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

Aloha, two

Posted by Dorothy on 3/16/05 at 16:28 (171338)

Reactions/responses to posts made in recent days in my absence:

Is 'John H' the same as 'john h'?? If so, John H was saying that I am a vampire who needs to be slain? That I am Joan Crawford incarnate – meaning a cruel, abusive parent? That I am 'the original bad seed', a fictional child who was an amoral, sociopathic, evil, murderer? Do I understand you correctly? Good grief.

There may be some truth in what Elyse B and Susan say about my posts. I am thinking about what they have said, however nasty they seemed on first glance. It seems to me that they distorted the picture, but I also think there may be a lot of truth in what they say.

Julie's comments were wise and kind, an attitude that my posts probably don't deserve. I appreciate her characterizing some of my posts as 'intemperate'; that seems more fair and generous than my posts warrant and is a tribute to her generous spirit.

The hatred and anger for me in some posts, such as those of Elyse B and Susan, always astonish me. Elyse B and Susan say I am a bully and they say I have hijacked this board. Although their posts seem to distort the depiction of the context and circumstances that generated my posts, their reactions to my posts are understandable. One of them went to some effort to retrieve old posts of mine and re-post them. Those posts are, at best, intemperate, to use Julie's diplomatic word. However, Elyse B/Susan were very selective in their re-posting. There was no context and no background provided. Perhaps if they had provided context and background, their distortion would not have been so easy to present. They wanted to support a hateful point of view and they did so effectively. On the other hand, there may be something worthwhile in what Elyse B and Susan say and what they provoke and so I will keep an open mind for that.

Julie's post said that I wrote things that were hurtful to her in the past and I regret that very much and would not knowingly do so again. The realization of that made me sad and embarrassed and wishing that I could change history. I know that I wrote in ways that must surely have been hurtful and angering to Marie who also has such a delightful,great spirit, and I also greatly regret that and would not knowingly do that again either. It is no excuse, but it was largely because I was piqued at Dr. Ed at that time; there was a larger context to all of that ‘diatribe' of mine. There was a time when anger and criticisms were flying right and left and opinions and emotions were at a heated pitch all around. Many things were said to many people by many people at that time, including me, but not only me, that were heated. Either Elyse B and Susan are unaware of that context and history or they have chosen to ignore it. No matter; it is not sufficient excuse for me to have hurt people I respect and admire and appreciate. I do wish I could take back anything I posted that was hurtful to Marie or Julie. I can't and the words are there and Elyse B and Susan have re-posted them. It is not their error; it is mine.

Both Julie and Marie are bigger people than I, evidenced by the mere fact that they have 'conversed' with me since those past hurts. I respect and enjoy both of their personalities and styles and the content of their posts so I am always grateful that they write here. If anyone would be justified in lambasting me, it would be Marie or Julie, but they have not done so; Elyse B and Susan have. I recall that many things were said by many people at that time and people were hurt who would never say anything unkind to another person here – Suzanne, for example, but not by me. I hope I have never said anything hurtful to her and I know she has never said anything hurtful to anyone here. Elyse B and Susan placed no context nor any background around their selective presentation of Dorothy's posts; their anger is single-minded and focused.

As to other points in the recent angry and distorting posts of Elyse B and Susan: I do not owe you any 'evidence' about my personal or professional life whatsoever. I not only 'claim' to be published; I am published. Since I am not trying to sell you anything, nor do I need to prove anything to you, there is no need to tell you anything about myself. I guard my privacy like a pitbull for a variety of reasons, among them, matters of safety. Even if I did not have such concerns, your mean-spirited posts are off-putting. For reasons of safety and security, a relative/employee of mine handles these board communications for me, as well as matters such as any ordering/purchasing and that sort of thing so that I can maintain an extreme level of privacy. She and her family live at a distance from me but we are very close. My family and friends all take very good care of me and I of them in this regard, for our own safety. I would like to e-mail with Julie, Marie, john h or Suzanne – as they have kindly offered in the past – but I just cannot and I am not going to explain beyond this. It is really not your business. It is a very difficult subject and while I wish I could explain to those good people, I feel no need to explain anything to Elyse B or Susan or those who share their feelings.

One small point: do you actually believe that published writers do not make errors in spelling or syntax and grammar?

It does not strike me as very strange that I would prefer the 'company' here of those who do not seem hostile to me to those who do. What Elyse B and Susan present as criticism of me for that does not seem to me to be an unusual trait.

