Dr Ed and ElysePosted by Scott R on 7/04/05 at 23:50 (177825)
A couple of times Dr. Ed has complained about the questions Elyse sometimes asks of him that necessitate the need for him to reply to defend his reputation. He has called her comments accusations of a libelous sort, but Elyse phrased them as questions, so I wasn't able to say that Elyse had done anything wrong. If Dr. Ed had ignored her and she had continued to interrupt his threads with questions that suggested wrong-doing, then I could have said that she was harassing him, but Dr. Ed engaged her in conversation, so she has the right to reply and speak her mind. Dr. Ed has the right to feel annoyed by questions as we all do. So as a solution to this, I am doing as I did between Dr Z and Pauline a long time ago. I'm calling a truce. Dr Ed and Elyse should not reply to each other in the board and should not refer to each other even obliquely in any way. There should not be any baiting. Does this seem like a good solution?
Re: Dr Ed and ElyseEd Davis, DPM on 7/05/05 at 01:03 (177827)
It is something I will agree to. By the way, 'when did you stop raping women?' Just kidding. Just to show you that a question can be as powerful as a statement. A person not affilaited with the legal profession may sometimes miss that.
Re: Dr Ed and ElyseElyse B on 7/05/05 at 08:35 (177840)
fine by me but as you can see by the response from Dr. E. he has some serious 'issues.'
Re: Dr Ed and ElyseEd Davis, DPM on 7/05/05 at 08:46 (177845)
Anyone who had bee 'accused' of illegal activities on a public forum would have 'serious' issues. Should we post them agan for all to see?
Re: Dr Ed and ElyseElyse B on 7/05/05 at 08:48 (177846)
how can you even joke about 'rape', that is just plain sick. That is not an accusation, just read your posting above. What is wrong with you?
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEScott R on 7/05/05 at 09:48 (177850)
OK, let's review this thread. Scott calls for a truce. Dr Ed and Elyse AGREE. However, they both had parting comments, in direct violation of the truce. Dr Ed defended his position that someone can 'merely' ask questions but still be abusive. He used humor with an edge by using the classic example on me, rather than on Elyse (which was good of him). Elyse gave away some underlying feelings by closing with a parting shot, saying Dr Ed has 'issues' which supports Dr Ed's position that she's harassing and not merely asking innocent questions. That was all fine and good and expected. But then Dr. Ed goes and responds to her, which he had just agreed in the previous post not to do. 'DING_DING_DING'. Then Elyse lowers herself also by responding. So that's 4 instances of them breaking the truce as the truce is being agreed to.
Elyse, Dr Ed's rape question is a well-known example and not direct evidence of a twisted mind.
Re: Dr Ed and ElyseJohn H on 7/05/05 at 10:15 (177854)
Sounds good to me scottr. I am from the 60's so let us make love not war.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEDr. Zuckerman on 7/05/05 at 10:23 (177855)
This is a game I have seen posters play in the past and probaby in the future. If its not taken care of quickly then the problem continues. This is a serious issue that Dr. Ed has brought up and its real. This all started with my post involving the TECH administration of ESWT on elbows from Dr. Scott's orginal post. The post immediately became mean with Elyse's comment against the podiatric profession. This is where you should have stepped in told Elyse to be nice or leave.
What can you do well I have found when you remove the problem the board works well. The problem is so clear I hope I don't have to point it out to you.
Re: correctionScott R on 7/05/05 at 10:32 (177858)
I was just reviewing the thread and realized Dr Ed's first post did not break the truce. It was Elyse that had to have a parting shot. Dr Ed's 2nd post (response) was also OK but her second response tried to escalate negative feelings again. So, eventhough I think Dr Ed has enough faults, it was all Elyse in at least this thread. OK, let's end it here, with this post.
Re: correctionRalph on 7/05/05 at 10:51 (177862)
I hope you are getting Psychologist fees for your interpretations.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEScott R on 7/05/05 at 11:17 (177867)
Dr Z, I can only go by the posts that are shown to me. No one pointed out any posts of Elyse that I thought were bad. I've told Dr Ed 20 times in email not to reply to these people because then it's just between the two of them and it's harder for me to trace fault back to the beginning. Instead of talking to these people, ya'll should reply to their posts with only 'scottr' or 'scott r'.
Their arguments go back to the beginning of June. As things gradually break down and fault becomes impossible to trace, how am I supposed to choose someone for blocking? When these things occur, you experienced posters should call the truce and recommend not replying to each other if it's always going to end in an argument. Then ignore their posts and show me where they violate the truce. Then I can call it harassment and block someone. In fact a third party can call for the truce, saying he or she is tired of seeing the same two people get into arguments.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEDr. Zuckerman on 7/05/05 at 11:57 (177868)
Good point. I will take your advice.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEERalph on 7/05/05 at 13:23 (177871)
The one thing that we don't know for certain is does Dr. Ed. really have cause for alarmed and have enough evidence of libel that someone would take his case.
