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

Blocking Spam

Posted by Pauline on 10/14/03 at 19:35 (133999)

If Scott can block someone like Kim from posting isn't it also possible for him to block the people that put Spam on the doctors board?

Re: Blocking Spam

John H on 10/14/03 at 22:12 (134008)

The best minds in the world have not figured out a foolproof spam blocker Pauline. There are some that work some of the time but even the best block legit messages and let some trash through. The government is also having a difficult time dealing with it legally due to 1st Ammendment rights.

Re: Blocking Spam

Pauline on 10/15/03 at 08:15 (134013)

I realize that John, but if Scott disabled Kim from making a post on his site wouldn't he be able to do the same with these other people too. What makes it possilbe for him to do one and not the other?

Because they posted on his site, wouldn't he have the same information necessary in order to do the samething he did to Kim? I don't see the difference.

Re: Blocking Spam

Sharon W on 10/15/03 at 08:50 (134016)

Of course he has the ability to do so

Re: Blocking Spam

john h on 10/15/03 at 10:04 (134023)

Scott can easily block an individual from posting from a given IP address but that person can use other computers, other ID's. Some guy roaming around from airport to airport with wifi,or using internet cafes can post continuously. Scott has always been very reluctant to block people from posting as he should be. He does not come out and say so but he seems to me to be very much a free speech person.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/15/03 at 23:12 (134092)

Pauline and John:

The one thing that I will want to get rid of on the doctor's board is flaming -- there is just no call for that especially when someone is doing it to a person in pain.

Spam can be a bit harder to identify. Sometimes it is obvious but sometimes it is more subtle. I am beginning to wonder if some of the ART posts are spam or not. A poster recently asked for a location of an ESWT provider in Houston, it was answered by David L., only to be followed by a 'new' poster listing ART providers. They all refer posters to the ART website which has virtually no explanation of what ART is. Apparently the 'inventor' sells replicatable websites to all who pay for his course so the web has a whole bunch of almost identical sites which basically say very little. I emailed the chiropractor who gives the course and asked for more information -- no response. I mentioned that several posters on this site recommended ART and invited him to look at this site and perhaps explain the technique -- no response. I asked him if I could take his course -- no response. For now, I would rather let this play out for while and see where it goes. It is a bit disturbing when the posts try to lead posters away from their question and 'sell' them on this new 'technique' instead.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/16/03 at 09:29 (134115)

Dr. Ed,
We've heard about A.R.T. for a long time now. I didn't think it was anything more that deep tissue massage while at the same time applying a stretching technique.

Personally, my belief is that if the patient is going to a Chiropractor who is licensed by the state to practice, they should not be discouraged from trying A.R.T. if it's available to them through their Chiropractor.

Some people happen to have a lot of faith in their Chiropractors and use them to treat many different medical conditions P.F. being one of them.

Does it work, only the patient can say.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/16/03 at 10:23 (134124)

Agree with your comments Ed.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/16/03 at 10:38 (134127)

Ed,
What do your words; 'The one thing that I will want to get rid of on the doctor's board.....' mean? Will you be in charge of cleaning up the Doctor's board or am I misinterpreting?

You're right, both flaming and spamming can be a problem - do you think it's serious here? I've noticed that the 'flamers' seem to be hit & run types - they don't hang around long. Do you think the references to ART in response to an ESWT post are spam? I guess I've seen that enough here that it doesn't seem to be frequent enough to be alarmed about - and at least it's still regarding foot-pain relief. It's those other ones - like the chain-letter one yesterday that are annoying - but at least they're not frequent either.

I wish the ART Chiropractor had responded to you. It's a very good idea for him or his brother (if we're talking about the same ART originator) to contribute here given that the question re: ART arises often.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/16/03 at 15:35 (134151)

It looks like most of the people in this physical therapy group are trained in ART. Maybe you could contact one of them about the technique and what it is. From my reading of their site it's basically a deep tissue massage with stretching. From their credientals they seem well trained and could answer your questions Dr. Ed.

http://www.solpt.com/index.html

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/16/03 at 17:25 (134164)

Judy:

I am one of the 'moderators' so if I see a poster being flamed I will act to delete the flamer. I did so on a couple of occasions. It is not exactly a 'job' I like because I am very in favor of freedom of speech like John. The thing I cannot tolerate is to see someone in pain being attacked or ridiculed maliciously. It is my intention to only do some editing on this board, the doctors board and the ESWT board as I just don't have the time to do more.

It is my hope that all posters are people who are legitimately patients in need or others with something constructive to add. Obviously, some advertisers or promoters will slip in -- just not much we can do about that and I think we need to give people the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.

I am not sure about some of the ART posts. Look at the post of Aaron on the ESWT board the other day. Sharon had asked for ESWT providers in Houston, David Lowy answered but then Aaron answered. I asked him if he was answering Sharon's question -- I suspect that he was not. If David had not answered promptly, Sharon may have been misled. Again, I will be patient and want to give as much freedom to posters as possible but feel this is something to watch.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/16/03 at 17:36 (134169)

Pauline:

The ART website states that it is not a form of deep tissue massage. It was my hope that several of the posters who have tried it would relate their experiences particularly in terms of what had transpired during their treatment.

BrianG, a couple of weeks ago, made a very perceptive comment. He stated that this may be another way of basically traumatizing the fascia which in turn causes the fascia to repair itself. Who knows, there may be more than one way to get to the effect that we attribute to ESWT.
Ed

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/16/03 at 17:48 (134173)

Dr. Ed,

That's a very interesting comment. I had thought to myself that what Brian said was essentially what was being done by the deep tissue massage I received to treat my scar tissue problems after the TTS surgery -- that the tissue was actually being traumatized to break up the scarring and cause it to repair itself. (I am not complaining -- it was painful, but successful.)

Sharon
.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Dorothy on 10/16/03 at 22:43 (134224)

Sharon, Dr. Ed, anyone ~ Can you give me any good ways to conceptualize the 'breaking up of scar tissue'? For example, the only scar tissue that I have seen is on the surface of the skin, not internal scarring. Is the surface/epidermal kind of scarring like the scarring that occurs internally? If so, help me understand - if you can - how this tissue can be 'broken up'? If you were to apply the ART principles or deep tissue massage principles to surface scarring, what would happen to it?

Thanks if you care to answer.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/16/03 at 23:02 (134230)

It is really hard to describe. I could feel, occasionally, a sensation of something breaking apart inside. Sometimes it was kind of a 'crunchy' feeling...

