To the boardPosted by Julie on 3/07/04 at 07:02 (146325)
Yesterday evening, a post was made by Marie about me to Dorothy. It was deleted, perhaps out of consideration for me, or perhaps just because it violated the 'not nice' rule.
I wish it had not been deleted, because for those who didn't see it at the time, including me, all that remained was Dorothy's response to it. I deserved Dorothy's response and have written a post to her apologising for having hurt her. I hope she realises that my apology was sincere.
After I posted to Dorothy, I went to the archive. Posts that have been deleted remain in the archive, and I found Marie's post. I am going to copy it here, so that anyone who didn't see it yesterday can read it now, and make up their own minds about it and about me.
Here is Marie's post:
'Dorothy...I'm not going to bother to read your post. You're not the boss of me and neither is Julie or anyone else. I'm not protecting Ed...good grief he can handle himself just fine. The jig is up. You honestly think Julie is your ally...let me enlighten you. You're one of the people she loved to gossip about the most. She has ripped your posts apart in messages to me. I am sure I've been alot of fun for them to gossip about and make up little stories about me as well....remember 'like little school girls'. Get a clue. I'm sure the words Julie's words 'Waspish' and 'Meddelsome' will ring a bell with her. I quit talking to her last fall because she didn't want the politcal discussions to stop she wanted to get rid of Ed. I got used and manipulated by her for a while but when I realized who she'd been chatting with I was disgusted. She used the ladies she gossiped most about on this board to do it.
Thankfully Suzanne set a spark in me. Enough is enough.
I've held back long enough.'
A little earlier Marie posted to Suzanne:
'Gossip and manipulation isn't right either. You may have forgotten that I was part of that little scenario that Julie planned. I'm not sure if I was impressed with her ability to manipulate the very people she gossiped about in emails or if I was upset because she used friends for her own purpose....to get rid of Dr. Ed. You're absolutely right enough is enough. I visit here very infrequently just quick hello and goodbye.....just enough to stay in touch. I'll continue to do so. I'm not the boss of you and none of the gossips here are the boss of me either.'
It is true that last summer I discussed a post of Dorothy's with Marie. I did so because I thought the post had been quite out of proportion to Marie's 'offence', and Marie had seemed to be upset by it. It was not my business to comment as I did, and how I wish I hadn't! It was gossip, and I have now paid dearly for that indiscretion, and for trusting the unwritten rule that private correspondence should not be quoted in public.
To my knowledge that rule has never before been broken here and I hope for everyone's sake that it never will be again.
It was a year ago, some months previous to that particular email, that Marie and I had an exchange about the situation that had arisen on the board. It is true, as she says, that it was not political discussion I wanted to get rid of. My view was that the problem was not the political discussions, it was Ed. I was as clear about that view in my private discussion with Marie as I have always been publicly on this board. The damage that Ed inflicted on the board last year is no secret, nor have my feelings about it ever been secret. I did not need to 'manipulate' Marie, or 'use friends for my own purpose' in order to 'get rid of Ed'.
As I've told Ed on several occasions (most recently this morning) I respect his knowledge and skills and his medical contribution. That is true, it always has been. If he has changed, as he says he has, and really means simply to give a doctor's help here and not to make further trouble, my attitude towards him will change. I actually believe that be does mean it, and that he will try.
Dorothy's final words hurt me more than I realised when I first saw her post to Marie a few hours ago, and I now really have to say that I don't 'pretend'. I am not especially goodhearted. I can be judgemental, and irritable, and sometimes cutting in my efforts to be clear. But I think I have given some useful help here over the years. Make up your own minds.
Re: a walk down memory lane?pala on 3/07/04 at 09:02 (146336)
remember me? it is amazing that the dark forces here have managed to turn julie and dorothy against each other, the two most intelligent posters who can see through the mean minions of discord. not to mention the ignominy of posting private emails on this board .
but to list all their horrors is more energy than it's worth. i hope you stay dorothy and if you want to know my history here and why i have not posted in a year look up anti semite and mein kampf in the archive and take a lovely ride with the new improved eddie.
julie, can i email you?
Re: a walk down memory lane?pala on 3/07/04 at 09:32 (146348)
or look up in the archives where the delightful minions were taunting me about being a cripple in a wheelchair, in terrible pain and it was unknown if i would walk again. . those were some good times with the minions. ahhhh. memories, memories.
i think the good folks here are more numerous than the rotten ones . but the hidousness iof the few minions is so shocking that it resonates louder if you let it.
Re: PalaJulie on 3/07/04 at 10:07 (146354)
Bear with me. I would be glad to hear from you, but would rather not put my email address on the board right now. But thanks for asking. I'm still here, if you'd to say anything to me here.
