercise their "right" to suicide without interference, then they should take steps to protect that right, by, say... not posting their intentions on a public forum.
3. "Asking for help": I think that the mitch case is pretty evidently a case of someone asking for at the very least attention, and maybe for help. Anyone who has the personal will to help people in such need was being given a huge invitation to "interfere" with him.
4. "Helping" - good, bad, or interfering?: I don't think I would go to any special effort to help a random poster on an internet forum. Some people that I've known online for a long time, and consider my friends, yes, I probably would do something. But I'm also close enough to the edge of the TCF social crowd that I recognize there are much stronger friendships, and those people will help each other out, and I'd probably take a back seat to them. For someone that's also in MA, I might offer local help. But for me, it would only be for people I know. I don't fault anyone for being more helpful than I would be, and I don't consider it interfering or violating any privacy - it's just not something I would do. I also don't fault people like pdjplano , who say they'll just mind their own business most of the time. I think it's just three points on a spectrum. Do you only have a responsibility to your relatives and close friends, to your friends in general, or to any human in need?
5. What we say, and what we do: And finally, I think lots of us are talking about what we think we'd do, rather than what we'd really do. I wouldn't be surprised if pdjplano would indeed stop a complete stranger from jumping off a bridge. And I wouldn't be surprised if DougF or Ninny walked past a stranger who was pacing and muttering about killing himself. About 10 years ago I chased down a purse snatcher in a grocery store lot. I didn't think about it, and I wouldn't have been faulted for just standing there looking around like other people did when the old lady yelled "Help!" So I give JAP and jafa a big pass on judging their actions. I have no idea what I would have done.

[BrettStah]

I still am waiting for someone who thinks people should always butt out if someone says that they want to kill themselves to answer the following question:

If you are temporarily delusional/hallucinating/etc. to the point of being suicidal (or under the mistaken belief that you can fly off a building safely), would you want strangers to stop you or not?

A related question - replace "you" with "someone you care greatly for", if that changes your answer at all.

[IndyJones1023]

I am not a number!

I think I'm on his list too...

good company.

/knuckle bump

[Guindalf]

The reason for this post is to find out if there have been any updates on TCF from the original story? I wouldn't want to make any more comments without knowing the facts!As long as we understand the context/background of your comments (e.g. you didn't read the TCF thread), I think it's okay to not know all the facts. Your opinions are no less valid, if at least in a hypothetical sense.

Obviously I agree, but others here don't.

Thanks for your support, though.

[Otto]

Maybe you're trying to kill yourself by burning down your house.
Bit of a stretch, eh? Sure, it's possible, but it's not an assumption a reasonable person would make.

For the sake of this question, assume that one or more drugs (legal or illegal) will make you paranoid delusional to the point that you think you can fly. Do you want people to stop you or not?
If you want to assume ridiculous things, then you're going to get ridiculous answers, but the answer is definitely a "not". I'd rather be dead free man than to live as a slave, only being allowed to fit into the "norms" of society.

If you are concerned, what are the possible outcomes?
1. He is hurt and needs help.
2. He is unhurt and doesn't need help.

What happens if you do nothing?
Case 1: he dies
Case 2: he's fine and life goes on as normal

What happens if you do something?
Case 1: You might save his life
Case 2: You might annoy him

Given the choice between possibly annoying someone and possibly saving their life, the logical choice is to act.
That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint. It's basically a restatement of Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager), and it's still incorrect for more or less the same reasons.

Here's the true nature of it:
What happens if you do nothing?
Both: He retains his privacy, his freedom, and his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What happens if you do something?
Both: You take those rights away from him merely in order to make yourself feel better. You've done him a disservice.

[Mikkel_Knight]

I am not a number!

I think I'm on his list too...

good company.
Otto is just a stubborn fool who, when he backs himself into a corner with stupid scenarios and his "beliefs", just puts you on ignore.

Don'tcha know - Otto is all-seeing, all-knowing - nothing can contradict his great wisdom and knowlege.

[pgogborn]

I am not a number!

I think I'm on his list too...

good company.
Otto is just a stubborn fool who, when he backs himself into a corner with stupid scenarios and his "beliefs", just puts you on ignore.

Don'tcha know - Otto is all-seeing, all-knowing - nothing can contradict his great wisdom and knowlege.Yes, but I bet he can see a big bouncing ball called Rover when somebody says "I am not a number!" So he can't be all bad :p

http://www.beechlog.co.uk/blog200501/rover.jpg

[Langree]

I think I'm on his list too...

good company.
Otto is just a stubborn fool who, when he backs himself into a corner with stupid scenarios and his "beliefs", just puts you on ignore.

Don'tcha know - Otto is all-seeing, all-knowing - nothing can contradict his great wisdom and knowlege.Yes, but I bet he can see a big bouncing ball called Rover when somebody says "I am not a number!" So he can't be all bad :p


http://www.beechlog.co.uk/blog200501/rover.jpg
One of these days I'm gonna purchase that set.

[TheIndependent]

I still am waiting for someone who thinks people should always butt out if someone says that they want to kill themselves to answer the following question:

If you are temporarily delusional/hallucinating/etc. to the point of being suicidal (or under the mistaken belief that you can fly off a building safely), would you want strangers to stop you or not?