They press in very deeply for this type of work, though, and sometimes kind of push and pull at things with their fingers and use an assortment of massage techniques as they try to break a knot of scar tissue apart. (As I said, it was painful. My PT used Biofreeze to help partially anesthetize the area for the massage, but it still was NOT something I looked forward to... until after it was over!)

I'm making this all sound rather haphazard and it is not. This type of massage requires special training; it must be done VERY carefully and scientifically, especially when it is being done close to a nerve, to avoid damaging any vital structures.

Sharon
.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Dorothy on 10/16/03 at 23:10 (134232)

This internal kind of scarring must be different from the epidermal/surface scarring, I guess. Wouldn't you love to be able to SEE this process in action? Little cameras or something that would show you what is happening and how. It is a fascinating thing and I wish I could really grasp it. Thanks, Sharon, for the description you gave. I hadn't really thought of the hazards of it, such as you described if near a nerve; that idea sounds awful!

How are YOU feeling these days??

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/16/03 at 23:13 (134234)

Same old, same old... but my problems not particulary foot problems anymore.

Sharon
.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/16/03 at 23:24 (134238)

I wish I knew enough about these massage techniques to give a better description. There's a whole lot more to it than that. I didn't have ART, though, I just had deep tissue massage -- and I don't know what the difference is.

I've seen posts by several patients saying their would not recommend massage near a nerve... and actually I doubt many doctors would, EXCEPT as a method of trying to deal with scar tissue. (Scar tissue developing after TTS surgery is a VERY big problem.)

Sharon
.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Dorothy on 10/16/03 at 23:25 (134239)

Well, I'm sending good thoughts your way - got 'em? Hope they help. You are a friend to all of us here and we are yours, too.

Re: word left out

Sharon W on 10/16/03 at 23:30 (134241)

...that should be, 'their DOCTORS would not recommend massage near a nerve...'

Sharon
.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Dorothy on 10/16/03 at 23:32 (134244)

Scar tissue seems to be THE big problem after surgeries or injuries. I have mentioned a friend who is having tremendous back pain AFTER back surgery. He has learned that the problem now is scar tissue from the surgery. So, this scar tissue is one that we all need to learn a lot about - since PF is itself in relationship with scar tissue, after it becomes chronic.
It's a very interesting subject, I think.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Dorothy on 10/16/03 at 23:44 (134250)

I don't mean to pry, so ignore if I am - have you said it is fibromyalgia? Or am I misremembering...please forgive if so.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 00:34 (134255)

that was a good move for you, ed, as someone with no need to control, someone completely objective and never involved in mistreatment for political reasons of any patient-poster on this site, to become a moderator. congratulations. the website is yours.

i continue to be amazed at what does -- and doesn't -- pass for free speech here.

as a moderator, you may want to delete my post. feel 'free.'

nancy
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Dorothy on 10/17/03 at 03:50 (134256)

A question of clarifying: is Dr.Ed a moderator/monitor here now? Is this a new development? How and why did this happen?

What EXACTLY does being a moderator mean? What access to one's information does being moderator give the moderator?

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 07:23 (134262)

dorothy, ed asked scott to make him a moderator. i don't think anyone knew it had actually happened until ed announced it in a post to judy last night. i've written to scott just to ask for confirmation of this.

moderators have no access to any extra information about posters. they simply have the power to remind people about scott's few rules for the website and to delete posts.

according to ed, he has already deleted one post. i have no idea what it was. so much for the big free-speech interest here on the 'other' board -- and apparently elsewhere on the site too.

nancy
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 07:31 (134263)

correction: ed says above that he has deleted posts 'on a couple of occasions.'
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/17/03 at 08:09 (134265)

Dorothy,
I'd sum up the word moderator in one word control. How many moderators are employed now? I know Judy S., John, Dr Ed, who are the others?

Soon people will be afraid to post anything and perhaps the moderators will simply end up watching each others posts.

Anyone feel handcuffed yet?

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 09:14 (134271)

No, I have peripheral neuropathy... 'idipathic'. (And I do also have chronic PN, but it's pretty much under control...)

Sharon
.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 09:17 (134272)

Make that 'idiopathic'. (It means that the doctors haven't figured out what's causing it.) I used to be good at spelling, grammar, and composition before I had to start taking these anti-epileptic drugs for nerve problems (Neurontin, Topamax). They do affect your brain.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:26 (134277)

Pauline I do not think Dr. Ed has ever been a moderator. I think the original two were john h and wendy n. later judy s was added and i think that is the way it is today.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:27 (134278)

Pauline: I might also add you may refer to us as Moe,Joe, and Curly.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 09:33 (134279)

Everyone I know of who has been given the moderator code, includes: Judy S, John h, Wendyn, Richard, CPed, Dr. Ed. Five people. That's hardly 'everyone', especially considering that two of those people never delete posts.

It is my hope that Dr. Ed will indeed limit his activities as monitor to the three boards he mentioned, to avoid any potential conflicts with other monitors... and that, in the future, other monitors will handle any problems that erupt on the Social/Support board WITHOUT instructing people to come HERE to be belligerent. Belligerent behavior is not appropriate on this board, either, and I certainly hope Dr. Ed will fulfill his new role appropriately and eliminate belligerent posts when necessary.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:34 (134280)

Pauline: I have deleted one post in my tenure as a moderator. It was vile language. I get heat from both left and right but follow my values which are based on the Constitution. Not all or even most like that but at least it is not off the top of my head. It always takes two to argue so if just one of two in heated debate that is out of hand would just ignore and stop responding the heated thread would soon disappear.

There were some interesting arguments being made in the United Nations yesterday. Three countries were arguing for a date certain for free elections and a Constitution in Iraq. These three countries in fact do not have free elections or a constitution. Figure that one out.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:35 (134281)

Ed: please clear this up. i am of the opinion you have never been a moderator?

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:37 (134282)

Dorothy: Being a moderator means whether you delete post or do not delete post people get mad at you.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:39 (134283)

I have frequently stated that I am always wary of Politicians who actively seek office because I do not know what their real motives are. Help the nation or help themselves. I did not seek to be a moderator but was appointed one. I would worry a little about someone who seeks this authority.

Re: Deep tissue massage

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:41 (134284)

One thing a cortisone shot can do Dorothy is reduce scar tissue. It may take more than one shot but it is good at doing that.

Re: word left out

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:43 (134285)

and right you are Sharon. vigorous massage for someone with TTS could be dangerous. this was explained to me very clearly by a Foot and Ankle Surgeon.

