Dr Z and Pauline....a biography of a fight.... by ScottPosted by scottr on 3/14/04 at 18:07 (146985)
I see Dr Z and Pauline are like old faithful again and i have to play junior high coach and break it up. The thread started out OK but you deteriorated pretty quickly. Pauline said something only a little snippy to Dr Ed about something and Dr Z responded more snippily because it should have been obvious and was discussed before (i.e., how FDA indirectly forces high costs). Dr. Z also asked about her case history which was an invitation for trouble when combined with the snippy atmosphere. The post itself was clean but it was viewed as the beginnings of an attempt to turn it personal. So Pauline responded in a hurt manner. Not mean, but hurt. Dr Z claimed innocence in questioning the history in another clean post but starting his post with 'no way pauline' on a line by itself which was again asking for trouble. So elliott chimes in in defense of Pauline and has his own issues with other Dr Z posts. It could have died there, but Pauline very erroneously viewed it as an attemt to violate her privacy. Well, of course it's not a violation of privacy going against her consent when her consent is required for her to type the history being sought. Maybe she felt sensitive to Dr Z's claim that others would be helped if she disclosed her info. Instead ignoring his nice and clean explanation for why he was seeking personal info, her frustration in trying to find a response to the social pressure she must have felt from his claim that others could benefit led her to an absurd claim of privacy trying to be violated. She also said 'I question your ethics in this matter and feel further investigation into your attempt to violate my medical privacy is warranted.' Which Dr Z didn't like at all and turned it equally personal by questioning her intelligence and/or sanity. Dr. Z started it with two posts that weren't perfectly nice. Pauline was over-sensitive to them and when Dr. Z try to back out of a fight, she wouldn't let him.
What am i going to do? Block Dr. Z for not being perfectly nice? He posts have so many logically inconsistent things anyway Pauline shouldn't be surprised. How how about Pauline? Apparently too sensitive and responding with the closest thing to libel that she can get away with here and combines it with a veiled threat. And Dr Z continues the badness when his attempt to back out of the fight (that he possibly was trying to start) didn't work. Should we have a vote on which one to kick out? Should i just block both of them when the new security is completed?
Oh, come on you guys. We all 3 got better things to do than this on a gorgeous weekend. So stop talking to each other already. Ok, that's my ruling: Dr. Z and Pauline cannot talk to each other. Nor can they talk about anything the other one is talking about in a different thread or board. Just stay clear of each other's discussions.
Re: Dr Z and Pauline....a biography of a fight.... by ScottDr. Z on 3/14/04 at 18:15 (146989)
The weather is still cold here with lots of clouds. I have cabin fever.
Re: Do not respond to this thread unless you're elliotscottr on 3/14/04 at 18:16 (146990)
Do not respond to this thread unless you're elliot. Especially true for Dr. Z and Pauline.....my post is off-topic and no more of this garbage should be discussed unless elliott can trace things and sources of problems better than i.
Re: Dr Z and Pauline....a biography of a fight.... by ScottEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/04 at 18:21 (146991)
Thanks. Everyone just needs to remember not to personalize things as we are talking about concepts as opposed to individuals and discussing things for the benefits of many readers. Imagine oneself in a room with a crowd looking on as that is essentially what happens in an online forum (it took me a while to realize this as many know)-- I am sort of appealing to the self-concious part of all of us but also to the altruism involved in benefitting as many readers as possible (a long term and very loyal reader of this site, the name of whom no one has heard of here because he never posts came in as a patient about 3 weeks ago and sort of 'opened my eyes' to these issues). We all need a reminder some times.
Re: timingEd Davis, DPM on 3/14/04 at 18:29 (146995)
Sorry but I formulated my response before you posted your request but was delayed in hitting the 'post message' button.
Re: Dr Z and Pauline....a biography of a fight.... by ScottDr. Z on 3/14/04 at 18:32 (146997)
I posted after reading the first post and not the elliott post only. I respond from my e-mails sometimes
Re: here I amelliott on 3/15/04 at 12:44 (147052)
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to respond. I would like to add to your summary of the chronology of events. Forgive me if I miss something or err; I don't want to spend an eternity analyzing the thread. While Pauline's response (3/13, 09:39) to Dr. Ed was a little snippy, IMO it was well within bounds, especially given the general pro-ESWT overzealousness of docs on these boards. That it was a repeat is not so serious; there is much pro-ESWT repetition from the docs here. The end of Dr. Z's response, 'The only person that will suffer is the patient, not Pauline', was IMO out of bounds. That was a personal, unnecessary dig. Pauline pointed this out (3/13, 20:51), and she wondered if anyone else will take notice. I actually chimed in twice, the first time to say (3/13, 22:36) I took notice (and as usual, no one else did). Pauline went on (3/13, 20:58) to reject Dr. Z's earlier advances (3/13, 20:34) for Pauline's case history. It was in response to Dr. Z's second request (3/13, 21:09) (posted somewhat illogically as a response to Pauline's post about making this personal), the one beginning with the rather aggressive 'No way Pauline' in which he apparently couldn't take no for an answer, that I chimed in (3/13, 23:53) with the aside that we should respect Pauline's wishes not to talk about her personal case. I don't deny, as you say, that Pauline then got carried away at Dr. Z's overpushiness, charging him with things not appropriate. I have more to say on sources of problems, which I'll post a little later today.
Re: Elliott......scottr on 3/15/04 at 14:14 (147060)
Elliott, no, don't post more about Dr. Z. Let's get bacl to ESWT
Re: scottrelliott on 3/15/04 at 15:04 (147062)
If you don't want this kind of scenario to keep repeating and are interested in preserving the integrity of the ESWT board, I'm requesting you allow just one more post to address sources of problems, as you originally requested. Then I'll be done for good; honest. Is that OK with you?
Re: scottrscott r on 3/15/04 at 15:31 (147065)
Elliott, email it to me at (email removed)
Re: Scottrelliott on 3/15/04 at 22:08 (147092)
Cancel that. While in the middle of typing something up I decided to just scrap the whole thing. I'm tired and fed up of many things on the ESWT board. I need a long break from it, starting now. I don't even have PF, so what am I wasting my time for? If I have a problem I'll get back to you. Thanks generally for being considerate in letting me have my say.
Re: ScottrDr. Z on 3/16/04 at 02:31 (147104)
E-mail Dr. Z at (email removed). I would like to see your idea. Thanks
Re: ScottrEd Davis, DPM on 3/16/04 at 21:19 (147158)
Your input has been valuable here. It is easy to personalize debates which should be for the benefit of providing varying perspectives to readers. If one takes a deep breath and a step back one realizes that the person argued with may be anonymous, faceless, unknown and -- if you met that person at a party, you would probably be good friends.
Take a SHORT break but come back. I have taken my share of 'breaks.' Just remember the big picture - an online community of people trying to improve their health through knowledge. A place where I have met friends and discussion partners from Germany, Australia and across the US. There is a lot of good being done for people by this site and sites like this one.
Re: ScottrDr. Z on 3/16/04 at 21:28 (147160)
Well said !!!