I don't recall correcting anyone's spelling except for Dr. Z's once and that was for purposes of clarification of a point with some humor. He has a sense of humor. I am not the world's worst speller but also not a perfect speller. If I have 'claimed' to be a perfect speller or perfect grammarian, perhaps you can revisit your research of my historic posts and if you locate such a claim, I would like to see it – along with the proof of your 'j'accuse' of my having hijacked the board. Still waiting for your 'evidence' on that charge, other than your statement of your opinion… If I were in the business of correcting spelling, even a less-than-perfect speller such as I am would find plenty of work to do in posts here. I have thought about correcting only some spelling errors that may lead to confusion, but opted to just let it pass. Some spelling errors ('scare tissue' rather than scar tissue, for example) have developed a kind of eccentric charm for me; 'scare' tissue actually rings truer than ‘scar' tissue, if you know what I mean. (But, of course, you never do.)

You are correct that I do have difficulty with affect and effect. Does your research of my historic posts find that I said otherwise? Again, please share any 'claims' that I have made for perfection. There would be none because I have no such thoughts. Haughty, maybe; stupid, not.

You are correct that I have objected to all-caps. I am not the only one who has done so, but I do admit to having posted several times about this. It is standard procedure for internet writing. I have tried to be courteous about it. Why that gets you or anyone else so riled up is beyond me. Feel free to post in all-caps or in Sanskrit – preferably Sanskrit when you are posting about me. I had thought it might be a kindness to tell someone who might not otherwise know that posting messages in all-caps carries certain meanings that they might not be aware of. I did not know about the internet and all-caps for quite a while and was glad to learn that it should only be used for certain purposes. I thought that maybe others did not know about that, just as I had not known. It's kind of like telling someone that they have spinach in their teeth or they have exited the restaurant restroom with toilet paper trailing behind them. You apparently think they should not be told. I think it is a kindness to tell them. In those circumstances, you can tell them discreetly; on this board, a post is the only way to communicate.

As to Janice's post about Foot Trainers: yes, you are correct. I was very annoyed about that. Janice posted negative statements about Foot Trainers, advising people against them when she had never tried them and knew nothing about them. I thought her uninformed comments might put people off a potentially helpful product. When the Foot Trainer company owner offered her free Foot Trainers in response to her negative comments, yes, it struck me as unfair. I didn't think that making negative, misleading statements about a (helpful) product that one knows nothing about should be rewarded with that product being given free. I did not, as you said, post something falst about Janice and then comment on it. Even so, I take your point about the Janice/Foot Trainers incident and admit that I should not have said anything; it was not my business and I was out of line. It should have been between the Foot Trainer company owner and Janice and had nothing to do with me. If I recall correctly (forgive me; I haven't memorized all of your judgments, important as they are), you said that my reaction to Janice's post 'drove her away'. If that is what you said, that is untrue. She continued to post for quite some time – perhaps still posts; I'm not sure; there is a Janice who posts now but doesn't seem to be the same one– so she must have been able to cope with one poster's (mine) reaction to her post. And I will reiterate: I am just one poster. Why do you ascribe much more power and authority to me than I, or anyone else here besides the owner, has? You have the same power and authority here as I or anyone else does.

You make absurd statements about my posts of opinion holding some special position here, an idea that is just completely ridiculous. If you had any knowledge of the history here, you would know that. My posts of opinion are just that: opinion. No more or less worthy than yours – but note: no less worthy either. This is a place of equal posts and you are free to like or dislike any post – and the poster you think they reflect – here. You seem most upset at the fact that I post, that you don't like my posts, that you think others should rise up and reject my posts, that everyone should voice their agreement with you and their hatred of me, that my posts and I should be rejected . You seem most upset that all others don't reflect your feelings of hatred for me and my posts. I think that plenty of people here do dislike me/my posts so you are not alone. Why you consider strong written opinions to be bullying is beyond me. If you feel strongly about something or someone, speak up – as you have done. If I choose to respond to you, I will speak up, in turn. That is not bullying, dear; that is heated exchange. If you consider disagreement with you or confrontation of you to be bullying, then I would suggest you are very pampered.