Re: Deep tissue massage

john h on 10/17/03 at 09:45 (134286)

I can feel the underlying scar tissue on the fascia. about pea sized.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 10:25 (134291)

John,

The steroid shots to break up scar tissue help a LOT (they use 'repository' steroids for this purpose), and so does ultrasound -- but this is one time you definitely want to hit it hard with everything available, all at once, to knock out that scar tissue IMMEDIATELY. Anything less than that, and you are likely to be in for another surgery later on and/or a lifetime of TTS misery.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 10:35 (134294)

John:
You may recall that about a week ago, I asked Scott for those duties and he agreed. I had deleted a couple of 'flames' on the doctors board that several posters had noted but may not have realized that I has performed the deletion. I had told Scott that I would only monitor 3 boards -- other, ESWT and the doctors board. It is interesting to see nancy S., who basically got her way on the social board, barely posting there -- she is just here to continue complaints about the fact that we obtained this separate board. Obviously, the only thing she wanted was to get some of us of the site.

You may also have noticed that since the 'other' board started, discussions have been productive and peaceful. That proves, to me, that the entire conflict of the last few weeks was generated by a few trouble makers. Anyone from the social board is welcome to come here and have civil discussions about the issues but, on a couple of occasions it has been suggested that this is the place to come for arguments -- it is not.
It was my hope that the trouble makers like Nancy would eventually have their peace. I am not going to delete Nancy's posts to this time because I think that they represent proof of who the culprit was in the conflict of the last few weeks. If she persists in coming here, not for the purpose of having discussion but simply to levy insults or start trouble, I will start deleting her.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 10:39 (134295)

Pauline:
Very few posts have been deleted by any of the moderators to date. I cannot speak for everyone but except for the social board (which I do not moderate) there is no restriction as to content.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 10:44 (134296)

John:

That is true so one tends to err on the side of allowing more posts than not. There have been some obvious flames of posters on the doctors board that few would have argued about keeping in the last week.

I do need to distinguish between content, which I feel should be very free and open and malicious behavior such as personal insults. It is mmy preference that when things get personal, the first step for the moderator is to intervene with a warning post to end the argument.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 10:49 (134298)

Nancy:
You have been one who has argued against free speech on the social board and you have been granted your wish. A compromised was reached by giving those who want discussions with unrestricted content (but not insults, invectives, argument, nor personal attacks) by providing the 'other' board. My recent deletion was of a flamer on the doc board whom several had requested a deletion.

You are welcome to come to this board and feel free to express your views without restriction as to content. Personal attacks, including continuation of the arguments of the last few weeks are a different story.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 11:01 (134305)

Ed, please, given my ignorance, point out to me just what exactly about Nancy's words was personally insulting? Can you be specific? To me she seemed to be somewhat cynical about your role as moderator, but I didn't see any personal insults. I thought this board was to be a bit more relaxed in terms of expressing opinion?
If Nancy's posts were, in fact, personal attacks, then, in your post here, how do you explain the words 'trouble makers' and 'culprit'? Those words, to me, seem quite unfair given that, one, Nancy is an extremely giving person - her years of history here have proven that, and, two, I guess I must be a troublemaker in your eyes because I was one who disagreed last week and I find that personally insulting.
I am very disappointed that you remove the dignity of those wonderful posters who were on the other side of the argument by referring to them, us, as troublemakers.
I hope you don't delete Nancy because, as I am with Peter, I suspect you are biased.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Dorothy on 10/17/03 at 11:12 (134309)

About moderators: I am concerned about Dr. Ed/Ed being a moderator for a couple of reasons. First, I recall that not too long ago he was 'leaning on' Scott R to publish here the IP addresses of posters that Ed did not like. Scott did not do that, but it was Ed's wish. I might not have liked those posters either, but would not suggest publishing their IP addresses. The other reason is that Ed also wanted posters to be banned or posts deleted when they seemed to him to be saying things that he personally thought were negative. I have also twice suggested deletion or banning but not based on personal affronts; my objections were of repeated affronts to generally recognized as safe human interaction (the kkk obnoxious posts and the advocacy of the barbaric murder by stoning of the African woman, among other posts that I considered obscene). So, if a person holding such views (publicly disclosing IP addresses without permission of disliked posters and wanting deletion for personal reasons) becomes a moderator - particularly when that same person has been the target of much of the outrage from other posters - it gives one pause. So, I would really like to have a detailed, specific disclosure of what a moderator can and cannot do and what a moderator should and should not do.
No jokes, no evasive comments...an honest disclosure. I think it matters a LOT. People disclose here much information that is private, personal, painful - whether it is strictly about health conditions or not. To have as a moderator someone who would suggest violating that screen of privacy is worrisome. I am not one of the people who was upset about the political posting, nor do I get upset about people expressing themselves vehemently. These other issues that I have described above, however, do cause me concern. I hope this will generate civil, open discussion.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 11:19 (134310)

Judy,

Too much has been said about this already.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Dorothy on 10/17/03 at 11:30 (134312)

John H. ~ In general, I like, endorse and would vote for your style of moderation because it is - moderate! You already know my feelings about SOME posts that were made so I won't go into it yet again. That aside, I think your way is fine. A more arbitrary and capricious style given to deletions for arbitrary and capricious reasons is of more concern.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Dorothy on 10/17/03 at 11:32 (134313)

You do know that he has said he is a moderator, right? He has just recently said that he asked Scott R to be made a moderator and that has been done, so you are aware of this, right?

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 11:33 (134314)

Dorothy:

I was not 'leaning' on Scott to publish Ip addresses. Why are my opinions considered 'leaning' but some others not? It was simply a suggestion to be opened for discussion because MANY other boards do publish posters IP addresses. Some posters here bombard Scott with email to address their complaints about other posters -- I have always tried to place my opinions out in the 'open' on the board for people to read and discuss. It is simply a means to identify the poster -- something that is useful when we have a situation where a poster may use more than one name.
All can respect privacy but some of us are not private individuals on this site -- what happens when anonymous individuals use their anonymity to flame others?

I have demonstrated that my opinions on editing are closer to John, but not identical. I have edited fewer posts than any editor here. I have listed my opinions and policy on editing, now several times and have encountered no disagreement on that. So before you continue your rant, please go back and read what I have stated and then let me know your opinion.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 11:35 (134316)

Moderators do not have access to the IP addresses, or the ability to 'ban' posters; only Scott does. Dr. Ed won't be able to publicly disclose anyone's address or reveal the true identity of anyone whose personal information has been disclosed here on this board, whether he would WANT to, or not.

What he WILL be able to do, is delete posts of people who post as spammers or who just to post to harass him or the rest of us.

