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

Scott's words

Posted by JudyS on 10/08/03 at 12:28 (132807)

Below are some words of Scott's, made while he felt it necessary to justify his own decision about his own website:

'.... In particular, the social support board is supposed to help sufferers in various psychological ways. I do not believe discussing politics helps that goal.'

I continue to be amazed that some folks here continue to preassure Scott about his decision. (I know all about the email campaign) It seems his statement above says it all about what HS.com is for. And most of all HE gets to say so! Free speech does not apply in a private venue. You get to make rules about your place, Scott gets to make them in his place. Why is that so hard to accept? Why not move on? Both Marie and RC have developed some very acceptable alternatives for political discussions - why not happily utilize them? Why, oh why is it SO troublesome to just let this website stay the friendly little place it was born to be? It was born to be supportive, not to host rancor-laden political discussions. I'll bet NO ONE is going to a political website and discussing sore feet or quilting! As Scott points out, political discussions, with their inherent rancor, don't meet the goal of support - they ALWAYS produce anger! And that anger ALWAYS spills over and affects everyone.

And please, oh please, don't accuse me of wanting to shut up my 'political opposition'. That one's gotten tiresome. I will remind all of two things - one, I've NEVER participated in a political discussion (except to thank all for all points of view last spring) and, two, for those who HAVE accused me of such, I am pert-nere as conservative as you are - and I've said so.

There is reasonable concern that Docs may leave this website. I'd say the same concern ought to apply to any contributive patron. I do not believe the Docs are the 'lifeblood' of this website, I believe every participant is from Docs to Peds to Yoga experts to ESWT experts, to those who've spent years jumping through PF hoops to those who come brand-new looking for advice and offering some of their own. Just because one is a Doc that gives them no more right to behave disrespectfully than any other. And NO, NO I'm not saying any docs have behaved disrespectfully, I'm saying we're all equal here.

Re: Three things to consider

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/08/03 at 12:39 (132809)

1) The rancor drove a lot of 'regulars' away not just docs-- D. Thomas, Bonnie, BGCPed just to name a few.
2)Politics can be discussed in a friendly way without rancor. It has been the responses of a few to political posts that have heated things up.
3)It was not just the 'banning' of political discussion that caused the current conflict but HOW it occurred (or at least how many percieved that it occurred). That 'how' also made people suspicious of the motives of those that may have initiated it. Julie's post today is disturbing in the motives it seems to suggest.

I don't want to go into more detail here -- just think about these things please.
Ed

Re: Scott's words

Pauline on 10/08/03 at 13:14 (132818)

Judy,
Equality is a nice concept, but I don't think we've quite achieved it here nor do I ever think it possible.

The mere fact that you feel it necessary to qualify your post, at the very end, by saying 'No, No I'm not saying any docs have behaved disrespectfully, I'm saying we're all equal here.' tells me that you too are afraid someone will think your speaking badly about the docs who many have put on pedestals. In actuality your simply speaking your mind.

We all know 'the fear of them leaving' syndrome that constantly exists and the feeding frenzy that takes place when a 'commoner' confronts one of them on an issue. The rules are they can make a dig and get away with it, but don't let a 'commoner' try the same thing.

When everyone here is free to post without feeling the need to add 'qualifications' to their post you will have achieved equality. Until then it's merely an exercise in penmanship. Some of it good, some of it bad and most of it nice, but none of it equal.

Re: To Judy Scott's words

Pauline on 10/08/03 at 13:37 (132828)

Judy,
Equality is a nice concept, but I don't think we've quite achieved it here nor do I ever think it possible.

The mere fact that you feel it necessary to qualify your post, at the very end, by saying 'No, No I'm not saying any docs have behaved disrespectfully, I'm saying we're all equal here.' tells me that you too are afraid someone will think your speaking badly about the docs who many have put on pedestals. In actuality your simply speaking your mind.

We all know 'the fear of them leaving' syndrome that constantly exists and the feeding frenzy that takes place when a 'commoner' confronts one of them on an issue. The rules are they can make a dig and get away with it, but don't let a 'commoner' try the same thing.

When everyone here is free to post without feeling the need to add 'qualifications' to their post you will have achieved equality. Until then it's merely an exercise in penmanship. Some of it good, some of it bad and most of it nice, but none of it equal.

Re: To Judy Scott's words

Pauline on 10/08/03 at 13:37 (132830)

Judy,
Equality is a nice concept, but I don't think we've quite achieved it here nor do I ever think it possible.