A related question - replace "you" with "someone you care greatly for", if that changes your answer at all.

i'm not of the "people should always butt out" crowd, so not sure if I qualify for a response, but i'd appreciate a stranger stopping me / calling the authorities / intervening if they knew that something caused me to be "temporarily delusional' that i didn't choose for myself. say, for example, you saw someone put a roofie in my drink or injected me with a drug.

i'd also appreciate assistance if i or others were under attack or in harms way from another and/or through negligence / unawareness - say i didn't see a gigantic hole in the ground or electric fence and someone stopped me from falling into it, or someone was attacking me with a knife and a nice CHL person shot them for me :)

back to the main point of this particular thread/my view if i can provide a synopsis: to me, a personal decision to kill oneself should not be intruded upon by a stranger. i will not intervene, nor do i think others should intervene, if a person wants to kill themselves {with the caveat of the influences above from others, as i put forward}. i don't consider someone going "off his meds" and deciding to kill himself as any outside influence issue, that person is making a decision to do so, and I'm not of the opinion that strangers should interfere.

you can come up with a myriad of examples if you'd like, but that is the basic concept i'm working under. there are obvious gray lines, and most here appear to believe that "mental conditions" that lead to suicide are part of the "outside influence", I'm just not of that opinion.

[Fofer]

Never have I read a post that makes more sense that that one. Not even from Fofer, who has the gift of being able to make the ludicrous seem reasonable.


:cool::up:



waitaminute...


:huh:

It made me laugh... :)

Me too. :D


Besides, Kevorkian's case has already been processed by the judicial system, and yes, it was determined that he'd committed a crime. So I was a bit confused by Huntwood's "revelation."To me, that's irrelevant. I'm not talking about whether what grondramb did was legal or not, but whether it was ethically okay.
Then in comparing grondamb to Kevorkian, you should have used a word other than "criminal (http://www.answers.com/criminal&r=67)."

[Fofer]

They searched for, and found, my home phone number and at least two of them called me (coincidentally at the same time).

I was not bothered by this. Rather, I was touched by their concern and their compassion.
You're definitely not me then, because I would have been seriously fucking pissed off.

My hunch is that you wouldn't have been nearly as easy to track down, then.

Clearly you are not worth saving anyway.
Clearly you're not worth talking to. Welcome to my ignore list, you are guest #6.
I don't get this response, Otto. You contend you wouldn't want to be saved in a suicide attempt (and that no one should interfere with anyone's attempts.) So why would Indy's comment be offensive to you? At the very least, I'd expect you to brush it off. But taking offense implies you'd want to be thought of as "worth saving."

#2 is ridiculous. I've taken *lots* of drugs in my lifetime, and they simply do not do what you are suggesting. Please stop paying so much attention to the media.
I've made no secret of my thought that you're a damn smart guy, Otto. But I, too, have experience in this arena. And I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. On more than one occasion I have been in the presence of folks whose judgment is severely and dangerously impaired by serious drug use. Without intervention from friends or passersby, they'd most certainly have followed through on a stunt which would have resulted in serious injury. (Okay, perhaps not a stunt of the "I'm a golden god... watch me fly" cliché variety... but dangerous and life-threatening nonetheless.) To brush off the scenario as "ridiculous," merely paranoia fueled by the media, just seems to me like an easy way to deflect the hypothetical question.

Please don't put me on ignore for typing the above... I just felt it warranted additional perspective.

[pseudonym]

I still am waiting for someone who thinks people should always butt out if someone says that they want to kill themselves to answer the following question:

If you are temporarily delusional/hallucinating/etc. to the point of being suicidal (or under the mistaken belief that you can fly off a building safely), would you want strangers to stop you or not?

A related question - replace "you" with "someone you care greatly for", if that changes your answer at all.

i'm not of the "people should always butt out" crowd, so not sure if I qualify for a response, but i'd appreciate a stranger stopping me / calling the authorities / intervening if they knew that something caused me to be "temporarily delusional' that i didn't choose for myself. say, for example, you saw someone put a roofie in my drink or injected me with a drug.

i'd also appreciate assistance if i or others were under attack or in harms way from another and/or through negligence / unawareness - say i didn't see a gigantic hole in the ground or electric fence and someone stopped me from falling into it, or someone was attacking me with a knife and a nice CHL person shot them for me :)

back to the main point of this particular thread/my view if i can provide a synopsis: to me, a personal decision to kill oneself should not be intruded upon by a stranger. i will not intervene, nor do i think others should intervene, if a person wants to kill themselves {with the caveat of the influences above from others, as i put forward}. i don't consider someone going "off his meds" and deciding to kill himself as any outside influence issue, that person is making a decision to do so, and I'm not of the opinion that strangers should interfere.

you can come up with a myriad of examples if you'd like, but that is the basic concept i'm working under. there are obvious gray lines, and most here appear to believe that "mental conditions" that lead to suicide are part of the "outside influence", I'm just not of that opinion.
On the one hand you say that being temporarily delusional to the point of being suicidal is reason to intervene. But then you say having "mental conditions" (in quotes, as if mental illness is mythological) that lead to suicide is not a good enough reason to intervene. What's the difference?

[BrettStah]

i'm not of the "people should always butt out" crowd, so not sure if I qualify for a response, but i'd appreciate a stranger stopping me / calling the authorities / intervening if they knew that something caused me to be "temporarily delusional' that i didn't choose for myself. say, for example, you saw someone put a roofie in my drink or injected me with a drug.
So you only want a stranger to intervene to save your life if they actually know the precise cause of your delusional/suicidal behavior? Otherwise they should let you die/hurt yourself? If they miss the roofie or the injection, then you die - if they see the roofie or the injection, you live?

