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

voting

Posted by Scott R on 4/28/01 at 20:52 (046098)

If John H says she should go, I'll concede. The problem with a vote is that only a few (5 or 6 is my guess) would vote, and I need a 90% consensus to do it, and it needs to be public. Ya'll vote if you want.

Re: voting

SuzanneK on 4/28/01 at 21:33 (046100)

Boot her. Her posts are painful to read. She is an anchor to the uplifting and helpful side of this board.

Re: voting

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/28/01 at 21:52 (046103)

Boot her

Re: voting

Lori E. on 4/28/01 at 21:55 (046105)

I have had enough, please ban her(at least long enough for things to cool down.)

Re: voting- to boot or not to boot kim

Dr. Z ( foot booter) on 4/28/01 at 21:56 (046106)

Now is the time to either speak up or move on.

Re: voting

Nancy S. on 4/28/01 at 22:29 (046108)

I've had more than enough. I vote to ban.
I also hope she gets some therapy. (This is not a slam -- I've had plenty myself.)

Re: voting

Mary AnnS on 4/28/01 at 22:30 (046109)

I agree to block her from the board. It has been pleasant here since yesterday.

Re: voting

Laurie R on 4/28/01 at 22:35 (046111)

Boot her......

Re: voting

Valerie S on 4/28/01 at hrmin (046112)

I am not involved, thank God... but I think she should be gone.

I could say a lot more, but again I will refrain from falling into her game...

Re: To Scott voting

Pauline on 4/28/01 at 23:01 (046113)

Scott,
You sound more like Pontius Pilate on this one. You wash your hands.
Foxes should not be the jury at a goose's trial.

Re: voting

Donna SL on 4/28/01 at 23:51 (046116)

Boot her.

I think what really made my decision is when I read the post on 4-26-01 'To PF suffer Your my kind of patient'. She seems to be personally attacking Dr. Z's character, and how he runs his practice. I feel this is totally wrong, and unjustified. Her post seem to be increasingly vicious and ugly. The atmosphere that is being created from her postings seems very upsetting, and antagonistic. There are ways to convey your opinions in more diplomatic, and civilized manners.

Donna

Re: voting

Nancy N on 4/29/01 at 00:26 (046118)

Boot her. She's provoked this sort of thing too many times, and it drags the supportive atmosphere here into an abyss of negativity, and we all have enough of that in our lives already.

Re: voting

JudyS on 4/29/01 at 00:44 (046119)

As I've just returned from several days out of town and read this idea about 'voting' someone off these boards, I find the idea distressing and I've asked myself these questions; how could we have gotten here? We've always been so good for each other in all respects. How could such a great thing decay so? Do we really want to do this to a fellow sufferer? Are we not better than that which we accuse? How is it that I took those posts so seriously to begin with - and responded to them?
Well I think I know how....because this place is such a purely safe haven for us that many of us don't want negativity to impose itself and, paternalistically, we don't want 'newbies' to be scared off.
And why not? After all, the rest of the world is always imposing itself on our feet and on our emotions. This is truly a safe haven in all respects. We can't read intent in to a post so each post must be free of the slightest hint of insult or defamation. Unfortunately, we find that fellow poster, one who is very knowledgeable and experienced, is also one who is consistently at the root of hurtful 'discussions'. I'm so very sorry, Kim, but I'm not sure that you've learned to curb what seems like a tendancy to lash out hurtfully and I think that, until you understand that, you'll do it again and again - and we need, and deserve, harmony here.
P.S. With a bunch of due respect, Scott, I'm not sure it's fair to put something like this on the shoulders of one person i.e., John H.

Re: voting

Julie on 4/29/01 at 05:12 (046133)

I can't believe what I'm reading here.This is a human being you are 'booting', a family member. We may not always like the way she expresses herself, but - 'boot' her? What has got into you all?

Judy, your post is reasoned and I appreciate what you say. But I think Kim should be given a chance to show whether or not she has learned something from all this. And yes, we want peace and harmony. But life isn't always like that. As I said in my 'banning' post on the 'oops' thread, an unpleasant situation has arisen, substantially fuelled by Kim but not solely by Kim, and it has to be dealt with. It can't be dealt with by 'booting'.