As for the full, detailed, specific disclosure you seek of a moderator's duties and limits... that could only come from Scott. This is Scott's board; ultimately, he makes the rules -- and he chose the moderators.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 11:49 (134320)

Dorothy, it has been defined in the past that a moderator can do two things: One, warn posters if a post seems to be getting too near to violating the 'be nice' rule and, two, to delete posts that are, as you've described, blatantly inflammatory.
Granted, the role is subjective, there's no way around that. That's why Scott appointed the job to people who'd had a positive, contributive history here and whom he thought he could rely on to be reasonable and as objective as possible.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Dorothy on 10/17/03 at 11:56 (134324)

I am very glad that you are able to use the phrase 'but it's pretty much under control' and you must be, too. We will hope that it will henceforth know its place - and that is to stay under control! You have my best wishes for that.
When/if it ever rears its ugly head, think of that rat in the cheese cooler and how the lady dispatched it! She got it back under control. Imagery and visualization can help sometimes and maybe visualizing a source of pain as a rat to be gotten rid of is a useful concept.
(I find lessons and metaphors in everything, I'm afraid)
I hope you have a really good day, Sharon.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 12:04 (134328)

On the Ask The Doctors Board Dr Ed may have better insight on to some of the material than us non professionals and may (or may not) be better qualified to edit some material. There was one post I was geared up to delete the other day as it was blatant advertising to secure money in a Ponzi scheme. The old chain letter scam has been around since I was a child and has been ruled illegal in many if not all states so I would have no problem deleting an illegal activity. I still do not know if Dr. Ed has editoral authority. I did not think he did or ever has? Have I missed a post?

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Dorothy on 10/17/03 at 12:10 (134330)

I would not characterize what I wrote as a 'rant.' You have explained your position, along with the explanations of the others in response to my question, acceptably to me as a response to my questions.
In answer to YOUR question

what happens when anonymous individuals use their anonymity to flame others?

the answer is: delete and/or ban.

I think that the definition of 'to flame' others can be controversial and maybe needs further definition so that it is not subjective, but is clear to all.

Within two days, I have now been told that I go on 'halfway to forever' (true) and that I am ranting (don't think so). I think I will lick wounds and go out in the sunshine! Be a good moderator and I will be a good poster and we'll get along well. I think it should be ok.

Re: The old lady and the rat

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 12:13 (134331)

Dorothy,

Actually, it 'rears its ugly head' every now and then, and I pull out my bag of frozen peas...

Using the old lady and that rat for an visualization/imaging technique is a good idea -- and I do use imaging (even though I really am not that old!) I'll have to try that one.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 12:19 (134334)

At last I now see that you are a moderator Ed. Did not know until this moment. I do not know but I think an owner of a website would have to be extremely careful in publishing any IP address. Personally I would not chance a lawsuit.

From USA Today: Under the new Privacy Act Laws there are so many rules and regulations that Doctors,Hospitals,and all who are involved are having a lot of problems interpreting the rules. Recently in one of the midwest states in a small town of 9500 a man had a heart attack in his back yard. In this farm community people generally give directions by saying such things as Joe lives next to the Smith farm. When 911 received the call they would only give the ambulance operator the actuall numbered address and would not give the driver any further help because of the Privacy Act. The woman with the heart attack victim saw the ambulance stop at various houses trying to find the numbered address. The 911 operator still refused to give the driver such as he lives next to the Smiths. When they arrived he had died. Some hospitals still will not even tell a spouse the condition of her husband/wife because of misinterpretation. Doctors are not communicating with each other by email as much about a patient who both may be treating. One hospital called another hospital to ask about a blood virus a patient had that had just been tranferred and was about to receive a transplant. The hospital refused to divulge the virus so the treating hospital had to give multi antibiotics. The person most responsib le for this new law recently had a family member enter a hospital with a serious illness. The hospital would not give her any information and all her relatives were calling her to find out what was happening. The senate and house were afraid to write this law so they passed it on to the Dept of Health & Welfare & Human Services who wrote a monster open to many interpretations. The original idea of Privacy was well intenioned but as usual when government gets overly involved bad things happen. It is expected to cost over $45 billion dollars for all the hospitals,doctors,etc to comply.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

john h on 10/17/03 at 12:36 (134337)

Dorothy (note the spelling): I think a lot of post use hot words such as 'rant' 'flame' and so forth when some better chosen words would not incite others. I think when disagreeing if people could chose their words more wisely we would have less confrontation. Of course a hot word to one person is just an everyday expression to someone else. I do know in my case if I am hot about something that if I just wait 24 hours to respond my response makes a lot more sense once I have had a chance to reflect. If we were sitting across from each other face to face I could make a remark to you with a big grin on my face and you could judge the seriousness of myy remark by my tone, body language,facial expression, etc. The same words on a board take on an entirely different meaning. By nature I joke around a lot and am a prankster. Often this backfires on me on this board even with people I like very much and would never intentionally hurt. Some people do not recognize humor and this can get you in some boiling water. I hope anyone who knows me in real life knowns that I am not a hostile person and go the extra mile or what ever it takes to get along.I like being around happy people and hope to avoid negative people. This is not say that I do not recognize we have a special group here who are in pain and their lives are sometimes upside down and need to be cut some slack..

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 13:09 (134343)

Ed, in my book, telling someone they are on a 'rant' is rude. Dorothy was simply stating her opinion, succinctly and without insult. Again, you insult her dignity when you say she's on a 'rant'.

I can see, thought, that she regains that dignity quite well by turning the other cheek.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 13:19 (134345)

Actually Ed, you have edited MORE posts than John h, Wendy and I if you consider that you've only been at it for a week while we've been at it for over a year.
In that time I have deleted two posts - all of which seemed to be clearly designed to inflame. I don't think John has deleted more than one and Wendy never did at all until last week.
Sometimes you have asked that a post be deleted because you felt it to be a personal insult to you, sometimes others have asked because they felt you'd personally insulted them. That's a tough area to get in to because moderators don't necessarily think a post is as insulting as those who have been insulted do. However, warnings interjected in to a conversation can be effective there.

A deletion, as John h has so nicely described, has to occur because of a fairly serious offense. It is not to be taken lightly. For instance, you may think that Nancy is here 'just to cause trouble' but perhaps other moderators may not think so - you're attitude about Nancy and Julie and, in fact, me, after all, is documented.

