After a short trawl I think I have found the piece that you refer to Wolfgar.

WOL does have a moderation facility and I guess it exists for all poets to make use of a) if they have been unduly offended by comments made by others, b) notice offensive comments made to other poets, or c) the content of a piece of work oversteps a level that they feel is outside acceptable on the site.

Whichever category, someone has to call it for it to be moderated.

Interestingly, we have just added a link to WOL's terms and conditions to the greeting that all new members receive when joining the site. This was missing previously.

Having had a look at the poem and comment in question, I personally don't think it's repugnant, offensive, or breaching etiquette. For all we know, the question was posed by someone who may well have experienced PTSD and therefore sees signs that others may not, and consequently 'reaches out' to a fellow sufferer. I have suffered from PTSD and saw it very strongly in poems on a recent CD that I reviewed. I've also seen strong signs of certain OCD behaviours in a couple of other poems, and I did ask, because as a child I suffered terribly from it. I asked, and was answered accordingly with a positive yes, and the writer on both occasions was pleased, indeed relieved, that someone else who had also suffered had recognised it as such.

We all deal with our 'issues' for want of a better word in different ways. Poetry can be hugely cathartic, and many people come to poetry purely because it is. To be able to write it out and then have others not only recognise but sympathise/empathise with you has only ever been a positive experience, in my experience.

We are all different, we all have different expectations, standards, and ways of being in the world. What may repel one person, attracts another. Vive la différence.

We see it very differently then. Perhaps your perception comes from the background that you are in/have experienced, I don't know for sure. But because we see it so very differently, we must then comprehend that others do too, and neither of us should proscribe the behaviour or reactions of others, especially others who may share the conditions under discussion.

For my part, I have been open about my PTSD. It's not something to be hidden, or ashamed of, or disclosing vulnerability. It was a reaction to a horrific traumatic event in which I nearly lost my life. Being open about it helps. I had CBT for mine, which encouraged being open about it. That helped, a great deal.

Re private chat, I take your point, but the poem is in the public sphere, so it's not unusual for someone to comment in the same space. Comments can also be disabled for poems, if the writer so chooses.

Re the menstrual cycle reference, that response would almost universally be seen to be carrying the weight of association of years of sexist undermining and negation of female assertion/opinion/argument, and therefore inappropriate, whereas the poem we are referring to was about the death of a friend, and did display certain characteristics of PTSD, so to me the question did not appear in any way to have a negative assocation to it, albeit perhaps it was unintentionally a little blunt.

When we open our private selves up in a public sphere, we are aware, in the age of social media, that to do so is to invite potential comment. As I said earlier, the writer does have the power to stop this happening on WOL, by means of the 'disable comments' option.

As a reader, poet and contributor to this site since 2010, and with 5 years of interacting with other poets sharing their work both on the page and in performance, experience has led me to assume that almost all of it has autobiographical roots. As I said earlier, our two very different perceptions of the same poem and response must logically mean that we cannot define or proscribe another's perception/reaction.

Interesting discussion.

Having read all of the above I think that if one suspects a person may be suffering from a particular health issue, it is best to engage into a dialogue with them that allows them to feel comfortable enough to disclose it themselves.

In a sense you are both right. Poetry is without a doubt cathartic. Some use it as daily medicine, others drag things up from the murky depths once in a while. However one argues the issue, it is the act of sensitivity that should prevail.

It's been very much a medicine/therapy for me personally Graham, and I've seen it benefit so many people that way. Poetry has stabilised me to an extent I never thought possible, and given me the greatest outlet for all of the non-stop noise in my head. I wish I'd found it much earlier.

Wolfgang - at the risk of repeating myself in order to further emphasise my point, one question carries the weight of years of negation attached to it, and one doesn't. I would have thought that was obvious too - the difference between the two. One is unlawful and will clearly offend, the other MAY offend (but in my experience, usually doesn't).

A little clarification - I didn't say that I assume ALL writing to have autobiographical roots, I was careful to say that 'almost all' of it does. It's an assumption I will stand by as it is premised on real experience of hundreds of poems and poets.

It seems you are wanting to discuss an issue without widening the focus at all from one small point. A debate needs to take in other factors, otherwise it becomes simply 'black is white', just because you see it that way.

Maybe you could try asking the poet in question if they were indeed offended, and explain your reasons for asking. Perhaps show them this discussion. Then again, they might be really offended by several people discussing their poem and making assumptions about their feelings (or anyone else's) without their knowledge. Or maybe you could ask the person who responded, but then they might also be deeply offended by being referred to repeatedly as ignorant, stupid, careless, thoughtless, impolite, intrusive, unthinking, as lacking good manners, of being an inquisitor, having limitations and requiring behavioural education - all without their knowledge or opportunity of defending their response. That's quite a list of assumptions right there, premised on one reaction to the question - your own.