It was terribly wrong to put this to a vote. It has given rise to a witch hunt which - for me - is infinitely more distressing than anything else that has happened on the board recently.

Re: voting

Nancy S. on 4/29/01 at 06:32 (046137)

Julie, please see my response to your 'banning' post in the 'oops' thread.

Re: voting/I will have no part on wearing any boot to boot Sorry

Tammie on 4/29/01 at 09:22 (046144)

I am sorry but I cannot vote on someones Pain.,Although it my involve more then the foot as I have tryed to read and reread posts.To bad there are not therapists here to help smoothe some of the mental issues many face with a life of pain. Sorry No vote here. I dont feel comfortable with it no matter how much pain she may or may not have caused many of us.I wont be a part of this we are adults not children on the playground deciding if someone who is different then us can be a part of oour group. I have the power as it was pointed out before , to read or not read posts and delete if I chooses. NOPE no vote here And although I appreciate Dr. Z and his advice I am a bit surprised as he is a Dr. that he would be involvd in this boot thing. I know he has been attacked but I imagine u have often come against this sort of thing as u are promoting something that is quite new and not as acceptable treatment YET . I bet when they descovered penicillin it was likely a hard thing for people to accept to. So I am a bit suprised that A dr. wpould support banning someone from the site that is supposed to give information and help us . Sorry , but when I recieved personal e mail on this to vote I was very sad. If I made people angry I would hope they would ignore me or that someone would try to find out what was really making me hurt so much that I would hurt people that really cared about me. What if this is her last chance what if we here somehow that her pain was so great and she had no where to turn and she decided to end her pain? I know for one I would be devestated. I could not deal with that. I know this is not a site for mental health, but it is involved with any long time pain issue,and severe pain. When u reat foot pain u treat the person to NO?maybe that is wrong with the medical feild? There is more to the foot pain, if it is a yearssssss pain and more yearsssssss there has to be many issues besides the foot that are involved. Didnt I read a bout a orchid Dr. Z wasspeaking about it. Well I liked that I thought yes the person who was aware of that was a very smart Dr. Well I have said more then enough as I am not a voter on this issue. What u people decide I will take no part to help this pass.I am truly sorry such a vote has to come up.

Re: voting

Nancy N on 4/29/01 at 10:18 (046148)

Julie--

With all due respect, how many chances has Kim already had? She's never learned anything from the trouble she's caused before, so you'll have to excuse my reluctance to believe that she will this time. Have you noticed how quiet it's been since she left? Being in pain is no excuse--we are all here because we're in pain, but the rest of us manage to be civil in spite of it. I've also been the target of her anger, and it's not a lot of fun--and certainly not what you expect from what is meant to be a supportive environment.

Actually, that quiet brings up something else. I fear that the nature of the board has already changed, and not for the better. Will we be able to move on from here and go back to what we had before? Somehow, I am not so sure, and I hate to think that the unwillingness of someone to learn from her mistakes may be to blame for that. I have a hard time believing that this has been going on for a month now, but a month is a long time, and it can be hard after that time to remember what things were like before. Conversely, it can be a growing experience. I'm not sure which will happen here, but like some others, I will be watching carefully as I decide whether to stick around or go, regardless of what happens with Kim.

I have always valued your opinion, Julie, and I respect your right to believe that she deserves a chance. But I hope that you can also understand where the rest of us are coming from.

Re: voting

BrianG on 4/29/01 at 11:14 (046153)

I think a public vote is terribly unfair. Anyone who votes for Kim will automaticly be shunned by 'the family'. Talk about alienating new comers, this string should just about do it. Where does this stop, public stoning? It's nice to see we have such a fine group of kind, forgiving, Christians here. How pure your live must be !!