Perhaps, if we are to further define a moderator's role, we would be wise to ask that any deleted post be copied first and emailed to Scott and/or to the other moderators.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 13:21 (134346)

john, you wrote:

'I have frequently stated that I am always wary of Politicians who actively seek office because I do not know what their real motives are. Help the nation or help themselves.'

then: 'I did not seek to be a moderator but was appointed one. I would worry a little about someone who seeks this authority.'

i agree with you completely. i'm wondering, are you still worried?

nancy
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 13:40 (134351)

Just a minor correction, John dear, you say that some people do not recognize humor. It's not a case of recognition, it's a case of interpretation. You may find something humorous while others may feel that they've been insulted by, say, a supposedly humorous comment that generalizes about a specific group of people or, if in a discussion about a topic that is important to them, a joke is made at their expense in order to 'shrug' it all off. That diminishes a person's contribution and dismisses their entire effort in the conversation as not being that valuable.
Yes, you're right with your example of yourself and your sense of humor. Those of us who know you should know that you are being humorous. But even if we do, in a specific incident, we can be hurt by feeling that you are trying to 'joke away' our effort in a conversation that is important to us thereby devaluing that effort. And what of those who don't know you and understand your humor? Because someone reacts negatively to intended humor that doesn't mean they lack a sense of humor. As with everything else in life, we all just have different interpretations so, as you so nicely say, with this particular medium even our humorous words have to be chosen carefully.

For instance, at this moment I am sitting at my desk with a lampshade over my head..........:)>-

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 13:54 (134356)

No, I don't think so, John h. I don't think Ed has more insight in terms of editing the doctor board.

A moderator's editing responsibility is all about spam and flaming posts, not about medical content.

Medical people disagree all the time so we wouldn't want just one doctor deleting posts of medical opinions he disagrees with.

Moderators all have the same ability to judge spam and flame. And that's what moderators are supposed to do. We are not supposed to edit or discredit medical content. If we did, we'd be imposing on a given medical technician's point of view. Theoretically, they all have some merit and it is up to the reader to choose to believe or not as they read all points of view.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 13:56 (134357)

ed: i am not here to 'continue complaints about the fact that we obtained this separate board.' i don't care one bit about a separate board -- except that the social/support board is a bit anemic now because a few folks, including you, made derisive fun of the topics others sometimes discuss there right before you left. people have become somewhat nervous about exposing themselves to ridicule. (i am one of them, but that's for me to deal with.)

no, i am here on this board to express my opinion that i do not believe you are impartial enough to serve as a moderator. this is based on the past eight or so months of your posting on the social/support board.

i'm also concerned about your idea of free speech, which is appearing to be selective, and how that will inform what you do as a moderator.

that is my opinion. i wonder if others think i have a right to state it; you seem to think not. it makes me wonder, ed.

nancy
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

John H on 10/17/03 at 14:02 (134358)

Nancy: I am always worried about people seeking power and always will be because I do not know their motivation. These are just wild speculations but I think Jimmy Carter was not a very good President but was and is motivated by good reasons in his own mind. The Kennedys all seek to be politicians so are always suspect in my mind. You almost have to be a multi millionaire to be a Senator so most of these guys are somewhat power driven. Presidents in general have to go through hell these days to be elected. Why would one want to subject himself and his family through all this if you are already rich to start with? Maybe some of these people truly are in it for the good of the people but when both sides start calling the other side every name in the book just to get elected it makes you wonder. We have our little fights on this board but compared to presidental politics we are like Alice in Wonderland. Call anybody anybody anything and lie through your teeth to get elected. Something is wrong here---

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/17/03 at 14:10 (134361)

Dorothy,
I must agree with you about the IP address. There is no need to publish them in this forum and I do not appreciate any request that it be done.
My impression is that this 'watching and judging of others is getting a little out of hand already.

I also don't like the labeling already given to Nancy. 'Trouble maker' I'd say hardly. In my personal opinion she has provided lots of help throughout her time on this site and should not be labeled.

I don't believe moderators should be so quick to point the finger and label someone without first looking at some of their own posts. They've gotten a little heated at times themselves. I see no saints among us. Who is one to point the finger at the other.

The way it appears now is that several moderators have individual control on what should be deleted depending on how that particular post is interpreted by a moderator. Maybe it should be more of a group vote by the moderators before anyone performs a deletion. Less personal attack based on personal feelings about someone.

Personally in my humble opinion the delete patrol has gotten way toooooooo large and has taken on far tooooooo much meaning, but you guys knock yourselves out if having control means that much to you.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Scott R on 10/17/03 at 14:11 (134362)

dorothy's post was the longest post in this thread and it was dedicated to hounding ed. i'd call that a rant. besides she had made the claim ed was 'leaning on' me. isn't that, in judy's book, also rude? this is the first dispute i've looked into in a long time, and i'd have to say it looks like the ladies are ganging up on ed, as another long-time poster has said. besides, judy should have deleted ed's post instead of replying to it and saying he's rude. that just continues the problem. Are there any other posts i need to look into?

everyone seems to want the 'be nice' rule in this 'other' board also. i'll let the moderators decide. this rescinds my previous posts on the subject.

i don't like 'other'...let's call it the 'we love ed' or 'ed's love feast' or 'oh, ed' messaged board

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/17/03 at 14:19 (134363)

Dr. Ed,
If things ever get as bad as you are suggesting with a poster, then I think it's up to Scott to take appropiate action. I don't think making anyone's IP address public on this forum serves any purpose outside of personal attack.

We are not a mob and thats what publishing a persons IP address suggests to me. We take mob action to take care a problem.

Bad suggestion, bad idea, bad solution. NO MOB ACTION ACCEPTABLE.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 14:25 (134364)

ScottR, I would not delete a post if I thought it was rude - at least not here on the more 'open' board. I would, as a moderator, first voice a warning, as I did. But actually it was not intended to be a warning, it was intended to indicate that he demonstrated a double standard in that instance. He does that historically.

Dorothy was ABSOLUTELY NOT hounding Ed! How in the world could you think such a thing? She was voicing her concerns about his role as moderator!

As for the phrase 'leaning on', I could not address it because I had not seen Ed's posts about IP addresses before. I didn't know if he was leaning on you or not.

You may not like it or agree with our opinion, but the fact is that some of us are very unhappy about Ed's double standards here and about you're taking value away from the rest of us by saying that we're 'ganging up' on him. We have some very valid points. What would be the point in bothering to state them otherwise?

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 14:29 (134366)

Judy:
We are all biased. That does not mean that a biased person cannot be fair and that is where I have an issue. The problems of the boards of the last couple of weeks need to be laid to a rest and that is my other issue. I realize that some don't like the two board but can at least leave things be for now.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 14:35 (134369)

Nancy:
The social made may seem 'anemic' because it is apolitical. I thought that political thought was crowding out all the non-political things that some wanted to talk about. One does not have to be non-biased to be a moderator, just fair. My concept of free speech has consistently been more inclusive than yours -- I have always argued against censorship and you have been for it.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 14:43 (134375)

Ed, you are again putting words in to other people's mouths.
No one ever said they didn't like two boards.
Ever.
You relieve all participants of their value when you impose attitudes on them that simply don't exist. this is part of your smokescreen mentality. You create hysteria. You cannot possibly know the motivation of any person here at any time.

