Home The Book Dr Articles Products Message Boards Journal Articles Search Our Surveys Surgery ESWT Dr Messages Find Good Drs video

Re: Nancy

Posted by Kim B. on 3/01/00 at 00:00 (016707)

Nancy, maybe that was a poor choice of words on my part, but, there again, the words of one poster are being picked apart and scrutinized. (sigh....) I still believe that what you are now calling 'a concern' looked alot like an attack to me.

My main point was that I felt some responsibility for what Mike W. is being put through, and further, I don't think anyone here should be policing me, my thoughts and my questions. (Except Scott of course.)

What's also not fair is misquoting the poor guy and twisting things around to look like something they're not. I've been around a while, and I have as much concern for the intregity of this board as you do. Are you insinuating that I haven't been here long enough to know that the intregrity of the board is important??? I have no desire to play word games with you.

Best of luck to you in your search for recovery.
Kim B.



Re: Nancy

Kim B. on 3/03/00 at 00:00 (016830)

If you're backing off from the board because of my posts, I aplolgize. Mike's already apologized for his behavior so it must be me you're still sore at.

In most cases my comments were not directed soley at you. When I saw serveral people jumping on the 'critizie Mike W. bandwagon' all at once, right or wrong, I had to say something. Right or wrong, I hate to see ANYONE get ganged up on, unless they are a totally deserving jerk. In this case, Mike W. was not.

I'm sure Mike W. is perfectly capable of taking care of himself, but I just couldn't stand back and say nothing when I felt there were two sides to that issue. Then one thing led to another and I got offended along the way too. That stuff happens I guess.

I do not know Mike W. from Adam. I would probably have come to your defense had the situation been the same with your name was where his was. Right or wrong that's just the way I am.

Your friends have made nice comments and what they say is all true. If you need time away that's fine. I too was away for awhile and maybe that's why you saw me as a newcomer. But if you feel I owe you an apology for my part in this whole misunderstanding of words, you have one.

Regards, Kim B.



Re: Nancy

Kim B. on 3/03/00 at 00:00 (016830)

If you're backing off from the board because of my posts, I aplolgize. Mike's already apologized for his behavior so it must be me you're still sore at.

In most cases my comments were not directed soley at you. When I saw serveral people jumping on the 'critizie Mike W. bandwagon' all at once, right or wrong, I had to say something. Right or wrong, I hate to see ANYONE get ganged up on, unless they are a totally deserving jerk. In this case, Mike W. was not.

I'm sure Mike W. is perfectly capable of taking care of himself, but I just couldn't stand back and say nothing when I felt there were two sides to that issue. Then one thing led to another and I got offended along the way too. That stuff happens I guess.

I do not know Mike W. from Adam. I would probably have come to your defense had the situation been the same with your name was where his was. Right or wrong that's just the way I am.

Your friends have made nice comments and what they say is all true. If you need time away that's fine. I too was away for awhile and maybe that's why you saw me as a newcomer. But if you feel I owe you an apology for my part in this whole misunderstanding of words, you have one.

Regards, Kim B.