1 vote for Kim.
BCG

Re: voting

Julie on 4/29/01 at 13:10 (046166)

Nancy, and Nancy, I know you respect me, and I respect you too, and I have no problem with anything either of you has said. I'm not taking sides, or defending Kim's way of expressing herself, and I certainly understand where you and the others who want her off the board are coming from. And although I've not myself been on the receiving end of any of her aggressive posts, I can sympathize with anyone who has: I'm aware of the hurt they are capable of causing. I also realize how deeply people feel to have got to the point where they could say 'Boot her'.

Nevertheless, as I've said before, it is up to us how we choose to respond, or, perhaps more appropriately, not respond. Nobody has to be provoked into responding to a post, however off-the-wall it is, especially when it has been shown over and over again that doing so only exacerbates whatever situation has arisen.

What I hoped my earlier post would convey is that ostracizing a person who is perceived to be causing a problem is no way to deal with the problem. Nancy N: please have faith: we can't lose what we had unless we cease to believe in it, and I hardly think we are going to do that. I'm sure that harmony on the board can be restored - but not by throwing someone off it, and certainly not in the way it has been done. The voting, especially, will leave ripples behind it. I think the cruelty of it needs to be acknowledged if we are to move on.

Scott has the right and responsibility to admonish anyone whose posts he feels contravene the rules, and Kim's posts surely did that, especially over the last few days (though the one she was banned for did not reveal a medical issue, as Scott later realized). But so did other people's posts. Kim was out of order for much of the time, but we know that she can't let go of an issue once she has got her teeth into it, so why did those who know this keep arguing with her?

In my view - and I think almost everyone's - Kim was wrongheaded about ESWT, the Orbasone and Dr Z. But she was provoked to carry on. And like an animal under attack, she attacked back (she isn't the first person in history to confuse attack and self-defense). She herself said she felt 'backed into a corner', and being Kim, instead of letting go, she kept on. Yes, she instigated difficulty and caused bad feeling, but she was not alone in doing so.

I go back to the concept of the family. If a brother or aunt or cousin consistently gets everyone else's backs up, that has to be dealt with somehow or other. I'm not saying how, that depends on the situation and on the individuals involved. But it can't be dealt with by banishing the offender from the family. We won't get family harmony by rejecting our relations, however irritating or offensive or impossible we find them.

Brian, the people here aren't unkind or unforgiving, and they don't think they are purer than others. I think they were simply fed up, and afraid of losing a place they felt was safe. I can understand that, but I think the fear was and is groundless. There is too much strength, wisdom and good feeling here for that to happen, and I've no doubt that these will show themselves over the next few days and weeks and months. Let's be patient and wait for that to happen.

I'm sorry this is so long.

Re: voting

Scott R on 4/29/01 at 13:59 (046171)

In the past I've very easily and on my own booted advertisers. Kim is different because she has been part of the 'family' that has been active here for a long time. Kim's first post was over a year ago and there didn't seem to be a problem for a long time. A family voting a sibling off the island is an easy thing to do and I'm sure none but those of us who happen to be a certain type of young male have enjoyed this week's posts.

Anyway, I count 9 for the ban, 1 for her to stay, and 3 or 4 others against the voting which is sort of a vote for her, so she isn't 'booted'.

I've only complained once to Kim so I have only one strike. Kim can respond to all this any way she wants since we've had free reign with non-foot discussion and she's been silent so far. No one should respond to her negatively. She has 'last word' if she wants it.

Let's end the vote and move on with foot pain. Warning: I'm in a FOULing mood.

YUCK, YUCK, YUCK, YUCK. That's all I have to say about this week's posts!

YUCK, YUCK, YUCK


End Non-Foot Pain Talk Here, Please



Re: voting

JudyS on 4/29/01 at 14:38 (046173)