No one, especially Nancy, indicated a need to 'wreck' this board. If that were true, then why haven't those folks been heard from with those kinds of words since the board's inception? And, by the way, (and again you mislead) Nancy did indeed participate in conversation here prior to today.

Your other misleading statements today are in regards to last week's issues - in today's conversation, no one, at any time, EXCEPT YOU, referred to last week's issues and no one indicated a need to dredge them up.

The conversation begain with folks wondering if you had become a moderator.

Then Nancy and Dorothy expressed their opionions - they were negative ones about you - and, predictably, the histrionics began again. They did not personally insult you. Yet you used the words 'troublemakers', 'culprit' and 'rant' in response to them. I think that's a double standard.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/17/03 at 14:57 (134381)

John, less you forget Hitler came to power with little noise. All we need is one moderator who's decisions the others always agree with and we've got ourselves a dictator.

I think it would be interesting for regulars to know who's poop list they are already on. It may give them some insight as to who's watching their every post. In the blink of an eye, I already know every moderator is watching mine.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/17/03 at 15:03 (134384)

Dr. Ed,
I think your missing the point. The current issue is far past having two boards. I strongly disagree that biased persons can be fair. Try telling that one to a gay man or woman and see how far you get.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 15:11 (134387)

I had my doubts about that, too, Pauline, but Judy and Wendy are both monitors, and most of the time they've done a pretty good job at it.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 15:16 (134390)

Pauline, you're right, bias is bias. When it's been demonstrated here, how can one possibly be fair - and how can one ever be considered to be fair? I easily saw both sides of the feelings about Ed these last months without leaning one way or another. But when I, without insult, disagreed with him and he was not so respectful in return, I ended up with bias. I'd like to think I can be fair about him and about Peter (I've seen some really terrific posts of Peter's) but, realistically, who knows? Therefore, as a moderator, I am extremely careful about them and happily leave it up to other moderators to edit them.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 15:26 (134392)

ed: the social/support board, in my opinion, did not need to become apolitical -- until you and a couple of cohorts began badmouthing, as groups, all liberals, all french, all whatever, and began twisting the words of those who tried to talk sense in response. those tactics began (yes, by you) earlier this year, but 'tactics' shouldn't be a topic, according to you at the time -- yes? i don't say this for the purpose of insulting you. i say it because i was there, and i see it as true. and i'm not stupid, if i do say so myself.

political 'thought' was not crowding out others' thoughts. endless political cut-and-pastes and bombastic and sometimes hate-filled posts did that, along with a whopping dose of pigeon-holing.

i agree with pauline: people with biases, enough biases, cannot be fair. because i was upset about the treatment this year of non-conservatives on this board, especially by you, i considered myself biased enough *to decline when scott offered to make me a moderator earlier this year.*

and you are wrong about this: your idea of free speech has not been consistently more inclusive than mine. you're making wild statements here, and just because you come across as articulate 95% of the time does not make what you say true.

nancy
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Pauline on 10/17/03 at 15:31 (134394)

Sharon,
I didn't think Dorothy was ranting on Ed, but merely stating her mind. She was not nasty and I don't think she was mean or even angry. The post was deleted merely because it contained a doctors name. No mind would have been paid attention to her post had a doctor's name not been present within it's content.

Whether people here want to face reality or not there is a double standard that exist on this board. This next sentence may get this post deleted and thats ok.

Doctors here are free to flame fires, label people, tell them to shup up, threaten them with words like 'knocking it off' and it's very acceptable, but let someone else post those same words and they are immediately labeled nasty, troublemakers who should go somewhere else and their post is deleted.

Double standard you bet ya. Moderators or no moderators. I'm waiting for the day one actually has the guts to delete one of Dr. Ed's fuming post, but I'm not holding my breath.

Read fast as this post will probably be deleted.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 15:31 (134395)

Nancy:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Ed

Re: for nancy s

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 15:36 (134396)

congratulations

Re: for nancy s

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 15:42 (134398)

what?
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 15:43 (134400)

??

What post of Dorothy's was deleted? I never saw it. It wasn't the one talking about 'leaning on' Scott, because that one's still there.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 15:56 (134402)

Sharon,
I don't think any post was deleted. Scott suggested a few posts ago that if I thought Ed's use of the word 'rant' was rude, then I should have thought the phrase 'leaning on' by Dorothy was also.
Scott suggested that if I'd thought Ed was rude, I should have deleted him and I supsequently explained to Scott why I did not.
Scott referred to Dorothy's post as 'hounding' Ed.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 16:09 (134407)

I didn't think he had deleted anything -- not that it matters.

Sharon
.

Re: sharon w

nancy s. on 10/17/03 at 16:15 (134410)

well, thank you. congratulations to you, too.
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 16:21 (134411)

Sharon:
If you have noticed, I have not deleted anything here. The fact that this long string exists is a testament to those who are determined to bring down this board. Every insult made against me and my ideas has been repeated again and again by this same group. When not here, they are busy emailing Scott, telling him how 'mean' they think I am. Obviously, they are upset that they did not get their way in having one social board devoid of conservatives. This can just go on and on -- you would think they would get tired and quit at some point -- guess they have little better to do with their lives. Really a pity.
Ed

Re: Still on Dr Ed?

BGCPed on 10/17/03 at 16:31 (134414)

Dr ED, I just popped in to check up you. I see that this new board is not a safe haven for conservative leaning people.

BTW Did I ever tell you about my neighbor Mrs. Wyzorick? She makes the most awesome Santa dolls out of empty Ivory Snow bottles.

Talk to you soon

Re: Still on Dr Ed?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 17:03 (134420)

BG - this board's been up for a week or so now and there have been plenty of posts leaning towards conservative points-of-view - I haven't seen anyone hassle those who've posted such. Nor have I seen other points-of-view hassled in any way.

I sure hope you don't think Ed is being questioned today because he is conservative. I'm arguing with him and I'm pretty conservative as well.

As I've stated several times now, my opinions regarding Ed have nothing to do with his political philosophies.

Re: Still on Dr Ed?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 19:34 (134444)

Uh Judy --- no one hassled? What do you think this whole string was about?
Ed

Re: Still on Dr Ed?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 20:08 (134455)

BG:

Have you found a board that IS??