The mere fact that you feel it necessary to qualify your post, at the very end, by saying 'No, No I'm not saying any docs have behaved disrespectfully, I'm saying we're all equal here.' tells me that you too are afraid someone will think your speaking badly about the docs who many have put on pedestals. In actuality your simply speaking your mind.

We all know 'the fear of them leaving' syndrome that constantly exists and the feeding frenzy that takes place when a 'commoner' confronts one of them on an issue. The rules are they can make a dig and get away with it, but don't let a 'commoner' try the same thing.

When everyone here is free to post without feeling the need to add 'qualifications' to their post you will have achieved equality. Until then it's merely an exercise in penmanship. Some of it good, some of it bad and most of it nice, but none of it equal.

Re: Scott's words

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/08/03 at 13:54 (132837)

Judy and Pauline:

Four have left and I have not been able to convince them to return. I wasn't planning to continue posting but since ScottR went out of his way to accomodate everyone, I will, and thank him for doing so.

Please -- if people here have access to those who left, please contact them. I don't have an email address for D. Thomas. For some reason BG has not answered me in several days -- I know he was quite upset and things would not be the same without him. Sharon has not answered me either yet but I think she will. I will contact Bonnie again too.
Ed

Re: To Judy Scott's words

john h on 10/08/03 at 13:58 (132843)

Pauline:I know you are talking to Judy but I hope you do not mind if I chime in. I surely do not put Doctors on a pedistal. May father was one so I know first hand they are mere mortals like the rest of us. What they do bring to the board is some expetise in PF which I am sure you will agree we all need. Certainly I have met some Doctors who put themselves on pedistals but I have met just as many business leaders and politicians who put themselves on pedistals.I have met Dr Z on 4 occasions and had dinner with him and his wife. Met his father. He is a regular guy you can enjoy a beer with at the local pub and watch a football game.If you ever met him in his own enviroment he would be very hard not to like. He is also a lot of fun.. I am not sure any of us can really can judge people from their internet post. I have met Nancy N, Judy S, Barb and talked to Steve P on the phone on several occasions. We are not all on the same page politically but we sure had a great time at dinner. For the first time in my life I had three girls driving me around with me in the back seat. Unfortunately Barb was on crutches and she was in the back seat with me..

Re: Scott's words

Pauline on 10/08/03 at 14:00 (132845)

Dr. Davis,
Making your salutation read 'To Everyone' would seem more appropriate to me. Isn't that who you are asking service from?

Re: Scott's words

john h on 10/08/03 at 14:05 (132849)

I have Sharon's address I think. D thomas is out of town. We should have no further problems with the way things are set up. If I want peace and quiet I will go to the Social Board. If I desire to discuss something political I shall proceed to the Other board. Wish life was this simple at home. Right now I am not even sure which board I am on but my post is non political so it should work anywhere..

Re: Scott's words

marie on 10/08/03 at 15:19 (132869)

The best part is that I don't have to make a discussion page anymore....although I know how to do it now...so that's a good thing as well.

marie

Re: Scott's words

marie on 10/08/03 at 15:24 (132872)

The best part is that I don't have to make a discussion page anymore....although I know how to do it now...so that's a good thing as well.

marie

Re: Re:Its people like Pauline who

Dr. Z on 10/08/03 at 15:29 (132875)

Makes Dr. Z a better person-doctor. Anyone that challanges me keeps me thinking and on my toes. This board would be boring if we didn't have difference or our thoughts were just accepted.

Re: Scott's words

Dorothy on 10/08/03 at 15:59 (132891)

Keep it handy - you never know! Plus, any new skill developed is an asset. It was great that you were willing to try that.

Re: Re:Its people like Pauline who

JudyS on 10/08/03 at 20:44 (132949)

Dr. Z, who ever said stimulating arguments were a necessity of this website? After all - it's a foot website! What's boring to you may be just plain nice to others. And besides, no one ever questioned the differences of opinion on topics here, we questioned the fact that political discourse always leads to anger and problems.

Re: Re:Its people like Pauline who

Dr. Z on 10/08/03 at 21:07 (132956)

It is a foot site. Your are right. I still like stimulationg decision that does sometime lead to arguments . I say lets just move on !!

Re: Judy...

marie on 10/08/03 at 21:09 (132958)

I think this is the best solution for the boards. The problem as I understood it was that politics had begun to dominate the board. Also there was the question of using heelspurs as a platform to spread beliefs. There was only one person that admitted to doing that at least part of the time and that was Ed. The rest of the folks just want to yak and share ideas. People feel safe here and that's important. I believe we have all pretty much agreed that pasting articles to the board takes up to much space...so now I would guess that we will see less of that.