Brian, I feel so badly that you think you, or anyone else, would be 'shunned' here for your support of Kim. In fact, you are to be respected for it, not the other way around. I personally feel your contributions here are terrific and I hope you keep them coming.
Like Julie, I am mortified that we are talking about 'banning' someone. But I feel that this is a historical problem with Kim and that people are leaving the board because of it and that's the bottom line.
While we 'regulars' perhaps should ignore what seem to be mean posts, what about newcomers? We've seen these posts directed at them and we've seen them not come back because of it or because they see hurtful insults directed at others. We all know how serious depression can be with PF - suppose just one newcomer can't even find solace in THIS place? Or suppose one 'regular' can't find it in them to return because it's no longer a safe haven. Should we be charged with trying to 'balance' those posts to insure the return of newcomers? I assure you that, when we do, we then become Kim's targets. Should we be charged with sparing Kim's feelings every time or should Kim be charged with changing her methods? The posts you've seen attacking Kim this week are a first. They are a result of months of character attacks on Kim's part and they were inevitable because we are human. In my year here I've not seen one other person be hurtful so consistently and all it's done is create these kinds of negative discussions time and again. While some have tried to ask Kim for her wonderful knowledge without added insults, she's been unable to compromise and, in fact, attacks the request. Then, after a bit she'll 'apologize' for the attack (acknowledging her ill behavior) with a statement that attempts to justify it by identifying herself as the victim. This is a cycle. If it's scaring away really wonderful posters, then it shouldn't be here.
It's very difficult for me to agree that someone should be banned from this beautiful forum and I'm not sure that I do - would that put us in the same league some of us have Kim in? But I am sure that Kim needs to make a change so that this forum stay the safe and rewarding haven we've all found it to be. So do I. I realize that I am part of the problem that procreates this negative discussion so I make a commitment at this time to cease posting on the matter.

Re: voting

Martha B. on 4/29/01 at 15:03 (046175)

PLEASE send her packing!

Re: a sentence of clarification.......

JudyS on 4/29/01 at 15:25 (046179)

I must hasten to clarify that I am, very admittedly, one of those I refer to as 'those of us' who have put Kim in a 'league'......
OK - my lips are zipped! Except when I'm smooching.....oops, better go to the social section for THAT conversation!

Re: voting

Donna SL on 4/29/01 at 16:04 (046181)

Hi Brian,

I for one am not Christian, and I'm sure people of many different religions participate on this board, but regardless I don't think anyone would shun you for stating your opinion.

Donna

Re: voting

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/29/01 at 18:39 (046191)

Now lets move on with pf foot pain . Welcome kim with open arms !!!!

Re: voting

SuzanneK on 4/28/01 at 21:33 (046100)

Boot her. Her posts are painful to read. She is an anchor to the uplifting and helpful side of this board.

Re: voting

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/28/01 at 21:52 (046103)

Boot her

Re: voting

Lori E. on 4/28/01 at 21:55 (046105)

I have had enough, please ban her(at least long enough for things to cool down.)

Re: voting- to boot or not to boot kim

Dr. Z ( foot booter) on 4/28/01 at 21:56 (046106)

Now is the time to either speak up or move on.

Re: voting

Nancy S. on 4/28/01 at 22:29 (046108)

I've had more than enough. I vote to ban.
I also hope she gets some therapy. (This is not a slam -- I've had plenty myself.)

Re: voting

Mary AnnS on 4/28/01 at 22:30 (046109)

I agree to block her from the board. It has been pleasant here since yesterday.

Re: voting

Laurie R on 4/28/01 at 22:35 (046111)

Boot her......

Re: voting

Valerie S on 4/28/01 at hrmin (046112)

I am not involved, thank God... but I think she should be gone.

I could say a lot more, but again I will refrain from falling into her game...

Re: To Scott voting

Pauline on 4/28/01 at 23:01 (046113)

Scott,
You sound more like Pontius Pilate on this one. You wash your hands.
Foxes should not be the jury at a goose's trial.

Re: voting

Donna SL on 4/28/01 at 23:51 (046116)

Boot her.

I think what really made my decision is when I read the post on 4-26-01 'To PF suffer Your my kind of patient'. She seems to be personally attacking Dr. Z's character, and how he runs his practice. I feel this is totally wrong, and unjustified. Her post seem to be increasingly vicious and ugly. The atmosphere that is being created from her postings seems very upsetting, and antagonistic. There are ways to convey your opinions in more diplomatic, and civilized manners.