[TheIndependent]

On the one hand you say that being temporarily delusional to the point of being suicidal is reason to intervene. But then you say having "mental conditions" (in quotes, as if mental illness is mythological) that lead to suicide is not a good enough reason to intervene. What's the difference?

temporarily delusional is a very subjective issue, and in the case of a stranger, the only way i'd want them to make said determination is if they see that an outside influence is present {i.e. someone slipping a roofie, etc.}.

i'm not of the opinion that strangers should be involved in any mental health evaluation of another if they don't know the person/situation and/or haven't seen anything to indicate an outside influence in the condition.

[TheIndependent]

i'm not of the "people should always butt out" crowd, so not sure if I qualify for a response, but i'd appreciate a stranger stopping me / calling the authorities / intervening if they knew that something caused me to be "temporarily delusional' that i didn't choose for myself. say, for example, you saw someone put a roofie in my drink or injected me with a drug.
So you only want a stranger to intervene to save your life if they actually know the precise cause of your delusional/suicidal behavior?

correct. see my prior post on that (I think I cover it there)

[BrettStah]

i'm not of the "people should always butt out" crowd, so not sure if I qualify for a response, but i'd appreciate a stranger stopping me / calling the authorities / intervening if they knew that something caused me to be "temporarily delusional' that i didn't choose for myself. say, for example, you saw someone put a roofie in my drink or injected me with a drug.
So you only want a stranger to intervene to save your life if they actually know the precise cause of your delusional/suicidal behavior?

correct. see my prior post on that (I think I cover it there)

OK, I'll have to wrap my head around that logic a bit.

Let's see if this helps me... if you're temporarily delusional (roofie, for example), and no one sees the roofie being put into your drink, and then you start acting all crazy and you're about to harm or kill yourself... if a stranger saves you, what would your reaction be once you recover?

"Hey man, I have to ask you something... did you see the roofie being put into my drink? Because if so, thanks so much for saving my life!!! If not, then what the F*CK were you thinking?!? I should kill you for interfering with my rights without knowing what was causing me to act so crazy!"

[BrettStah]

Another question... a stranger is standing next to you on a street corner, and a city bus is coming along - the stranger starts to step out to cross the street... do you pull them back to save their life, or do you let them do whatever they want to do?

[TheIndependent]

Let's see if this helps me... if you're temporarily delusional (roofie, for example), and no one sees the roofie being put into your drink, and then you start acting all crazy and you're about to harm or kill yourself... if a stranger saves you, what would your reaction be once you recover?

my reaction? i'd not be in that situation so it's n/a.

i'm also not sure you understand my view about people who do interfere even when i wouldn't. i have nothing against those people or their decision to do so, it's just not something i'd do

[TheIndependent]

Another question... a stranger is standing next to you on a street corner, and a city bus is coming along - the stranger starts to step out to cross the street... do you pull them back to save their life, or do you let them do whatever they want to do?

in most cases i'd assume he didn't see the bus and try to help. if he told me he was about to kill himself so i should get the frak away, i'd let him take the plunge.

[IndyJones1023]

my reaction? i'd not be in that situation so it's n/a.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[Otto]

My hunch is that you wouldn't have been nearly as easy to track down, then.
Tracking me down would not be particularly difficult. I've made no real attempts to hide my identity. If you were creative and knew your way around Google, there's at least one obvious search you could do that would give you a friend of mine's name. His number is in the phone book, and he knows where I am most of the time.

I don't get this response, Otto.
When people ignore what I'm actually saying because of their own preconceptions of what they think I'm saying, and then get snarky instead of actually bothering to think it through and see the other side of the argument, then I really have no desire to communicate with them any longer. It's not what he said, it's the fact that he said it at all instead of coming up with a well-reasoned response..

On more than one occasion I have been in the presence of folks whose judgment is severely and dangerously impaired by serious drug use. Without intervention from friends or passersby, they'd most certainly have followed through on a stunt which would have resulted in serious injury. (Okay, perhaps not a stunt of the "I'm a golden god... watch me fly" cliché variety... but dangerous and life-threatening nonetheless.) To brush off the scenario as "ridiculous," merely paranoia fueled by the media, just seems to me like an easy way to deflect the hypothetical question.
The scenario itself is extremely far fetched, and I don't really see the point in taking things to ridiculous extremes. When I speak about general idea and concepts and what I think of as being correct from a moral and/or ethical standpoint, then merely shoving scenario after scenario at me, trying to bust up my argument, is more than a little bit pointless. Are people unable to have conversations on a higher level than that? Is projecting extreme unlikely situations the best they can do?

All I was trying to say is that the situation is a) ridiculous, b) unlikely, c) probably misinformed, and d) more than a little stupid. While there is no doubt that drugs can impair ones judgment, the notion that an otherwise sane person is going to be driven to jump off a building just from getting rufied is somewhat out of line with reality. I did go on to answer it later in the thread, however.