It would be helpful if the politcally minded folks would be willing to let by gones be by gones. You may not realize it but if it hadn't been for Carol, Suzanne, Julie, Nancy and the rest we would have never got all this out in the open and hashed out. They were very right to have brought this to the attention of Scott. Politics was indeed eating the social board up. Now we have a place for pleasant socializing and a supportive atmosphere for those in need. We have a place for political debate and I guess we can be meany heads here all we want.

Carol, Suzanne, Julie, Judy, and Nancy...and anyone else. Thanks. this will work out and I hope to see you some time on the social board as I plan on frequenting there. It took alot of guts to bring all this up and I admire you for it. You've hung in here this long so don't give up on your friends here....and there are many.

best wishes marie

Re: Scott's words

JudyS on 10/08/03 at 23:47 (132992)

Ed, you are wrong. Scott did not go out of his way to accommodate everybody. 'Everybody' was accommodated quite nicely with his original decision - there were, and still are, plenty of political websites around for you to go to. No, Ed, Scott went out of his way to accommodate YOU.
Why? Because you refused to maturely and graciously respect his initial decision re: no politics. And because you had the AUDACITY to suggest in a post that Scott's decision was cutting Scott's own professional throat. Good God - Scott's website was originated for FEET - NOT for your political ego or anyone else's. You came here to help with FEET, didn't you? But then you found a convenient little vehicle with which to inflate your ego - political or otherwise.
You are one troubling individual, Ed. You were a big, whiny baby last spring and you still are. You HAD to have your way so you just couldn't be adult enough to take politics to a more appropriate place. You know what? You did EXACTLY the same thing last spring - you just wouldn't let go - your dogma was annoying then and nothing less than frightening now.
You call yourself a doctor? Amazing. How can a so-called doctor claim to be a humanitarian, a professional, when addressing patients on one board then turn into a complete ass when addressing those same people on another? Sure am glad you're not MY doctor. Seems to me I remember a couple of posters say exactly the same thing to you last spring.
And where are those posters now, Ed? What's the common denominator?

You.

John h, you are wrong. No one EVER tried to 'control' things at this board - except Scott. You are going to have to admit that control was never an issue - wanting the board's original peace was and political discussions disallowed that - especially the ones with the participants who insisted on being rude asses.

Speaking of control - looks like you fellas did a real fine job wresting control of HS.com away from its owner. Nothing like a little browbeating and professional threatening to get a guy to change his mind. And you are wrong about freedom of speech – the concept was never applicable in this instance. This was not about freedom of speech – it was about discussions in their appropriate places. Can't yell ‘fire' in a theatre, can you?

I am sick and tired of all of you who tried to make this issue something it never was and creating a smoke screen of hysteria.

It was about getting this board back to the wonderful and friendly place it was before politics dominated - it was about accommodating those who wanted politics by asking them to go to an appropriate political website. Why that was so damn difficult is truly mind-boggling. The disrespect shown to Scott and the rest of us PF people - on THIS PF WEBSITE - is astonishing. And it's something I'll never forget given the truly beautiful nature that was born with this board and which SOME OF US have tried valiantly to maintain. But no, some of you just couldn't have that, could you? No, you had to stick out your macho chests and claim that we were trying to control you. What a bunch of baby hogwash. All we asked for was the original peace and pure friendship that came with the ss board. That began deteriorating the very minute that politics was introduced.

You guys are gloating now and that's something we of the opposite point of view did not do with Scott's initial decision. We respected him and we respected you and we felt confident that you and Marie had found a very reasonable solution - the same solution we'd all suggested in the first place! You had many places to go with your political needs but you refused. We, however, no longer have our friendly little website.

No - even Marie's solution and work wasn't good enough for you. You'd perceived an 'L' here and your egos just couldn't live with it. So now you got your little way, didn't you? You couldn't POSSIBLY just have respected Scott's decision - no, you had to keep browbeating him as you've done all the rest of us. How respectful is THAT? And now you've caused Scott extra work and extra web space. Cool. Hope you're proud of yourselves. Nobody ever browbeat or intimidated YOU. We didn't all disagree with your politics - we just suggested a PERFECTLY REASONABLE alternative to the problems here which had nothing to do with your politics. Oh but you couldn't possibly have made such a reasonable change, could you? Nope. You had to keep at it until it's festering opened up a huge, raw, boiling, roiling wound. And all because you just HAD to be allowed to argue politics on this friendly little website. Or was that really it, Dr. Ed? I wonder. I wonder if it wasn't really because you thought you were on the losing end of the deal and you couldn't cope with that. Just like last spring. I'm 53 years old, I know a flimsy male ego when I see one.