Donna

Re: voting

Nancy N on 4/29/01 at 00:26 (046118)

Boot her. She's provoked this sort of thing too many times, and it drags the supportive atmosphere here into an abyss of negativity, and we all have enough of that in our lives already.

Re: voting

JudyS on 4/29/01 at 00:44 (046119)

As I've just returned from several days out of town and read this idea about 'voting' someone off these boards, I find the idea distressing and I've asked myself these questions; how could we have gotten here? We've always been so good for each other in all respects. How could such a great thing decay so? Do we really want to do this to a fellow sufferer? Are we not better than that which we accuse? How is it that I took those posts so seriously to begin with - and responded to them?
Well I think I know how....because this place is such a purely safe haven for us that many of us don't want negativity to impose itself and, paternalistically, we don't want 'newbies' to be scared off.
And why not? After all, the rest of the world is always imposing itself on our feet and on our emotions. This is truly a safe haven in all respects. We can't read intent in to a post so each post must be free of the slightest hint of insult or defamation. Unfortunately, we find that fellow poster, one who is very knowledgeable and experienced, is also one who is consistently at the root of hurtful 'discussions'. I'm so very sorry, Kim, but I'm not sure that you've learned to curb what seems like a tendancy to lash out hurtfully and I think that, until you understand that, you'll do it again and again - and we need, and deserve, harmony here.
P.S. With a bunch of due respect, Scott, I'm not sure it's fair to put something like this on the shoulders of one person i.e., John H.

Re: voting

Julie on 4/29/01 at 05:12 (046133)

I can't believe what I'm reading here.This is a human being you are 'booting', a family member. We may not always like the way she expresses herself, but - 'boot' her? What has got into you all?

Judy, your post is reasoned and I appreciate what you say. But I think Kim should be given a chance to show whether or not she has learned something from all this. And yes, we want peace and harmony. But life isn't always like that. As I said in my 'banning' post on the 'oops' thread, an unpleasant situation has arisen, substantially fuelled by Kim but not solely by Kim, and it has to be dealt with. It can't be dealt with by 'booting'.

It was terribly wrong to put this to a vote. It has given rise to a witch hunt which - for me - is infinitely more distressing than anything else that has happened on the board recently.

Re: voting

Nancy S. on 4/29/01 at 06:32 (046137)

Julie, please see my response to your 'banning' post in the 'oops' thread.

Re: voting/I will have no part on wearing any boot to boot Sorry

Tammie on 4/29/01 at 09:22 (046144)

I am sorry but I cannot vote on someones Pain.,Although it my involve more then the foot as I have tryed to read and reread posts.To bad there are not therapists here to help smoothe some of the mental issues many face with a life of pain. Sorry No vote here. I dont feel comfortable with it no matter how much pain she may or may not have caused many of us.I wont be a part of this we are adults not children on the playground deciding if someone who is different then us can be a part of oour group. I have the power as it was pointed out before , to read or not read posts and delete if I chooses. NOPE no vote here And although I appreciate Dr. Z and his advice I am a bit surprised as he is a Dr. that he would be involvd in this boot thing. I know he has been attacked but I imagine u have often come against this sort of thing as u are promoting something that is quite new and not as acceptable treatment YET . I bet when they descovered penicillin it was likely a hard thing for people to accept to. So I am a bit suprised that A dr. wpould support banning someone from the site that is supposed to give information and help us . Sorry , but when I recieved personal e mail on this to vote I was very sad. If I made people angry I would hope they would ignore me or that someone would try to find out what was really making me hurt so much that I would hurt people that really cared about me. What if this is her last chance what if we here somehow that her pain was so great and she had no where to turn and she decided to end her pain? I know for one I would be devestated. I could not deal with that. I know this is not a site for mental health, but it is involved with any long time pain issue,and severe pain. When u reat foot pain u treat the person to NO?maybe that is wrong with the medical feild? There is more to the foot pain, if it is a yearssssss pain and more yearsssssss there has to be many issues besides the foot that are involved. Didnt I read a bout a orchid Dr. Z wasspeaking about it. Well I liked that I thought yes the person who was aware of that was a very smart Dr. Well I have said more then enough as I am not a voter on this issue. What u people decide I will take no part to help this pass.I am truly sorry such a vote has to come up.