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 20:29 (134457)

Pauline:
You are taking a suggestion that was opened for discussion a while back and a whole string was created out of it and it has been distorted to the point of absurdity. I don't even favor publishing IP adresses and never stated that I did. I merely opened that issue for discussion a while back as one possible solution to misuse of names. I pointed out that a lot of forums do publish IP addresses. Obviously, people who don't like that policy can avoid those forums.
ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 20:33 (134460)

Pauline:
Where did you get the impression that Hitler came to power with little noise? He was very noisy. He started by attracting small crowds in beer halls which grew larger and to rally size.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 20:49 (134464)

Judy:
Back up your accusations my 'double standards.' The terms 'rant' and 'rave' are common internet terminology and are not negative in connotation. Judy -- all you are doing here is finding any and every reason to attack me. It is really getting ridiculous. There has been a whole string of posts on the IP address issue which is not even a valid issue. You and your cohorts are basically just having to make things up because you cannot find legitimate criticisms. I suppose you will find a way to blame me for bad weather and the next time you are stuck in traffic .
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 21:03 (134469)

John:

I am familiar with the confidentiality issues when it comes to medicine.
But forums list IP addresses frequently. For example, anyone can set up a forum on Network 54-- that is actually where I encountered Mahatmellisima (on the Network 54 Alznner/Goodfeet forum) and invited her to this site.
You will note that all posts on Network 54 include the poster's IP address.

I never stated that I was in favor of that practice or not but introduced it several weeks ago for discussion. Some today, took that completely out of context in their fervor to bash me today. Amazing how it got blown into a long string -- a few are just looking for any reason to criticize me as they see me as the bogeyman behind this board. It is really ridiculous.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 21:30 (134473)

No, Ed. Let me refresh your memory. A discussion arose regarding your moderator role. Nancy was cynical about it. Scott had stated that the 'be nice' rule didn't apply here. (although I would never advocate anything but) You told Nancy she was a 'culprit' and a 'troublemaker' even though she did not personally attack you. You threatened to delete her saying that she was only coming here to cause trouble. The idea, Ed, is ghastly given Nancy's history here.

It was as of those words, 'troublemaker' etc., that you again faced hostility. They were (just as 'knock it off' was) exactly the kind of 'not nice' verbage you keep saying shouldn't be here. It's that seeming double-standard that got some of us going today - not to mention being insulted by being called troublemakers. Not to mention once again being accused of things that are simply not true.

I said that the board had been hassle-free. I was correct. Please try not to twist my words again. And please accept that you give 'hassle' as much as you think you get it.
I don't know anything about the IP issue - as I said earlier - and have had no comment on it. Dorothy had a legitimate concern - she did not have to 'make something up'. When she stated the concern without insult or anger she was reprimanded. That's black and white.

I did not make up your comments re: conservatism on the ss board or failure of this board. You said them. I pointed out that both of your comments were incorrect. I did not make that up. You insult us by stating that we make things up. Our concerns are no more invalid than yours are.

Just as I did not ask Scott to forbid political posts, I also am not responsible for his renaming this board. The name, which I assume is tongue-in-cheek, was his idea. I did not ask him to and I didn't even know he'd done it.
Perhaps if you'd desist from calling people troublemakers when they disagree with you, thereby garnering reaction, Scott wouldn't be inclined to put your name on the section.
If the term 'rant' does not have negative connotation (you are wrong about that) then why did several folks question the use of it?

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 21:51 (134479)

Judy:
No need to refresh my memory -- what was written today is clearly here for all to read. Just a brief recap: nancy s. in her 00:34 post mocks my intentions and integrity, attacks my bleiefs at 13:55 and calls my opinions 'wild statements' at 15:25. Nancy then blames this board for the for the paucity of posts on the social board. I don't really think we need to go through the whole string.

I did not reprimand Dorothy. The terms 'rant' and 'rave' are common internet terms and are not derogatory -- again I was inaapropriately accused. She brought up a concern and it created a long string in which nobody knew what they were criticizing but it seemed okay to do so since they were criticizing me. It was basically a non-existent issue but it seemed okay to use because it could be used against your bogeyman.

Nobody has come forward but Scott was emailed with complaints about me. Lets see, you won't admit to it, so who is left, by process of elimination.

You seem to think it is okay to go back in time when looking at my old posts (ie knock it off) but it is not okay for me to go back in time to look at the hostile posts I and others faced from nancy s. in the last few weeks. Hmmm -- lets talk about consistency and fairness.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Sharon W on 10/17/03 at 21:57 (134480)

Excuse me, but that one I can't let go. 'Nancy was cynical about it'??

Nancy was not just 'cynical' about it. NANCY WAS SARCASTIC ABOUT IT!!! Here are her words:

'that was a good move for you, ed, as someone with no need to control, someone completely objective and never involved in mistreatment for political reasons of any patient-poster on this site, to become a moderator. congratulations. the website is yours.

i continue to be amazed at what does -- and doesn't -- pass for free speech here.

as a moderator, you may want to delete my post. feel 'free.'

nancy'

...Where I come from that's considered a WHOLE lot more provocative than the word 'rant'.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

JudyS on 10/17/03 at 22:04 (134482)

We can't talk about consistency and fairness here Ed because the conversation is a never-ending cycle now. Some don't think you're fair, some don't think we're fair - we have nothing but 'he said she said'. Is that a reasonable theorum now?

Another correction, I DID say ('admit' to) that I'd emailed Scott.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 22:15 (134484)

Judy:

It was the expectation that the creation of two board would keep two groups of posters with different outlooks satisfied. It really looked like that was going to work until today. I don't think that many observers would disagree that one 'side' came over to attack the other today.

The bottom line is that my 'side' includes those who wish to discuss current events and political issues with civility and without argument. If that is what we wish, why not leave us alone to do so? I, and I am sure others, really would like to see your 'group' have a similar proclivity. In other words, we would welcome political discussion from you and others provided there is a willingness to discuss issues and not attack people personally, nor argue personalities. I simply don't see some as having that proclivity or ability or whatever it takes. I thoroughly enjoy discussing politics with Dorothy even so we are of different political stripes. She can state her views on issues and still show respect from those she is debating with. I am not going to go through months of history but I have not seen that from your 'group.'