I have written an overlong response to your angry posts about me. Your obvious hatred for me probably doesn't warrant any response, but I am giving your comments consideration to see if I can learn something from them; I think I can. Your style is quite different from the style of Julie and Marie and Suzanne and some others who are not mean, even when they would be justified in reacting to me with bitterness or anger; I certainly have learned from them – and even from Dr. Ed in some ways – as I have observed their posting (and personality) styles here since the Days of Rage and Outrage of a year ago or so. I think each of us has modified our styles to varying degrees, but I admit I have a ways to go yet towards being a more congenial fellow-poster, in some circumstances with some posters. I don't presume to 'claim' anyone here as a friend because while I can be haughty, I am not arrogant and I don't presume anything and certainly wouldn't presume friendship FROM anyone – but I will say that I feel much affection FOR people here; I do admire and respect and enjoy a number of people here, even some who probably do not 'like' me. I understand the wish to be liked and 'wanted' in a group; I think most people want that, here and elsewhere. But I do think you may be confusing this place with high school or junior high where popularity contests and the 'alliances' that you refer to are the norm. I would never presume any reciprocity from the people here who have come to mean a great deal to me, a process that I would never have thought would occur, to feel genuine affection for people I 'know' only through a message board! I have learned that reciprocity isn't necessarily necessary for affection and it's kind of liberating knowledge. I care about people here and among them are people who probably don't like me. That's ok.

Having made this response of sorts, I probably won't address you again. No one makes you read my posts or anyone else's posts, so you will probably feel better if you do not read my posts; they obviously distress you. If you see 'Dorothy', move on down the screen; don't upset yourselves. Really: DON'T UPSET YOURSELVES!!! You 'claim' to have PF and continue to run, so running should be a good way to vent your hatred for me or anyone else, and probably a healthier way. However, if you feel that posting – and re-posting – helps you more, then feel free and please feel free to use all-caps, distortions, misspellings, whatever you want. Despite your insistent charge that I have hijacked this board, that is absurd and is the one statement of yours that I reject completely. What you seem to be most upset about is that Julie or Marie or whoever else you are addressing have not expressed hatred for me as you have done and why they have not expressed great and warm support for your hatred of me. I think they have been clear that they do not like or dislike you or me or almost anyone else any more or less than anyone else – it's a pretty absurd idea, really. I am sorry, Elyse B and Susan, that they have not rallied to your cause in the way you want. It is not because I get some kind of special treatment – as you angrily want to protest. I do not credit their attitude to any positive attribute of mine at all, but I do credit it entirely to their grace, maturity, wisdom, courtesy and kindness, and good hearts. You are correct that I am not deserving of their courtesy and kindness,; that is where grace and graciousness makes the difference. I don't presume that they have forgiven me, but they have certainly been gracious. Even at my advancing years in life, I still learn – and still try and want to learn – from those whom I admire and respect and enjoy (and love, if such can be said of people one 'knows' through a message board).

What seems to have provoked your hatred and anger for me most, or most recently, is my post about Vince (the poll). I will say once again that I was being sarcastic and satiric and facetious and tongue-in-cheek. I was using the terminology of a television program that I have never seen but have heard enough about to know that its catch-phrase is 'voted off the island…' I take your point about this and herewith apologize for using that terminology on this message board where an open-hearted inclusiveness usually rules. Vince does not seem to have been deterred by my post – and as I think about it, in contrast, I might have been hurt had that been said to/of me (the poll) so maybe the 'golden rule' should have applied – but he may be appreciative of your speaking up for him. Maybe sometime you will consider speaking up for the wife he 'claims' to have.

Finally, back to John H who I truly hope is different from john h: your linking me to 'bad seed' to 'Joan Crawford reincarnate' to some obscure reference to vampire slaying is puzzling. If this was meant to be humorous, the humor escapes me. If it was veiled nastiness (or even not so veiled), good job. I don't think I've ever – ever – said one thing to john h that would warrant equating me to: evil, murderous, cruel, predatory figures. I don't even understand your inserting these comments at all, except for taking the opportunity provided by Elyse B and Susan. If John H and john h are not the same person, then the use of the same name is confusing.

I think I covered all of the points you made. If not, you will no doubt point out my errors of omission or commision, real or contrived. I will, as a direct result of your angry postings about me, strive to be a better human being.

Re: Aloha, two

marie on 3/16/05 at 16:56 (171341)

Ok now I'm lost how many john h's are there in the world. Certainly there is not another one out there? ;)

PS: Dorothy I never read your post in the first place a year ago. And I didn't read it when it was reposted. Sometimes we old timers (am i an old timer?) forget to leave room for the new faces so I hope Elyse and Susan will stick around...........there's plenty room for everyone. I don't read negative posts or mean ones......it's tempting but I just don't. It's not worth my time. I'm way to busy saving the world! :)

love ya'll marie

Re: Aloha, two

Suzanne D. on 3/16/05 at 17:00 (171342)

You know, Dorothy, I am certainly no judge - not of you nor anyone else. And I don't want that job!