Re: voting

Nancy N on 4/29/01 at 10:18 (046148)

Julie--

With all due respect, how many chances has Kim already had? She's never learned anything from the trouble she's caused before, so you'll have to excuse my reluctance to believe that she will this time. Have you noticed how quiet it's been since she left? Being in pain is no excuse--we are all here because we're in pain, but the rest of us manage to be civil in spite of it. I've also been the target of her anger, and it's not a lot of fun--and certainly not what you expect from what is meant to be a supportive environment.

Actually, that quiet brings up something else. I fear that the nature of the board has already changed, and not for the better. Will we be able to move on from here and go back to what we had before? Somehow, I am not so sure, and I hate to think that the unwillingness of someone to learn from her mistakes may be to blame for that. I have a hard time believing that this has been going on for a month now, but a month is a long time, and it can be hard after that time to remember what things were like before. Conversely, it can be a growing experience. I'm not sure which will happen here, but like some others, I will be watching carefully as I decide whether to stick around or go, regardless of what happens with Kim.

I have always valued your opinion, Julie, and I respect your right to believe that she deserves a chance. But I hope that you can also understand where the rest of us are coming from.

Re: voting

BrianG on 4/29/01 at 11:14 (046153)

I think a public vote is terribly unfair. Anyone who votes for Kim will automaticly be shunned by 'the family'. Talk about alienating new comers, this string should just about do it. Where does this stop, public stoning? It's nice to see we have such a fine group of kind, forgiving, Christians here. How pure your live must be !!

1 vote for Kim.
BCG

Re: voting

Julie on 4/29/01 at 13:10 (046166)

Nancy, and Nancy, I know you respect me, and I respect you too, and I have no problem with anything either of you has said. I'm not taking sides, or defending Kim's way of expressing herself, and I certainly understand where you and the others who want her off the board are coming from. And although I've not myself been on the receiving end of any of her aggressive posts, I can sympathize with anyone who has: I'm aware of the hurt they are capable of causing. I also realize how deeply people feel to have got to the point where they could say 'Boot her'.

Nevertheless, as I've said before, it is up to us how we choose to respond, or, perhaps more appropriately, not respond. Nobody has to be provoked into responding to a post, however off-the-wall it is, especially when it has been shown over and over again that doing so only exacerbates whatever situation has arisen.

What I hoped my earlier post would convey is that ostracizing a person who is perceived to be causing a problem is no way to deal with the problem. Nancy N: please have faith: we can't lose what we had unless we cease to believe in it, and I hardly think we are going to do that. I'm sure that harmony on the board can be restored - but not by throwing someone off it, and certainly not in the way it has been done. The voting, especially, will leave ripples behind it. I think the cruelty of it needs to be acknowledged if we are to move on.

Scott has the right and responsibility to admonish anyone whose posts he feels contravene the rules, and Kim's posts surely did that, especially over the last few days (though the one she was banned for did not reveal a medical issue, as Scott later realized). But so did other people's posts. Kim was out of order for much of the time, but we know that she can't let go of an issue once she has got her teeth into it, so why did those who know this keep arguing with her?

In my view - and I think almost everyone's - Kim was wrongheaded about ESWT, the Orbasone and Dr Z. But she was provoked to carry on. And like an animal under attack, she attacked back (she isn't the first person in history to confuse attack and self-defense). She herself said she felt 'backed into a corner', and being Kim, instead of letting go, she kept on. Yes, she instigated difficulty and caused bad feeling, but she was not alone in doing so.

I go back to the concept of the family. If a brother or aunt or cousin consistently gets everyone else's backs up, that has to be dealt with somehow or other. I'm not saying how, that depends on the situation and on the individuals involved. But it can't be dealt with by banishing the offender from the family. We won't get family harmony by rejecting our relations, however irritating or offensive or impossible we find them.