[TheIndependent]

my reaction? i'd not be in that situation so it's n/a.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.

his hypothetical wasn't realistic, if you'd like to make more realistic scenarios that *I* would be exposed to or related to me, then feel free, but his example isn't applicable at all.

nice contribution to the thread though, you should join the debate forum :)

[IndyJones1023]

my reaction? i'd not be in that situation so it's n/a.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.

his hypothetical wasn't realistic, if you'd like to make more realistic scenarios that *I* would be exposed to or related to me, then feel free, but his example isn't applicable at all.

nice contribution to the thread though, you should join the debate forum :)
You seem to be saying you have the ability to control all the people who surround you at any given time. How else can you ensure you'd never be drugged?

[Fofer]

My hunch is that you wouldn't have been nearly as easy to track down, then.
Tracking me down would not be particularly difficult. I've made no real attempts to hide my identity. If you were creative and knew your way around Google, there's at least one obvious search you could do that would give you a friend of mine's name. His number is in the phone book, and he knows where I am most of the time.

Gotcha. I trust that this friend knows you well enough to know that you expressly would not want your phone number passed along to anyone, under any circumstances whatsoever? (If not, I suggest you tell him.)

[TheIndependent]

You seem to be saying you have the ability to control all the people who surround you at any given time. How else can you ensure you'd never be drugged?

no, i've never been suicidal regardless of the drugs i've been on (including coke, acid, x, etc.) so it's n/a...

[IndyJones1023]

You seem to be saying you have the ability to control all the people who surround you at any given time. How else can you ensure you'd never be drugged?

no, i've never been suicidal regardless of the drugs i've been on (including coke, acid, x, etc.) so it's n/a...
I just don't see how you can make a blanket statement about the future like that. I've had plenty of booze and never been suicidal. I can't imagine getting drunk and depressed. Drinking is fun to me. But I'm not so pollyanna to think it couldn't happen. So I would never say it can't.

[d-dub]

You seem to be saying you have the ability to control all the people who surround you at any given time. How else can you ensure you'd never be drugged?

no, i've never been suicidal regardless of the drugs i've been on (including coke, acid, x, etc.) so it's n/a...

"I've taken drugs before and not been suicidal... therefore, no drug will ever make me suicidal."

Got it ;)

[DougF]

...if you'd like to make more realistic scenarios that *I* would be exposed to or related to me, then feel free...

If I've missed it, please forgive me. However, I still haven't seen your answer to my question. I have no idea if you are married, involved, have kids, whatever. I'll assume you have someone in your life you love. If I came across that person announcing that they intended to commit suicide, would you want me to help?

A "yes" or "no" answer is all I'm looking for.

[TheIndependent]

...if you'd like to make more realistic scenarios that *I* would be exposed to or related to me, then feel free...

If I've missed it, please forgive me. However, I still haven't seen your answer to my question. I have no idea if you are married, involved, have kids, whatever. I'll assume you have someone in your life you love. If I came across that person announcing that they intended to commit suicide, would you want me to help?

A "yes" or "no" answer is all I'm looking for.

no

[IndyJones1023]

Wow.

[DougF]

...if you'd like to make more realistic scenarios that *I* would be exposed to or related to me, then feel free...

If I've missed it, please forgive me. However, I still haven't seen your answer to my question. I have no idea if you are married, involved, have kids, whatever. I'll assume you have someone in your life you love. If I came across that person announcing that they intended to commit suicide, would you want me to help?

A "yes" or "no" answer is all I'm looking for.

no

Great. Here I was hoping to out you as a hypocrite. :)

Thanks for answering, though I have to admit your answer disturbs me. I can't comprehend that you would want me or any other person to just stand by and watch someone you care about thake their own life. I guess you're wired to assume *everyone* attempting suicide really wants to die. I assume that most of them really want help, such as Mitch's obvious cry.

[BrettStah]

Great. Here I was hoping to out you as a hypocrite. :)

Thanks for answering, though I have to admit your answer disturbs me. I can't comprehend that you would want me or any other person to just stand by and watch someone you care about thake their own life. I guess you're wired to assume *everyone* attempting suicide really wants to die. I assume that most of them really want help, such as Mitch's obvious cry.
His answer would be "yes" if you directly saw someone else somehow cause the erratic behavior, however.

[Marc]

Here's a shocking admission... assuming that someone were in their right mind and wanted to commit suicide for some sort of logical reason, and they wanted to take care of their family, I'm not sure I would object to the idea of them filming their suicide and then selling that video to those who would want such a film with the proceeds benefiting the person's family.

This is, of course, also assuming that the family is willing to be "on board" with this plan. I would advocate that a person's desire to commit suicide be appropriate discussed and agreed upon by the family since counseling would obviously be beneficial given society's opinion on suicide.

[Fofer]

Otto is just a stubborn fool who, when he backs himself into a corner with stupid scenarios and his "beliefs", just puts you on ignore.

Don'tcha know - Otto is all-seeing, all-knowing - nothing can contradict his great wisdom and knowlege
Dude. I agree that he's stubborn (kinda like you, I'm sure you'd agree) but he's certainly not a fool. Debating with him may prove frustrating, and he may even be wrong at times. But at the very least, it's worthwhile to note that he's able to keep disagreements civil.

I know you think "speaking your truth" trumps any desire for politeness and tact, but please know that your personal attacks make you sound even more foolish.

So I give JAP and astrohip a big pass on judging their actions. I have no idea what I would have done.
Astrohip? What did he do?