But I do make my 'judgments' (for lack of a better word here) of people based on the whole of their person - not on select conversations or actions. We all make mistakes. That is just simple truth. There is not one of us who could not stand condemned by others for certain actions or words or thoughts...

But when I look at the total person, I see either a person motivated by good wishes for others, reaching out to help in any way possible, or I see a self-centered individual.

In you I see a person who passionately wants to help others succeed and who spends considerable time trying to impart helpful knowledge on these boards.

Take care,
Suzanne :)

Re: Aloha, two

john h on 3/16/05 at 18:20 (171350)

Not me girl. I am john h not john H. I do not think i have ever called anyone an offensive name on this board. If I have it was not intentional.

Re: Aloha, two

vince on 3/16/05 at 18:25 (171351)

My goodness Dorothy, you used up all the words in the whole world. I just found enough in an old shoebox in my attic to post this.Thank G-D my grandmother never threw anyting away.

Re: Welcome back, Dorothy

Julie on 3/17/05 at 02:25 (171373)

I'm glad your trip was good, I'm glad that was why you were absent from here for a while, and I'm glad you are back.
.

Re: Aloha, two

Julie on 3/17/05 at 02:42 (171374)

Suzanne, as usual you get to the very heart of the matter.

Your post says it all.

Thank you!

:)

Re: Aloha, two

Susan on 3/17/05 at 07:31 (171377)

Well, to start with, there's no way I read your whole post. But I skimmed it, and if you read my post about you more carefully, you will notice that I never said you claimed to be perfect or a good speller or anything like that. Rather, I was saying that you find too much fault with people, especially newcomers, which is unkind and inappropriate.

Also, in your above post you keep saying 'you' as if you are responding to one person. There is more than one person posting to you and others about your behavior.

Personally, I posted a response about your inappropriate behavior because both you and Julie requested that someone explain Elyse's disapproval of it, and I had also noticed it and been shocked and even sickened by it.

Re: Aloha, two

Elyse B on 3/17/05 at 10:43 (171402)

Susan as usual you hit the nail on the head with your concise and cogent posting. I too, could not did read Dorothy's entire post as it was too long winded. From what I skimmed, Dorothy has once again missed the point with her self-serving treatise.

Point being which you so clearly elucidated... 'Dorothy finds too much fault with people, which is kind an inappropriate.' Especially people in pain or people having their own opinions.

Dorothy, if you cared to read the postings clearly ... there was no 'hate' from Susan and I (and it was not just Susan and I, so I am a little bit put off why you are directing your e-mail to the two of us), just disdain for the way you treat people.

I don't 'hate' anyone.

Re: Aloha, two

elliott on 3/17/05 at 13:23 (171418)

Dorothy, since you're not going to let this die by itself and it's probably going to keep coming up, I'm going to put my few cents in.

First of all, I generally don't read your posts because they're just way too long; I never made it through this one. Long posts of a personal nature also have a tendency to contain at least something objectionable. The major point is lost too. I advise to never, ever, make such long posts. As a published author, I'm sure you can figure out how to condense things.

You've often posted that others on these boards are out to get you in various insidious ways. That may be true at least at times (I myself have felt that on occasion), but trying to clear the air only muddies the waters. It's usually better to just let such things die; you're not going to bring everyone to your side, even if you're right. And most just don't want to talk about it, whether it's a major issue or a minor comment that struck you the wrong way.

A few words in support of Susan and Elyse B; I don't think their viewpoint is given a fair shake, given they're not part of the clique that exists here. I don't think they have malice towards you; they just perceive you as having the same or different faults you criticize others for. I don't want to get into the merits of each and every sub-dispute, but I think they may have a point at least up to a point, as you admitted. (I for one felt the 'poll' was not in good taste. I didn't like the writing style of the poster in question either, but he was new and I think he's settling down with time as most do.) One of them dug up old posts only after asked to. That the examples were not appreciated or felt to be out of context or whatever is not surprising given how these things evolve. In any case, they're also sensitive just like you're sensitive. Judging by the lengths of your posts, I would say you are more so. I think you're a nice person and Elyse and Susan too. Rather than try to always settle everything, mull it over a bit, try and learn something, and move on.

elliott

Re: Aloha, two

Susan on 3/17/05 at 16:28 (171439)

Thanks for your input. The fact that dorothy has the same faults she criticizes others for is the least of any concern I have with her posts. It's just ironic that she does have them. My concern is for the people who post and are attacked by her for some trivial reason, or because they disagreed with her.