And yet again, because you couldn't simply go to an appropriate website, ONCE AGAIN people have been driven off. Does anyone recall that happening BEFORE as a result of political discussions? Good heavens - WHAT'S THE COMMON DENOMINATOR? But no, you couldn't be adult and accept Scott's decision - you just had to keep bombarding him until he relented. Well I for one have no more respect for his vacillating than I do your childishness. And to think that we quite nearly had Julie and Nancy back in our midst.
Here's a thought -it was interesting, though not surprising, that panic seemed to break out on the part of ed and a few others when they thought people like phil c, peter, d thomas, bg, et al might have left. So where's the panic about posters like me or Julie or Carole or anyone else who doesn't show up because of political rancor- or because of the browbeating by those who were unhappy with Scott's decision? I didn't notice any frantic search for Nancy S, Nancy N, Julie, and a couple of others when they left - or even when I indicated I was adios. And recently, I didn't notice that these guys asked 'where is Suzanne?' or 'where is Carole or Necee? or anyone else who is perhaps sick of the politics and thus quieter. Hmmm.....the 'missing' people are the same ones who had the courage to applaud Scott's original decision. But you got 'em good, didn't you Ed? You beat them, us, down. Hypocrisy runs rampant in your camp, doesn't it? But then why not - you got your way. You'll notice that you only miss the presence of THOSE WHO AGREE WITH YOU! What a shock. By the way – your tactics, Ed, have finally come to dominate Scott and this website. I wonder what's next here for you?

Well hey, let's say you hadn't coerced Scott and his decision stood - which would have resulted in some folks leaving the boards! Maybe even a doc or two. Get it? Anger created as a result OF POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS! If there had never been those discussions, people wouldn't be feeling the need to bail - people on any side of the issue.

Yes, you got yourselves a sweet little politics board. Here at HEELSPURS.com. Seems like an appropriate place for discussions on politics. You all KEEP SAYING that other political websites are far more rancorous than that you've created here - so why the heck couldn't you just keep your politics THERE? You know those sites exist so what's the problem? I guess there is a serious dearth of political websites from which to choose so you MUST have one here. Oh wait - I KNOW WHY you don't just stay in other political websites - it's because you only visit ones where everyone agrees with you! And it's really damn difficult to browbeat people at THOSE websites isn't it? In fact, it's probably difficult to browbeat folks at opposing political sites – they'd let you have it with both barrels. Heck, here you've got a whole bunch of really sweet people to intimidate.
You political guys disgust me. You should be ashamed of yourselves for pressuring Scott so much and being unwilling to maturely accept his initial decision. You should be ashamed of yourselves for ridiculing a group of people who wanted nothing more that a peaceful, innocuous little website. What the heck is WRONG with wanting that? You guys have your common sense on backwards - if at all. You KNEW what this website was all about and you didn't give a damn. You KNEW that discussions of politics and religion nearly always lead to problems in any conversation in any social setting. You KNEW that that was the truth here - proven time and again. But you didn't give a damn. Your respect for the overall welfare of this website is abysmal at best. Haven't you even noticed that many folks simply STOPPED debating you in your little political discussions because of your intimidations? Wow, you sure got this place cleaned up, didn't you? Now you can happily all go to your little political board and stroke each other.

Oh gosh – do I sound bitter?

So, for anyone who INSISTS that political discussions are not harmful, just LOOK at these last weeks! Just remember the post 9/11 debacle. Just remember the pre-war debacle. JUST LOOK AT US NOW! JUST LOOK AT HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE LEFT OR ARE CHOOSING TO LEAVE IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO - as a direct RESULT of political discussions! You just don't get it.
But no, you had to have your way. You couldn't concede to Scott's wishes graciously. By the way, do you realize that NO ONE asked Scott to disallow political postings as you, Ed, say was done behind your backs? But as with all your other histrionics, Ed, that was also untrue. NO ONE asked Scott to disallow political postings - he managed that wise decision all on his own. And you're wrong, Ed, about people expressing their concern on the boards instead of (behind your back) to Scott. You're wrong because it had gotten to the point, these last months and especially when the others left, that we were simply AFRAID to try to say something here. Why? Well because some of the people in the beloved political discussions would simply insult and browbeat those making the request. How does that make you feel, Ed? How does it feel to know that YOU make people afraid? You say you're as interested as anyone in having respectful political discussions but your actual behavior contradicts that. I saw it a year ago and I saw it last spring but I chose to be a non-participant. Well I've seen it again now and I've chosen to SAY SO. You can't browbeat me Ed. Neither can your minions. Oh yes, 'minions' I said. You led the charge Ed with your trumped up hysteria and your respected Doctor label. NO ONE tried to control this board - you just saw some people applaud Scott's decision and you, yet again, jumped to the wrong conclusion and CREATED something that needn't have existed - hysteria - yet again. The only thing some people did (and NO, I was not one of them) was tell Scott that YET AGAIN political conversations were leading to trouble. He made his wise decision all on his own as any sensible person would do. And some of us agreed with him. And that opened the floodgates to your ego. In fact, your ego was well intact when you and I first discussed this issue – until I disagreed with you. Then your intimidations and false innuendo began – you were SO predictable.