[TheIndependent]

Here's a shocking admission... assuming that someone were in their right mind and wanted to commit suicide for some sort of logical reason, and they wanted to take care of their family, I'm not sure I would object to the idea of them filming their suicide and then selling that video to those who would want such a film with the proceeds benefiting the person's family.

you mean like a snuff film?

[Marc]

In some sense, yes, and I was going to say that, but as I recall, a key element of a snuff film is that the victim is unaware of what's going on. Since that element is missing, I didn't use that term since it wouldn't be accurate.

[TheIndependent]

In some sense, yes, and I was going to say that, but as I recall, a key element of a snuff film is that the victim is unaware of what's going on. Since that element is missing, I didn't use that term since it wouldn't be accurate.

kind of like "Faces of Death - Suicide Edition" then? :)

[Gus]

In some sense, yes, and I was going to say that, but as I recall, a key element of a snuff film is that the victim is unaware of what's going on. Since that element is missing, I didn't use that term since it wouldn't be accurate.The victim need not be unaware that he is going to be killed. The key thing is that he be killed for the expressed purpose of creating a film that will be distributed with the goal of making money. Such a film could include a suicide.

[TreborPugly]

So I give JAP and astrohip a big pass on judging their actions. I have no idea what I would have done.
Astrohip? What did he do?

Sorry - I guess I had a brain fart. Somehow that username got in my head - looking back at the thread, it was jafa who ended up calling the local authorities...

[Marc]

The victim need not be unaware that he is going to be killed. The key thing is that he be killed for the expressed purpose of creating a film that will be distributed with the goal of making money. Such a film could include a suicide.
If the victim is aware that he is going to die before starting this venture, then it is essentially suicide if he allows it to continue, I suppose.

[Ereth]

If you are concerned, what are the possible outcomes?
1. He is hurt and needs help.
2. He is unhurt and doesn't need help.

What happens if you do nothing?
Case 1: he dies
Case 2: he's fine and life goes on as normal

What happens if you do something?
Case 1: You might save his life
Case 2: You might annoy him

Given the choice between possibly annoying someone and possibly saving their life, the logical choice is to act.
That's an extremely simplistic viewpoint. It's basically a restatement of Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager), and it's still incorrect for more or less the same reasons.

Here's the true nature of it:
What happens if you do nothing?
Both: He retains his privacy, his freedom, and his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What happens if you do something?
Both: You take those rights away from him merely in order to make yourself feel better. You've done him a disservice.
C'mon, Otto. You are smarter than that. Pascals Wager is flawed because there are MORE choices than posited, not less.

Your "true nature" is flawed. He may retain his "rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but if he actually DIES then he will not have the ability to exercise those rights.

You honestly believe that had I been laying there, dying, and those concerned people at TCF had attempted to contact me, and failing to do so, had dispatched an ambulance filled with people who could save me, that I should be MAD at them for causing me to survive the accidental tragedy?

Check Mazlows Hierarchy of Needs if you must but it's pretty clear to me that Privacy is farther down the list than Survival.

[grondramb]

Check Mazlows Hierarchy of Needs if you must but it's pretty clear to me that Privacy is farther down the list than Survival.

The real question is where does freedom of choice rank - can/should we remove someone's freedom of choice to increase their chance of survival?

[BrettStah]

Check Mazlows Hierarchy of Needs if you must but it's pretty clear to me that Privacy is farther down the list than Survival.

The real question is where does freedom of choice rank - can/should we remove someone's freedom of choice to increase their chance of survival?

But someone who is actually rational and truly wants to kill themselves can actually do so quite easily (barring some sort of physical impairment, which is where assisted suicide comes into play). Anyone who is walking around (or typing on the Internet) and intimating that they're going to off themselves is therefore likely not serious about killing themselves or aren't in their right mind.

[davebogart]

my reaction? i'd not be in that situation so it's n/a.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.No it isn't. Remember me?

[grondramb]

But someone who is actually rational and truly wants to kill themselves can actually do so quite easily (barring some sort of physical impairment, which is where assisted suicide comes into play). Anyone who is walking around (or typing on the Internet) and intimating that they're going to off themselves is therefore likely not serious about killing themselves or aren't in their right mind.

If they are not serious its hard to see any justification for intervening.

As for posting on the net being as sign of not being in their right mind... maybe you have a point. :)

[BrettStah]

But someone who is actually rational and truly wants to kill themselves can actually do so quite easily (barring some sort of physical impairment, which is where assisted suicide comes into play). Anyone who is walking around (or typing on the Internet) and intimating that they're going to off themselves is therefore likely not serious about killing themselves or aren't in their right mind.

If they are not serious its hard to see any justification for intervening.But you left out the other possibility that I listed - that they aren't in their right mind.

[TheIndependent]

Anyone who is walking around (or typing on the Internet) and intimating that they're going to off themselves is therefore likely not serious about killing themselves or aren't in their right mind.

i disagree. someone inquiring about methods of suicide may very well be serious AND in their right mind {unless you believe that anyone that is suicidal to not be in 'their right mind' regardless}. they have to learn somewhere, don't they :)

[TreborPugly]

my reaction? i'd not be in that situation so it's n/a.
That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.No it isn't. Remember me?
He did say "about"

[Fofer]

That's about the dumbest thing I've ever read.No it isn't. Remember me?
He did say "about"

I suppose it's also possible that davebogart had written the dumbest thing IndyJones1023 had ever read... until today, when pdjplano trumped that.