Re: Palapala on 3/07/04 at 10:12 (146355)
sure, i'd talk to you here julie. don't blame you for not wanting to put your email here. 'the difference between evil and stupidity is that stufpidity never gives it a rest' With that is mind, there may be a lull in the goings on here where it will be safe to give our email to each other.
Re: Palapala on 3/07/04 at 10:14 (146356)
on the other hand with this bunch of minions the mix of evil and stupid is so well balanced that there may not be a second of respite
Re: To the boardmarie on 3/07/04 at 10:46 (146359)
Julie, I have and will continue to stand up for those who wish to post here. I stood up for you and pala in the past and will gladly do it again. I would stand up for anyone who is being ganged up on in order to get rid of them. This isn't surviver's island where we form allys and plot against each other to get rid of people. I realize that you may not understand my take on this and that's ok. It simply doesn't matter to me who the target it is...I will probably object. It's just my nature.
Re: a walk down memory lane?Dr. Z on 3/07/04 at 10:54 (146360)
I remember the name but I VERY sorry that I didn't remember the thread. When you gave me these KEY words I did take a look. I have no idea where Dr. Z was at the time but I am very SORRY that I didn't respond to these threads at the time. This is a subject that is never taken lightly in my mind. I am very SORRY that I wasn't these to defend and destroy these ideas when you were being baited
Re: To the boardpala on 3/07/04 at 11:40 (146363)
dr z, thanks for the belated response to the jew baiting tthread. as i recall, julie the decent, was the only person on the boards who responded to deplore it! lots of foks were apologist supporters of it iwas absolutely amazed at the lack of outcry here. then after i departed i was blamed for ruining this board. but never mind, there is no deplorable level that jew baiters won't stoop to. now you really know some of the people you co mingle with,.
Re: To the boardDr. Z on 3/07/04 at 13:50 (146372)
Pala ( Paula correct)
I am shaking my head over this. I believe Ed Davis is Jewish but that is not an excuse. This is just plain wrong period !!
Re: To the boardpala on 3/07/04 at 15:55 (146375)
i believe hitler was part jewish. am i correct? at any rate i don't think that mitagtes the issue.
Re: To the boardpala on 3/07/04 at 15:56 (146376)
Re: To the boardpala on 3/07/04 at 16:14 (146377)
dr z, altho ed was the one posting, if i recall, there was a post about the minions emailing each other as the baiting went on and that they all found it hyserically funny. and they are not jewish. or part jewish or whatever ed said back then to try to weasel out of the horridness of it all.
and almost no one thought it wrong, or at least posted that they did. so it was a surprise to hear from you and find a poster here who thinks jew baiting is wrong.
because when i left , the consensus was that it was a really funny thing to do and i was taking it much too seriously and getting angry over nothing. in fact my anger was ruining the board and getting in the way of the general fun those folks were having. it was really just a knee slapping hoot. no big deal as far as i could tell.
Re: please dont rehash this, there was no jew baitingnot.again on 3/07/04 at 16:58 (146380)
Dont bring that old fight back. You will just fire up the minions of the ones that think they can boss every one around. This is Scotts site and I bet he is either laughing at the absurdity and childish stuff or he may be ready to quit. He must feel like a elementary school lunch mom having kids tattle to him to make little timmy stop.
Re: please dont rehash this, there was no jew baitingpala on 3/07/04 at 17:03 (146381)
ok, i'll quit. i don't want to get the minions started either. i was trying to be supportive to dorothy and then dr z and i started talking about it. anyway, others can read the thread and decide for themselves. i wasn't planning on respnding to the minions anyway.
Re: To the boardEd Davis, DPM on 3/07/04 at 17:39 (146382)
Thank you for your consideration. I think that we are debating whether I have 'changed.' Depending on one's perspective one could say that. The thing that has changed is my role, my approach. Simply by comparing all the diplomacy and courtesy I show patients all day to my online behavior I could see the vivid contrast. I tend to hit the 'net' as an after hours thing so it is definitely an innapropriate place to let out one's aggressions. Also, taking the perspective in being involved in helping to run a site, I can understand Scott's responsibility mcuh better now.
Re: please dont rehash this, there was no jew baitingEd Davis, DPM on 3/07/04 at 17:41 (146383)
We both 'went of the deep end' with that argument quite a while back. We owe each other mutual apologies as well as apologies to those who had to read it. You cerainly have my apology right now.
Re: Palaelliott on 3/08/04 at 15:40 (146464)
Pala, the closest thing I get to a minion is a minyan. I'm Jewish too. During WWII, all the remaining inhabitants of my great-grandfather's European town were forced to stand outside in the center courtyard in the cold every night until my great-grandfather (whom I'm named after) soon took sick and died. (He was too old to travel and hence could not escape earlier with the other family members, including my grandparents and their children, one of them my mother, which explains how I am here.) His house was taken too.