Brian, the people here aren't unkind or unforgiving, and they don't think they are purer than others. I think they were simply fed up, and afraid of losing a place they felt was safe. I can understand that, but I think the fear was and is groundless. There is too much strength, wisdom and good feeling here for that to happen, and I've no doubt that these will show themselves over the next few days and weeks and months. Let's be patient and wait for that to happen.

I'm sorry this is so long.

Re: voting

Scott R on 4/29/01 at 13:59 (046171)

In the past I've very easily and on my own booted advertisers. Kim is different because she has been part of the 'family' that has been active here for a long time. Kim's first post was over a year ago and there didn't seem to be a problem for a long time. A family voting a sibling off the island is an easy thing to do and I'm sure none but those of us who happen to be a certain type of young male have enjoyed this week's posts.

Anyway, I count 9 for the ban, 1 for her to stay, and 3 or 4 others against the voting which is sort of a vote for her, so she isn't 'booted'.

I've only complained once to Kim so I have only one strike. Kim can respond to all this any way she wants since we've had free reign with non-foot discussion and she's been silent so far. No one should respond to her negatively. She has 'last word' if she wants it.

Let's end the vote and move on with foot pain. Warning: I'm in a FOULing mood.

YUCK, YUCK, YUCK, YUCK. That's all I have to say about this week's posts!

YUCK, YUCK, YUCK


End Non-Foot Pain Talk Here, Please



Re: voting

JudyS on 4/29/01 at 14:38 (046173)

Brian, I feel so badly that you think you, or anyone else, would be 'shunned' here for your support of Kim. In fact, you are to be respected for it, not the other way around. I personally feel your contributions here are terrific and I hope you keep them coming.
Like Julie, I am mortified that we are talking about 'banning' someone. But I feel that this is a historical problem with Kim and that people are leaving the board because of it and that's the bottom line.
While we 'regulars' perhaps should ignore what seem to be mean posts, what about newcomers? We've seen these posts directed at them and we've seen them not come back because of it or because they see hurtful insults directed at others. We all know how serious depression can be with PF - suppose just one newcomer can't even find solace in THIS place? Or suppose one 'regular' can't find it in them to return because it's no longer a safe haven. Should we be charged with trying to 'balance' those posts to insure the return of newcomers? I assure you that, when we do, we then become Kim's targets. Should we be charged with sparing Kim's feelings every time or should Kim be charged with changing her methods? The posts you've seen attacking Kim this week are a first. They are a result of months of character attacks on Kim's part and they were inevitable because we are human. In my year here I've not seen one other person be hurtful so consistently and all it's done is create these kinds of negative discussions time and again. While some have tried to ask Kim for her wonderful knowledge without added insults, she's been unable to compromise and, in fact, attacks the request. Then, after a bit she'll 'apologize' for the attack (acknowledging her ill behavior) with a statement that attempts to justify it by identifying herself as the victim. This is a cycle. If it's scaring away really wonderful posters, then it shouldn't be here.
It's very difficult for me to agree that someone should be banned from this beautiful forum and I'm not sure that I do - would that put us in the same league some of us have Kim in? But I am sure that Kim needs to make a change so that this forum stay the safe and rewarding haven we've all found it to be. So do I. I realize that I am part of the problem that procreates this negative discussion so I make a commitment at this time to cease posting on the matter.

Re: voting

Martha B. on 4/29/01 at 15:03 (046175)

PLEASE send her packing!

Re: a sentence of clarification.......

JudyS on 4/29/01 at 15:25 (046179)

I must hasten to clarify that I am, very admittedly, one of those I refer to as 'those of us' who have put Kim in a 'league'......
OK - my lips are zipped! Except when I'm smooching.....oops, better go to the social section for THAT conversation!

Re: voting

Donna SL on 4/29/01 at 16:04 (046181)

Hi Brian,

I for one am not Christian, and I'm sure people of many different religions participate on this board, but regardless I don't think anyone would shun you for stating your opinion.

Donna

Re: voting

Dr. Zuckerman on 4/29/01 at 18:39 (046191)

Now lets move on with pf foot pain . Welcome kim with open arms !!!!