[BrettStah]

Anyone who is walking around (or typing on the Internet) and intimating that they're going to off themselves is therefore likely not serious about killing themselves or aren't in their right mind.

i disagree. someone inquiring about methods of suicide may very well be serious AND in their right mind {unless you believe that anyone that is suicidal to not be in 'their right mind' regardless}. they have to learn somewhere, don't they :)
They can learn from google, wikipedia, or just use common knowledge of how we stay alive (need air, need blood pumping around, etc.). If they're asking on the Tivo forum, it's likely they're not serious or not in their right mind (all my opinion, of course).

[Otto]

Your "true nature" is flawed. He may retain his "rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but if he actually DIES then he will not have the ability to exercise those rights.
So, privacy, freedom, individual rights, you're willing to ignore all of these to save somebody's life?

That's the difference. I am not willing to ignore these. Again, life is cheap and easy to come by, whereas our freedoms have be protected.

You honestly believe that had I been laying there, dying, and those concerned people at TCF had attempted to contact me, and failing to do so, had dispatched an ambulance filled with people who could save me, that I should be MAD at them for causing me to survive the accidental tragedy?
I would go so far as to file lawsuits against them for such actions. If only to prevent them from ever doing it again to anybody else.

Check Mazlows Hierarchy of Needs if you must but it's pretty clear to me that Privacy is farther down the list than Survival.
Mazlow's Hierarchy is complete and utter garbage to start with. And this isn't about "privacy", it's about "freedom". When you take somebody's freedom away just to save their life, then you have done them a disservice. Better to die free.

Additional: On a side note, when did the country forget how to mind their own freakin' business, eh? I was brought up not to butt in and not to interfere with other people's private lives. What's wrong with you people? When did the world become a place full of nosy neighbors?

[Langree]

That's the difference. I am not willing to ignore these. Again, life is cheap and easy to come by, whereas our freedoms have be protected.


Last I checked we only get one shot at life, so you may view you're life as cheap but I don't, and your freedoms do you no good if you're dead.

[Langree]

Additional: On a side note, when did the country forget how to mind their own freakin' business, eh? I was brought up not to butt in and not to interfere with other people's private lives. What's wrong with you people? When did the world become a place full of nosy neighbors?

So if you witness someone beating the crap out of their wife or their child it's none of your business so you turn a blind eye?

[grondramb]

Additional: On a side note, when did the country forget how to mind their own freakin' business, eh? I was brought up not to butt in and not to interfere with other people's private lives. What's wrong with you people? When did the world become a place full of nosy neighbors?

So if you witness someone beating the crap out of their wife or their child it's none of your business so you turn a blind eye?

There is a difference between someone harming others versus doing something bad to themselves.

[Mikkel_Knight]

I know you think "speaking your truth" trumps any desire for politeness and tact, but please know that your personal attacks make you sound even more foolish.
Truth is truth Fofer... the tone of delivery can be altered, but regardless, it doesn't change the bottom line.

There are very few people in this world that I actually care about how my tone/delivery is recieved. I'm willing to bet that you are fully aware you're not on that extremely exclusive list.

Again, truth is truth, whether it's spoken with pretty-boy words outta some pretty-boy mouth, or if it's just plain laid out bluntly and tactlessly.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Additional: On a side note, when did the country forget how to mind their own freakin' business, eh? I was brought up not to butt in and not to interfere with other people's private lives. What's wrong with you people? When did the world become a place full of nosy neighbors?
Not that you're gonna see this, but it's not about being a nosy neighbor.

Here's your sign, Otto...

Dude posted on a public friggin forum asking for advice on how to "correctly" off himself.

At that point any rational, thoughtful, caring human being with an emotional maturity greater than that of a 2-year old (actually capable of empathy instead of just inward selfishness and isolationism) isn't "butting in".

But go ahead and continue to think that since that's the only way to support your short-sighted and immature position regarding this situation...

[Ereth]

Your "true nature" is flawed. He may retain his "rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", but if he actually DIES then he will not have the ability to exercise those rights.
So, privacy, freedom, individual rights, you're willing to ignore all of these to save somebody's life?
Yes. And the majority of the world would, as well. I would also ignore laws, such as speed limits, to get to the hospital. In fact, the cops would assist were they to be aware of the issue, that's how common that thought process is.

That's the difference. I am not willing to ignore these. Again, life is cheap and easy to come by, whereas our freedoms have be protected.
Life, in the generic, is cheap and easy to come by. Life, in the specific, is rare and precious. There may be 6 billion people on the planet, but there is only one Otto and only one Ereth and individually their lives are neither cheap nor easy to come by.

You honestly believe that had I been laying there, dying, and those concerned people at TCF had attempted to contact me, and failing to do so, had dispatched an ambulance filled with people who could save me, that I should be MAD at them for causing me to survive the accidental tragedy?
I would go so far as to file lawsuits against them for such actions. If only to prevent them from ever doing it again to anybody else.
You realize, of course, that you would have no chance of success in such a lawsuit. In fact, the Good Samaritan Laws were specifically passed to protect people who acted in good faith to help another human being. You would have no cause for action and you would be laughed out of court. I'm surprised a person as intelligent as you wouldn't know that.