The posts that were dug up for illustration of dorothy's attacks were the ones that were not deleted. By far the ugliest and meanest of her posts, and there have been many, were deleted and are no longer available.

This is not the first time that people have complained about dorothy's posts. About a year and a half ago, before I knew about these boards, I'm aware that several people complained to Scott about her and either she left for awhile or was banned for awhile, I don't know which.

Re: Susan and others too......

marie on 3/17/05 at 20:45 (171452)

I think everyone is willing to take something from this dialog and use it towards their own personal posting styles. Dorothy has acknowledged she will try.....so lets appreciate her willingness to adapt and change.Sometimes some of the regulars here tend to post away without recognizing that it's cliquish. I don't think we intend to do it though so it's hard to fault anyone. I have read everyone's posts and feel we are getting to a middle ground here.

Susan and Elyse......I'm sorry if I have come off as cliquish. I didn't mean to come across that way to anyone. Please forgive me, I will try to do better.

I really think there is room for all kinds of folks out there.

Good night.........and happy Saint Patrick's Day

Re: Susan and others too......

Suzanne D. on 3/17/05 at 21:04 (171455)

Good points, Marie. It is a fact of life that as people get to know one another and build relationships, they become more at ease with each other and naturally talk to one another more - whether in person or online. This does not mean they do not want to talk to others or necessarily mean they are 'cliquish'.

I really feel that most people here are quite welcoming to newcomers. It may take a while for the new posters to feel they are comfortable with everyone, but time and effort takes care of that. I know when I first began to post here almost three years ago, I was welcomed, but not everyone answered my posts. In fact, I smiled to myself one day and thought, 'You know, a good way to end a thread is for me to post'. Honestly, a lot of times, I would reply to the thread, and then that was the end of it.

But like in 'real life', to have a friend, you must be a friend. If new posters make efforts, I think they will find they are quite welcomed here and will soon have many good 'conversations'.

I have been having a version of this talk with my first graders. It seems no matter where we are or what age, there is the tendency to group and divide up, and there are always those who say, 'You are leaving me out'. I tell my children the best way not to be left out is to make an effort to be a friend and be involved and to treat others with respect.

People who share a history with one another are certainly going to feel close to those people and should not feel guilty for that. But we should all be willing to open our hearts to all the new people who cross our paths, remembering that once we were all strangers to one another.

Take care,
Suzanne :)

Re: Aloha, two

Elyse B on 3/18/05 at 08:09 (171477)

Thank you Elliot. I think it is best to let this 'die'.

Re: Aloha, two

Dr. Zuckerman on 3/18/05 at 09:51 (171486)

I am only responding to this because I want to give you another impression. I don't follow all of the posts and I am really surprised that people would say these things. On the other hand if I kept track of the hate, anger, meaness etc etc about Dr. Z on this board I would go crazy.
Yes I get hurt but I continue with my purpose and that is to inform, education and help pf posters and talk alot about ESWT.
So what's my point. I don't view you, Dorothy as any of these mean things because I know how people can and do hide behind e-mails. I have a great book that I am reading I think you may enjoy yourself. Its called power of intention. Search for it on the web . Its really good medicine for the negative in life

Re: Susan and others too......

John H on 3/18/05 at 10:24 (171490)

Marie: I refuse to change my posting style. I cannot spell and never could so there. I am very good at the sciences and math. 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.' Who wrote that? Seems like my first grade teacher said it. Of course it is not true as some people really take post to heart. There are many trouble makers on the internet who just look to pull people's chain and if you respond you play right into their hands. We all at one time or another post something that hurts someone simply because they may not recognize the humor the poster intended or the poster hit some nerve he/she was unaware of. As is often said we cannot look the poster in the eye and observe the tone or body language so much is lost.

Re: Susan and others too......

marie on 3/22/05 at 07:55 (171748)

John I suspect you're right in some ways. i suspect floks will never be able to change their personalities. I am a big picture person.....part of my personality....they call it 'intuitive' in the test. I tend to be able to look at situations, message boards, operatons etc......and just know the best direction. Just me. I love sciences, math not so much but adjusted to the fact that one cannot live without it. I created my story blog to encourage folks to learn little things in science. It's for kids or adults who wants to join in on the fun. Take a break from reality. The current story involves cats........http://heidithewayunderdog.blogspot.com/

I enjoy working with computers and the Internet.......it's easy for me although confusing to others. So just like you I have my personality that isn't going to change anytime soon. I will always be trying to figure out something or solve a problem. I will always look at the big picture.

Hey you may like this blog site for cats......http://www.catster.com/