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

To Kim and Nancy

Posted by VickiJ on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016748)

It is difficult, under the best of circumstances, to communicate so that our message and motives are understood. Using only the written word makes it more difficult, in many ways, to understand a person's intent. Both of you have made valuable contributions to this board and I hope you both will stay with us.

PF is a complicated condition. I myself have been extremely suspicious of others who have posted regarding treatments to sell...but I'm grateful to know about all forms of treatment, shoes and devices.

I think Mike's passion is that he wants people to understand what causes and how to treat the underlying causes of PF...I'm not sure he has THE ANSWER but I'm extremely grateful to know about it.

I think questions are good...it keeps everyone honest...I think Alan and Mike are honest...but I also think it is hard to not sound like we are attacking when we are questioning...I had that experience when I questioned JohnW's motives and posting re Ossatron...I sounded like an attacker to some and got attacked in return.

I love it that we are all so protective of this board, but I would hate to see anyone leave it over the disagreements that are presently happening. Let's take a breather, give Mike a chance to adjust his approach...and give each other a break also.

After all...we all are in this together...searching for our answer to this insidious problem.

Take care, good luck and please stick around.

Sincerely,
Vicki


Re: To Kim and Nancy

Nancy S. on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016751)

Vicki, yours is a kind and wise post. Thank you for it! I remember what happened to you when you questioned John W. It does seem, because tone of voice can't be heard on the Internet and facial expressions can't be seen, that questioners get mistaken as inhuman or something. I think this is too bad, but I guess it's human nature and we're adults and can learn to live with it.
Thanks again -- I'm not going anywhere -- I care too much about the board and the people on it.
--Nancy

Re: To Kim and Nancy

Kim B. on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016759)

Hi Vicki, Thanks for your input, what you have said is very true.

Scott's endorsement of Mike's PFT product peaked my interest. He doesn't provide a link to just anybody that comes along wanting to sell us something. I felt Mike was being treated like some kind of snake oil salesman, and he was being critizied way too harshly. That bothered me and I felt like expressing myself. Plus, I had asked Mike so many questions, I felt like he was getting bum rap partially because of me. That's all. I'm cool. Bottom line is that we should all be allowed to express ourselves here, openly and honestly, and contribute where ever we think we can help.

I'm going to hang around and, even when I find my cure, I'll be here from time to time to help if I can. In the meantime, this board is like a buffet, take what you like, and leave the rest.

Regards to all, Kim B.


Re: To Kim and Nancy

salina on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016764)

Vicky, that was so well said (or written). It is hard to come across on this computer sometimes. I wanted to express your same sentiments too, but was afraid of saying something wrong and adding to the friction. You did a great job of it. Thanks.

Re: To Kim and Nancy

Nancy S. on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016783)

Scott just posted that as long as people are asking questions, advertisers are free to respond. That sounds completely right, and actually I've always assumed it. I neglected to say this before: Kim, you are in no way responsible for the reaction I and others had to some of Mike's posts. And I wish you wouldn't hold yourself responsible. The reactions and responses I and others had were to certain posts (for me, only one in particular) that addressed someone's general question to the board in a way that struck me as biased and might possibly misinform a newcomer. You are not responsible for that. I completely agree that advertisers not only have the right but the responsibility to answer questions put to them about their product. --Nancy

Re: To Kim and Nancy

Nancy S. on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016751)

Vicki, yours is a kind and wise post. Thank you for it! I remember what happened to you when you questioned John W. It does seem, because tone of voice can't be heard on the Internet and facial expressions can't be seen, that questioners get mistaken as inhuman or something. I think this is too bad, but I guess it's human nature and we're adults and can learn to live with it.
Thanks again -- I'm not going anywhere -- I care too much about the board and the people on it.
--Nancy

Re: To Kim and Nancy

Kim B. on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016759)

Hi Vicki, Thanks for your input, what you have said is very true.

Scott's endorsement of Mike's PFT product peaked my interest. He doesn't provide a link to just anybody that comes along wanting to sell us something. I felt Mike was being treated like some kind of snake oil salesman, and he was being critizied way too harshly. That bothered me and I felt like expressing myself. Plus, I had asked Mike so many questions, I felt like he was getting bum rap partially because of me. That's all. I'm cool. Bottom line is that we should all be allowed to express ourselves here, openly and honestly, and contribute where ever we think we can help.

I'm going to hang around and, even when I find my cure, I'll be here from time to time to help if I can. In the meantime, this board is like a buffet, take what you like, and leave the rest.

Regards to all, Kim B.


Re: To Kim and Nancy

salina on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016764)

Vicky, that was so well said (or written). It is hard to come across on this computer sometimes. I wanted to express your same sentiments too, but was afraid of saying something wrong and adding to the friction. You did a great job of it. Thanks.

Re: To Kim and Nancy

Nancy S. on 3/02/00 at 00:00 (016783)

Scott just posted that as long as people are asking questions, advertisers are free to respond. That sounds completely right, and actually I've always assumed it. I neglected to say this before: Kim, you are in no way responsible for the reaction I and others had to some of Mike's posts. And I wish you wouldn't hold yourself responsible. The reactions and responses I and others had were to certain posts (for me, only one in particular) that addressed someone's general question to the board in a way that struck me as biased and might possibly misinform a newcomer. You are not responsible for that. I completely agree that advertisers not only have the right but the responsibility to answer questions put to them about their product. --Nancy