Check Mazlows Hierarchy of Needs if you must but it's pretty clear to me that Privacy is farther down the list than Survival.
Mazlow's Hierarchy is complete and utter garbage to start with.
Actually, no, it's not. It is quite valid. Survival trumps all. Esoteric concepts like "rights" do not enter your mind when you are faced with starvation. Biological need trumps philosophical need every time.

And this isn't about "privacy", it's about "freedom". When you take somebody's freedom away just to save their life, then you have done them a disservice. Better to die free.
It was about privacy in your earlier posts. Nonetheless, this isn't about trading freedom for security or any of the other post-9/11 nonsense. Nobody took my freedom away when they called to inquire if I were dying. In fact, they were working to ensure that I could continue to exercise my freedoms.

Additional: On a side note, when did the country forget how to mind their own freakin' business, eh? I was brought up not to butt in and not to interfere with other people's private lives. What's wrong with you people? When did the world become a place full of nosy neighbors?
It's the other way around. The world USED to be full of people who were involved in their neighbors lives. It's only in the last 50 years that "Don't get involved" became a mantra. Some people have suggested that Air Conditioning is responsible. When people stopped sitting outside on their porch they stopped being involved in their neighbors lives.

Not getting involved requires deciding that the other person isn't important, or possibly that the cost to ones self is higher than one is prepared to take (wading in to stop a mugger, for instance, involves personal risk).

My father, for instance, stopped at least two robberies of which I'm aware. I, personally, was responsible for saving a condo building from fire. I knew nobody in the condo and was driving home from work at 3 am when I saw the smoke and went over and got a hose and began working to put the fire out. I worked with residents to contain the fire until the fire department got there, and the fire marshall said I saved the building (the fire breaks were not up to code. Had I not got the hose and prevented the fire from spreading to the walls, it could have jumped from condo to condo).

I find it difficult to believe that you would simply have gone on by and left those people to possibly die. I hope that's not true.

[grondramb]

I find it difficult to believe that you would simply have gone on by and left those people to possibly die. I hope that's not true.


A house on fire... someone falling in front of a train, a victim of a violent attack - those are events when intervention is reasonable.

Its the one's where there is intent for self harm but where they are not asking for help or intervention that where I find interference less justified.

For example. Take HIV. There are people who deliberately expose themselves.

Here in Atlanta there are bare back parties that specifically invite HIV+ and men to meet and have unprotected sex at warehouse parties.

I saw a flier for such a party and I even recognized two of the names involved - they are active in various non-profit endeavors I support.


I felt it crossed a line between harming themselves versus encouraging others to harm themselves.

There are varieties of the virus and
they have no way of keeping out non-HIV+ folks.


But it raises the question of how immediate the self-harm has to be to justify intervening against their wishes? Should I (or somebody else) go bust up the party?

What about people engaging in very risky risky behavior not guaranteed to be fatal but over time likely to cause great harm?

It seems to me a slippery slope destined to lead to the absurdities we already see - police shooting people who are threatening suicide - putting people in jail for smoking pot.

Suppose cigarette smoking has a better chance of killing a person than the average suicide attempt should we intervene with smokers?

[Adam1115]

If I was this Mitch guy, I'd sue JAP for invasion of privacy. Or something anyway, giving away somebody's personal information like that has got to be illegal somehow.

I don't care what the guy posted, it is never right to do something like that.

If this guy really wants to off himself, then let him. It's his right to do so.

And he'd lose. Any 'privacy' goes out the window when someone's life is in jeopardy. On the other hand, it's very possible the family could sue the mods for knowing his life was in jeopardy and failing to act.

And really...? You don't care what he posted? What if someone is saying they are going to commit a crime...?



If this guy really wants to off himself, then let him. It's his right to do so.

Nobody _chooses_ to lose his mind to Alzheimer's.
At least some people voluntarily choose suicide.

It's clear you don't understand mental illness.

Nobody 'chooses' to have mental illness. Often times people who are mentally ill are desperate to get off medication because it 'controls them'. The side effects of doing so can be devastating.

[Fofer]

Truth is truth Fofer... the tone of delivery can be altered, but regardless, it doesn't change the bottom line.

Got it.

And your opinion = the bottom line = the Truth. Anyone who disagrees, is wrong.

And Otto's the "stubborn fool."

Ooooookay.

[Mikkel_Knight]

Truth is truth Fofer... the tone of delivery can be altered, but regardless, it doesn't change the bottom line.

Got it.

And your opinion = the bottom line = the Truth. Anyone who disagrees, is wrong.

And Otto's the "stubborn fool."

Ooooookay.
Yeah... 'cause I said that my opinion is always the truth.

Next?

[Ereth]

I find it difficult to believe that you would simply have gone on by and left those people to possibly die. I hope that's not true.


A house on fire... someone falling in front of a train, a victim of a violent attack - those are events when intervention is reasonable.

Its the one's where there is intent for self harm but where they are not asking for help or intervention that where I find interference less justified.

And I can see that argument. I don't necessarily agree with it (obviously, since the only reason I even created an account over here at Mainsquare was to reply to this thread where people were claiming it was wrong to "interfere" with Mitchb's decision).

But Otto is also saying that the people who called me when they felt I might be having a heart attack were in the wrong. So wrong, in fact, that he would sue them. Even though he concedes that I evidenced no "intent" to die.

I think Otto is mistaken on this one. I think he's taken the concept of personal freedom to a ludicrous extreme (and he accused US of lacking Personal Responsibility while doing it).

