ELLIOTTPosted by Dorothy on 6/07/04 at 23:25 (152327)
Word to the wise: Ignore Mark L. I think he might be Dr. Ed's alter ego or perhaps the alter ego of some other person here, but he specializes in the 'discouraging word', so to speak. Now, Dr. Ed and Dr. Z will probably speak up and come to the defense of Mark L., whoever he is, but I suggest you ignore him. Sometimes he has 'yelled' in a foul manner to/at me. I find his posts uncivil and uninteresting and think they do not advance anything here, whether informational or good will, so I ignore them.
As to the resumption of the ongoing dispute between you and Dr. Ed and Dr. Z here, I don't pay any attention to it. That may be my ignorance at work, but it just doesn't interest me. It may be of value to others, however, so I just accept that.
I am interested in your posts in which you discuss your own condition and efforts to address your own health problems. Maybe analysis and statistical/evalutive study is a kind of meditation for you that allows you to 'do something' in a way about your own issues...?? Just a thought.
Re: ELLIOTTPauline on 6/08/04 at 08:38 (152351)
I too am interested in Elliott's posts because I feel through them we always get a thorough look at the topic being discussed. Personally I find the line 'everyone knows who we are' you know the identification 'God has spoken' stuff a little tiring and give very little weight to it. The letters DR. before a name doesn't make everything that follows necessarily edible, and just because the food is fed to us doesn't mean we all have to eat off the same plate.
It is always very interesting to me that MARK L usually appears following this type of discussion. It's the pattern thing which you and others have picked up on and just like clock work the docs will come to MARK's defense etc. etc.
I find it ironic that Dr. Ed. who supposedly left this site because his freedom of speech was being denied always runs to the web owner when
he wants another poster denied that same freedom when it would be advantagous to him.
In this latest exchange between Elliott and Dr. Ed. I do hold Dr. Ed accountable for posting information about Elliotts personal information whether it be where and whom he works for or the size of his foot. Dr. Z should also be taken to task for doing similar things when he posted a while back part of a private conversation between he and Elliott about another doctor. Not very professional.
If you look back we find Elliott is usually subjected to these big hits when either doctor doesn't like how the discussion between them is going it's the same behavorial pattern always followed by MARK L.
My advice is no one should respond to MARK L. I know who he is and believe me a response isn't necessary by anyone.
I don't think Dorothy is along in her feelings. More readers have seen and now believe.
Re: ELLIOTTEd Davis, DPM on 6/08/04 at 09:40 (152367)
I have always been one agruing FOR free, open, unrestricted speech on the site. Yor memory seems very short. I accepted that political subjects be banned. The issue is to be truthful about who one represents -- are you a patient, a doctor, an insurance person, a manufacturers rep???? What is wrong with knowing the truth?
You think that it is interesting that Mark 'appears' but I find it interesting that YOU appear every time there is an argument. Are you still just a patient looking for releif of sore heels or do you have another agenda?
Re: Pauline's personal attacks and liesEd Davis, DPM on 6/08/04 at 10:04 (152372)
'doing similar things when he posted a while back part of a private conversation between he and Elliott about another doctor. Not very professional.'
Pauline: What are you referring to? This is a personal attack so lets back it up with a quote!
By the way, there is a big difference between someone's foot size and the professional background that motivates their presentation here. You are intentionally obscuring an important issue. Elliott has full 'freedom of speech' -- I simply pointed out WHO he is and he got angry. NO personal information was involved.
Re: Pauline's personal attacks and liesPauline on 6/08/04 at 10:15 (152374)
I really don't want to get into it with you. This is my only response on this subject.
Re: ELLIOTTDorothy on 6/08/04 at 10:20 (152375)
I don't know. I just want everybody to get along. It's distressing when you can feel it happening, that veering off into acrimony, and then there it is: a 'blow-up.'
I think that all reliable information should be presented about ANY treatment that people may be considering. There are people here who have had ESWT and are pleased with the results and those who have had it with no positive result and those who say they are worse following it.
If the proponents of ESWT, or any other modality, want to present their point of view and supporting data, then fine. If the opponents, or even simply skeptics, want to present their point of view and supporting data, then fine. But if either/both of those arguments are valid, they should not have to become personal. They are what they are: arguments for or against.
Now - I have other things to worry about today and first on the list is grizzly bears!! (See Wendy's post)
Re: Pauline's personal attacks and liesEd Davis, DPM on 6/08/04 at 10:43 (152378)
Fine! You accused me of something I did not do so I accept this as a retraction.
Re: ELLIOTTjohn h on 6/08/04 at 10:47 (152380)
We always need to be carefull on the site about who says what. We on occasion have kids or others who step in and pretend to be someone they are not just to create problems.
Re: ELLIOTTEd Davis, DPM on 6/08/04 at 12:48 (152404)
I say hooray for free speech. Let everyone have their say proponents and skeptics. The important thing is that we are honest about our biases. I and Dr. Z make no attempt to hide our agenda -- we are doctors who provide ESWT and strongly beleive in it. Most people are patients who simply want information. If someone works for a particular shockwave company and is criticizing another company it would be proper to know about that individual. If they come from the insurance company point of view, fine; but be honest about it...
Re: ELLIOTTDr. Z on 6/08/04 at 12:54 (152405)
I just saw another patient post- dornier eswt. She has been pain free for over two years after the treatment. She had the original pain for over one year. Failed conservative treatment. I guess it was the placebo effect!!!. Trying telling this to my patient.. Her insurance did refund her but the patient paid for the treatment. Another ESWT AD by Dr. Z.
Re: ELLIOTTjohn h on 6/08/04 at 13:02 (152406)
Ed: You folks all need a few years in the Military to discover the meaning of Free Speech. Try laying a little free speech on your General. Your free speech is usually 'yes sir' and 'no sir'. In fact my current boss does not believe much in free speech. Everything is relative.
Re: ELLIOTTDr. Z on 6/08/04 at 13:10 (152407)
Yes Sir !!!