Here is what you did, Ed;

One, you claimed that a ‘gang' went behind your back(s) to urge Scott to disallow political discussions. That was not true.
Two, you claimed that people, i.e., Bonnie, was leaving the website early in the discussion and she'd never said that.
Three, you claimed that we were only attempting to impose on your conservative political point of view, that was not true as several of us stated that we did not oppose your political point of view.
Four, you claimed that we were deliberately imposing on your right to free speech – that was the real hysteria-producer. When, in fact, we, and Scott, only asked that you move the inappropriate political discussions to a political website.

Your claims succeeded in creating hysteria amongst your followers. Well done. You'd be a good politician. Sort of like Bill Clinton – or is it Hillary?

I know that I've stepped out of character here with this long and vicious diatribe. I even know that it's a temper tantrum (you're familiar with that, right Ed?.) I know that it violates all that I've wanted to be on this board, but, as I have throughout this discussion, I refuse to be a 'look the other way' bystander anymore. You, Ed, have wreaked havoc more than once and it's time someone was undiplomatic enough to say so. I respect Phil and John and the others, (definitely NOT Peter - especially when the rest of you guys wink and look the other way with his horrid nonsense) but I feel that you used your title and their sensibilities to urge them to follow you down a non-existent path of hysteria. It would have been EXTREMELY simple to have just moved to a proper political website. And had you any class at all, you'd have done that while admitting to the reality that political discussions here always cause trouble in this otherwise comfortable place. And had you any class as a PROFESSIONAL CONTRIBUTOR here, you'd have taken a higher road.

Now I'll make one more prediction, when you see this post you'll go running to Scott with your crybaby tears and claim that I've been rude. Well you're sure right about that.

So finally, as did Julie, Nancy, Nancy et al, I bid you adieu. You're pretty much the last person I'll ever have a need to 'chat' with as I am prone to surrounding myself with respectful, sophisticated people. I'm sure that even my meager experience with PF is not good enough for you and your minions now that you've gotten your way. I no longer have respect for you (especially as a professional) or for Scott and I truly mourn the loss of a vehicle that saved me during the seriously dark days of PF. I'll mourn that loss because I don't believe that a political section on this website will be a viable solution. The anger generated there, and it WILL occur, will spill over in to other conversations just as it always has. I just wonder how much more controlling browbeating you'll do, Ed, if anything you don't like comes up again? You did that on one or two of the other boards too, didn't you Ed? I'm absolutely certain it won't end here. You even brought Julie and Nancy back for a short time you're so outlandish. But can they stay? Heck no. You always seem to find a way to nastily jab at those who disagree with you and convince others that they are the devil incarnate.

If arguments of a political nature are more important here than the collective PF experiences and contributions of people like Nancy and Julie, then we've all got things bass-ackwards.

What's the common denominator?

*******

Re: Re:Its people like Pauline who

Dorothy on 10/09/03 at 03:15 (133007)

Hear! Hear!

Re: Judy...

Dorothy on 10/09/03 at 03:40 (133010)

I know it's been said a million times before, but can't a person just ignore what one doesn't want to read? And can't one just NOT respond to posts that one wants to ignore? And can't we have BOTH (now) - the social/support category AND the 'other' category that will take the political, or other non-foot related, topics away from the social/support? It won't take the social/support category away from the message board and I hope it won't diminish the social/support category. I think we can participate in both. Not everybody participates in ALL of the categories now, but the sentiment to give the fullest attention and participation to the categories that pertain to foot issues is very important. I just don't think the social/support and 'other' are mutually exclusive and hope that does not prove to be the case.
Marie, this isn't meant to be directed at your post so much as that it was after reading your post, this occurred to me. I agree with what you have said in this post.