If you wish to engage in apolitical dialogue then use the social board to your hearts content but leave others alone who wish to do differently.
Ed

Re: Deep tissue massage

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/17/03 at 23:34 (134501)

Sharon:
Are you taking alpha-lipoic acid. It really decreases the need for drugs like Topomax and Neurontin in those with diabetic neuropathy but also find that it helps those with idiopathic PN. I have patients using 300 mg. three times a day or 4 times a day. I don't have a lot of info on this but recently have had a number of patients combine biotin with the alpha-lipoic acid and claim a better result. They are doing so on the recommendation of Dr. Johnathan Wright, MD, sort of a maverick doc who focuses on nutrition therapy in my area. Check out http://www.lef.org as they have an alpha lipoic acid/biotin combination.
Ed

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts?

nancy s. on 10/18/03 at 06:13 (134505)

i'm sorry if you were insulted by scott's change of this board's name, ed. i assumed it was in jest -- i certainly didn't ask him to change it -- and i assume he'll change it back. i think he should. i thought it provided some levity in a day that got out of hand, but i apologize if you found my reaction inappropriate.

please reread and understand, ed, that i never blamed this board for a paucity of posts on the s/s board. i said that some people were derided and made fun of on the s/s board by you, by bg, and one or two others about their topics BEFORE you left the s/s board (most of those who were made fun of are conservatives, in fact). and those people are barely posting now. (i thought they deserved an apology at the time.) but marie should get a medal for carrying on there in a very positive way -- she is one terrific lady. i think she is very balanced and would make a good moderator, for example.

what i wrote yesterday had nothing to do with this board, and i have said nothing about this board. i think it's good that it exists since you didn't want to go to a political site to have political discussions. so be it, and it's fine with me. i really would appreciate it if you would refrain from putting words in my mouth.

i was concerned yesterday about your sudden moderator role, period. and sharon got ONE thing right, that my first post about it contained some sarcasm. you were very sarcastic on the s/s board before leaving, and to people who really didn't deserve it (sharon didn't seem to mind that). i was under the impression from scott that on the 'other' board we didn't have to be careful about such things. but i guess we do. since i'm normally not sarcastic and wish i hadn't been yesterday -- in that ONE post -- it won't be hard for me to follow this new rule on this board.

but i don't think that made me deserving of your high hostility and name-calling, during which i do think you made wild statements. you seem furious that i don't think you would make a good moderator. i think a lot of people wouldn't make good moderators, including myself. you needn't get so upset about it, and you'll probably continue to be one, so please stop attacking.

i sent exactly one brief email to scott yesterday. it expressed my dismay that you had been made a moderator. it contained three sentences. period.

i'm not worried about my reputation on this website. i've made only a few posts, out of thousands, that i wish i'd worded differently. if new people coming on board see the untruths you've written about me and don't check the history, that's fine too. i don't need to be popular here. but i did need to express it when i saw something i consider really amiss, and that's what i did yesterday.

nancy
.

i stand by my honest belief that

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

nancy s. on 10/18/03 at 06:29 (134506)

sharon, i'm wondering why, when there were countless very sarcastic posts made on the s/s board especially by bg but also sometimes by ed -- starting way back in february when the invasion of iraq was being discussed -- you never once chided them for it.

here, on the 'other' board, i make one sarcastic post and you 'can't let that one go.'

do you have different standards for different people on the boards? i haven't wanted to think so, because you have so much to offer and are very generous in offering it, but i can't help wondering at this point.

nancy
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

Sharon W on 10/18/03 at 10:04 (134521)

You remind me of my teenagers -- trying to change the topic to something that happened ages ago. What happened months ago is irrelevant to this current situation.

It was you coming here and making that sarcastic post that angered Dr. Ed, and THAT was why he called you a 'troublemaker,' but your part in inciting the whole thing was smoothed over with the word 'cynical' by Judy and ignored by others, while Dr. Ed's use of the word 'troublemaker' was greatly criticized.

I do not think your post to Dr. Ed was 'innocent' AT ALL. I think it clearly started this whole thing...

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

nancy s. on 10/18/03 at 10:16 (134526)

i'll take that as a 'yes.' thanks for answering.

nancy
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

Sharon W on 10/18/03 at 10:18 (134528)

Take it however you want to; you are extremely biased and I will consider the source.

Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

nancy s. on 10/18/03 at 10:30 (134531)

and you aren't biased? i can answer my own question on this one.
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

Sharon W on 10/18/03 at 10:47 (134538)

Yes. I never said I wasn't biased. If people are being honest with themselves, they will all have to acknowledge biases. I am not playing the 'I am completely impartial' game. I was just pointing out that JUDY was showing HER bias when she used the word 'cynical' to describe your post instead of calling it 'sarcastic'.
Sharon
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

nancy s. on 10/18/03 at 11:11 (134547)

cynical or sarcastic, what does it matter? they're similar enough. i wrote this morning that one of my posts was sarcastic yesterday and that i regretted using that tone. i don't regret the point of my post, however; i stand by it. and i will not take responsibility for what other people -- not ed, not you, not anyone else -- write in a whole thread. wouldn't that be expecting a bit much?

sigh.
.

Re: defining spam- opinion on some posts? -- to sharon

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/18/03 at 13:27 (134570)

Yes but you ruined the board for everyone.
Ed

Re: Deep tissue massage

Sharon W on 10/18/03 at 14:32 (134592)

Unfortunately, alpha-lipoic acid contains sulfur. I am allergic to sulfa drugs and it seems to trigger my allergy... I didn't realize this was why I reacted so badly to it, at first, since it was not my usual reaction, until I read that somewhere and suddenly it made sense.

I would definiteltely take it if I could! That research out of Russia about ALA was EXCITING...

Sharon
.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Ed Davis, DPM on 10/18/03 at 14:37 (134593)

Sharon:
Wow. That is new information to me. Keep in mind that sulfur and sulfa drugs are not the same thing. Sulfur is an element that exists in our bodies. Can you give me more detail about what happened when you tried alpha lipoic acid as I would like to be more sure of what happened.
Ed

Re: Deep tissue massage

John H on 10/18/03 at 16:05 (134606)

Sharon: the only drug that i am aware of that i am allergic to is sulfa. I took a sulf pill and my tongue was so swollen i though i would choke. it was saturday night and fortunately the doc who prescribed it was home and gave me something to reverse the effect. i definitely ask a doc about any thing they prescribe as to any sulfa content.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Pauline on 10/18/03 at 17:16 (134623)

John & Sharon,
I had a reaction to Cipro. Come to find out it has some type of a relationship to sulfa according to my pharm. I'm highly allergic to sulfa and one Cipro tablet cause my tongue and throat to react similar to
your sulfa rescription John. Sulfa gives me really big hives.

Re: Deep tissue massage

Pauline on 10/18/03 at 17:16 (134624)

John & Sharon,
I had a reaction to Cipro. Come to find out it has some type of a relationship to sulfa according to my pharm. I'm highly allergic to sulfa and one Cipro tablet cause my tongue and throat to react similar to
your sulfa reaction John. Sulfa gives me really big hives.