You point out that most chose to hide rather than voice their objection to anti-semitism, so I'd like to respond to that. I'm not trying to fan the flames and hope I'm not attacked by you or anyone else for this post, although being attacked for voicing one's opinion no doubt is a reason many choose to hide. As you suggested we do, I looked over the thread(s) in question, and here's what I saw:
It first should be placed in context. There is no question Dr. Ed had been monopolizing the Social board to push his political views far in excess of what most others would consider normal, and yes, caused some to leave, and you were still smarting from that. It didn't help that this was another political thread. But even before Ed posted his regrettable words, that thread was heading for disaster. I found your writing--in that thread in particular--to be especially acerbic, opinionated, generalizing, annoying; others posted there that they found it that way too (and not just Dr. Ed's crowd). So what I'm saying is, the way your words were written may have contributed to pushing Ed to issue his admittedly regrettable words. While I'm not defending his words, we should also place them in context: He didn't just list Mein Kampf, but also several other references considered to be extreme, such as Mao Tse Tong's. He was suggesting something to the effect that he wouldn't be surprised if you cited at length from those extreme references (presumably because in his mind, he considered your political views to be extreme). Was this appropriate, nice, tactful or excusable? No. But was it blatant anti-semitism or intended as such? I don't think so. I think there were comments closer to anti-semitism from at least one other poster who followed. The thread continued in a very unpleasant manner, not exactly encouraging others to jump in.
Pala, I have no personal beef with you; if I recall, we've had some differences over first-time posters hawking nontraditional cure-all wares they claimed worked for them: you were more on the 'let them be heard and advertise' side, I was more on the skeptical side. I am a stickler for accurate marketing of products. I feel it is the obligation of all posters marketing their wares to be forthcoming as to who they are and be accurate in their marketing. It doesn't win awards or popularity, and some probably wish I'd just go away. There are times when I feel others should be speaking up even though they don't. Same with the treatment of Pauline, whose points might just have more validity than this board publicly gives her credit for. But that's just the way it is.
With your thread, it had deteriorated on all sides to the point that I don't blame anyone for not having jumped into the fire. It wouldn't have put it out. In any case, bad as Ed's choice of words were, I don't think it was blatant or intentional anti-semitism even if you took it that way. That's the way I see it.
Re: Palapala on 3/08/04 at 17:43 (146476)
you have the right to your opinion, and yeah i liked the part where you say my political views are considered extreme by some here as their reasons?, excuses? , explanations? . i'm a lberal democrat, after all. off to the gulag i suppose., would the minions let me pack my toothbrush first i wonder? just point me to the archipilego, whatever that is.
Re: Palapala on 3/08/04 at 17:52 (146477)
oh yeah, and elliot, you didn't ever have an incindiary nasty style back in the days when i used to bother dialogueing with you a few years ago, did you?
Re: Time outEd Davis, DPM on 3/08/04 at 18:05 (146480)
Pala and Elliott:
Thank you for your comments. Lets please move forward from here with a positive tone and a clean slate.
Re: Palapala on 3/08/04 at 18:08 (146481)
furthermore , if anyone wants to distort or dredge up my political views in a forum where it is against the rules to discuss politics, i will contact scott, be assured. because i cannot really write here what i would like to about what i want to add to your way of putting that remark, elliot. i cannot comment back on whose political views i think are extreme or not. in fact, elliot, savor the dialogue we just had. there wone't be any more beteween us.
Re: Palaelliott on 3/09/04 at 07:38 (146508)
Pala, just for the record, what I said was, 'in his [Ed's] mind, he considered your political views to be extreme'. It doesn't mean I share his view.
Re: Palapala on 3/09/04 at 08:36 (146512)
knowing that politics are agiasnt the rules to post here i say for the last time, no one is ever to address my political views or any other liberal democrat's here as extreme with any excuse, wether under the guise of surmising it as someone else's opinion. do you read ed's mind elliot? are you two soulmates?
i won't call scott this one last time cause you cleverly obfuscated this as a misunderstanding.
i expect never to deal with this agian with you or with others here until such time as the rules of this board allow me to talk politics.
now you have twice gotten to call a liberal democrat position an extreme one under the pretense of reading or knowing e'd's mind and motivations. seems like you and he are greatly connected in heart, mind, decency, morality, psychic soulmates really. maybe you are him and he is you,.
keep your and/or your soulmate's nasty underhanded political views of liberal democrats off this board elliot , it is against scott's rules, . i will contact scott if this is done again by anyone in any guise.
Re: I told you not to rehash this for a reason, this is whynot.again.deaux on 3/09/04 at 10:50 (146529)
you are starting another exchange in a vieled manner and trying to blame Elliot for doing it....drop it. That is my opinion so dont bother starting in on me ok?
Re: I told you not to rehash this for a reason, this is whypala on 3/09/04 at 10:55 (146531)
no,not ok anymore, alias. i did drop it. liot picked it up. it's in elliot and your ballpark now. you drop it, alias