I'm in the "Assisted Suicide is not a bad idea" camp. I had to watch my mother moan in pain for 18 hours after the doctors told us she would never wake again but there was nothing they could give her to ease her passing. Trust me on this one, I am NOT opposed to terminally ill people being allowed to end their existence without being forced to suffer just because we don't have the compassion to help them end it.

But, and here is another place where Otto is mistaken, nobody who actually TELLS you they are going to commit suicide wants to do it. They want you to stop them. If they were really ready to die, they'd just do it, quietly and without warning. The one who tells you is looking for something, some indication that there's a reason not to. He wants to be talked down off the ledge, he wants to feel that somebody, somewhere, cares. And, yes, if nobody does care, if nobody tries to talk him off the ledge, then that reinforces his own thoughts of worthlessness and he will likely kill himself. But he was holding out a tiny sliver of hope, hope that someone would stop him. It's only when that last hope is destroyed that he goes through with it.

Like many in this thread, I have a friend who killed himself. He was distraught after his wife left him. He talked about killing himself for weeks. We kept trying to talk him out of it, to get him to seek help, to cheer up. One afternoon he called me, wanted to know if I wanted to come over and see his comic book collection (which was even larger than my own, and contained a lot of really old silver age stuff). But I had a flight around 3 am and had already gone to bed. I told him I'd come by after we landed. When I got back from the flight, his store was closed, and it took me about a week to find out that he had gone downtown after hanging up from me, and he had shot his ex-wifes and her new boyfriend, then laid down beside her, and held her hand and shot himself. I'm sure he thought it was romantic.

I was devastated. I kept thinking "what if I had gone over that night? Could I have talked him down?". It took me years to realize that I couldn't have stopped him, only possibly delayed him.

But the important thing to note here is that all the times he talked about killing himself, he never did. The day he actually did it, he made no mention of it. In fact, he seemed quite cheerful.

I do not believe for a second that Mitch wanted to die. I think Mitch was hurting, and possibly couldn't think of any way out. I think Mitch wanted somebody to tell him that he was worth saving, that there was a reason to go on living.

And I'm very glad that someone did.

[grondramb]

And I can see that argument. I don't necessarily agree with it (obviously, since the only reason I even created an account over here at Mainsquare was to reply to this thread where people were claiming it was wrong to "interfere" with Mitchb's decision).

Well, I'm glad your here.


I don't give TCF any page views so I can't really give a definitive assessment of how I would have responded but can't feel too critical of someone who feels called to try to help save a life even if I would not have done so. In principle, for me it would have come down to an whether I thought he was not competent or whether I thought on some level he was asking for help.

But Otto is also saying that the people who called me when they felt I might be having a heart attack were in the wrong. So wrong, in fact, that he would sue them. Even though he concedes that I evidenced no "intent" to die.



But, and here is another place where Otto is mistaken, nobody who actually TELLS you they are going to commit suicide wants to do it. They want you to stop them. If they were really ready to die, they'd just do it, quietly and without warning. The one who tells you is looking for something, some indication that there's a reason not to. He wants to be talked down off the ledge, he wants to feel that somebody, somewhere, cares. And, yes, if nobody does care, if nobody tries to talk him off the ledge, then that reinforces his own thoughts of worthlessness and he will likely kill himself.

I hear what you are saying but for me its a case by case basis. I see a slippery slope in asserting a right to intervene because anyone who talks a plan to harm themselves automatically wants you to stop them.

Like many in this thread, I have a friend who killed himself. He was distraught after his wife left him. .



That's just wretched and I've very sorry that happened and that it happened in a way that touched on you.

[Huntwood]

I still don't see why it's impossible that somebody who divulges he's going to kill himself really wants to do it, and isn't just posting about in order to gain some technical info about how to do it correctly.

[DougF]

I still don't see why it's impossible that somebody who divulges he's going to kill himself really wants to do it, and isn't just posting about in order to gain some technical info about how to do it correctly.

The way I see it, Google and various other search engines, I'm sure, can provide lots of information on how to successfully commit suicide. In my mind, the only reason to go to Happy Hour and ask about it is because you are trying to draw attention to yourself and want/need help.

Sure it's possible a person is just looking for technical help. After all, the SOAK is mighty powerful. I just think it's highly improbable.

[BrettStah]

I still don't see why it's impossible that somebody who divulges he's going to kill himself really wants to do it, and isn't just posting about in order to gain some technical info about how to do it correctly.

Sure, that's one possibility... but consider:

1) He posts about this and it's a cry for help (conscious or otherwise), and wants to kill himself now, but if he's prevented from doing so and gets some help, those feelings will pass.
2) He posts about this and it's a scam - he's just messing with people
3) He posts about this and he's completely clear-thinking, no mental defects causing the suicidal thoughts, etc. - he has made a well thought-out decision and nothing will change his mind.

If #1 is correct, then intervening will potentially save his life (if his location can be ascertained quickly enough to get in touch with the local police in order to stop him before he kills himself).

If #2 is correct, then he's just a douchebag, and wasn't going to kill himself at all.

If #3 is correct, then intervening may temporarily stop him tonight, but he'll just wait until the opportunity arises to actually do it.

So if no one intervenes, he'll likely kill himself under scenarios #1 and #3.

If someone intervenes, he'll likely kill himself under scenario #3.