Sometimes I think he just uses the threat of legal action to scare a poster that is posting in a negatvie fashion.
The one thing he should remember is that if indeed he persues some type of action through the courts his entire medical practice becomes an open book. Everything from his financial records to the number of Pain RX's he writes can come under the scrutiny of our legal system. Even the advice he provides here becomes part and parcel of any legal action because this is where he is saying he was slandered.
A counter suit is always a possibility. Could a question of whether he is he practicing medicine on line here or just providing information come into play. You bet. Perfect question for these times of internet usage.
Not one of the doctors here provides their own disclaimer and that could become a very important part of any legal action that he decided to take to court.
I don't think many doctors like going to court unless they definately have something to gain. These are the ones that are paid expert witnesses or have such slam dunk cases that its a walk in the dark for their attornies. I'm no attorney, but I'm not certain that Dr. Ed has that slam dunk case with Elyse, but he sure could open himself and his practice up to a lot of scrutiny.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEEd Davis, DPM on 7/05/05 at 15:39 (177875)
Ralph and Scott:
No one, in my opinion, wants to go to court. We do want to see the site moderated in such a fashion that doctors can spend their time answering heel pain sufferers questions, not getting into arguments with individuals who seem to have a need to vent their frustrations. I can understand that Elyse feels hurt by the doctors that had wronged her and they happened to be podiatrists. She has shown appreciation for the doctors on the board and we appreciate that but sometimes forgot that not only are we human being too but practitioners with reputations to protect.
I did email Scott Roberts some of the posts in question. This is a part time venture for him and perhaps he needs to think about putting in place, a moderator who can determine what content is appropriate and what is not.
Scott has stated repeatedly, before you arrived, stated 'stay on track.'
Keeping posters 'on track' especially on a site this big is the job of the moderator. I am unsure who Scott is using as a moderator but a moderator, too, is a human who needs to make judegement calls. I would consider the moderator to be like an employee, giving them an 'employee manual' with very specific guidlines to follow.
Re: correctionEd Davis, DPM on 7/05/05 at 15:44 (177876)
Read my prior post concerning the need for a moderator. That is based on being on this site for almost four years. We have had many altercations and each time, those altercations detract from the mission of the site.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEDr. Z on 7/05/05 at 16:29 (177878)
Who ever is talking about a legal case. Ralph this is exactly the type of post that serves no purpose but to incite and add just more negatively to this site called heelspurs.com
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEscott r on 7/05/05 at 16:47 (177879)
Dr Ed, I am the only one who can settle disputes and calls for banning. The other moderator just deletes the absurd posts. After looking at the history of posts from elyse, i can see why you would get annoyed and send me examples of posts that weren't the most friendly and suggest banning. But since i am not following all the other posts, i am not able to see the full context. Without a clear trend of evil posting, i can't ban. There were almost 300 posts with 'elyse' somewhere in them in the past month, with a trend of something wrong, but nothing clear that would justify banning. I would have to read all of them to determine if someone apparently evil was really just baited into it. Also, kind words and disclaimers peppered in a post can dilute nastiness and obscure underlying evil intent. It's just too difficult a task. The only solution in these cases is to stop posting to each other. Agree to disagree and leave each other alone. Then i can more easily follow things and stop harassment.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEDr. Z on 7/05/05 at 16:54 (177881)
How much is about heel pain and how much is about how podiatrists are doing this and doing that. IF it smells bad it ususally is bad. I smell something really bad or stupid but both should be banned.
Re: ScottREd Davis, DPM on 7/05/05 at 17:47 (177886)
Again, you have grown a sizeable 'business' at this site and one of the hallmarks of a good businessman is his ability to delegate. The person you delegate to needs a firm (written) set of guidlines that no one but yourself would be better at drafting.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEERalph on 7/05/05 at 17:57 (177888)
I'm sorry but I certainly thought you spoke about a trip to court for Elyse because you thought she slandered your name in a public forum.
If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but that was the impression I got from that first thread exchange between her and you. I believe you said something about Scott having her IP address and you could find her and sue.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEERalph on 7/05/05 at 18:00 (177889)
Explaination probably better posted with Dr. Z at the top instead of Dr. Ed. Dr. Z asked the question.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEEd Davis, DPM on 7/06/05 at 00:41 (177895)
If I was forced into a corner, I would have done so but ScottR has intervened on behalf of everyone here saving everyone the trouble, time and expense. Hopefully he will follow through on some of my suggestions. Sorry Ralph, nothing too exciting is going to happen here but stay posted.
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEEEd Davis, DPM on 7/06/05 at 00:44 (177896)
The last thing ScottR wants on this site is a 'soap opera' as it detracts from the purpose of the site. As ScottR has repeated 'stay on subject.' Now, I hope that ScottR is considering my suggestions or some of his own to keep things 'on course.'
Re: Chlidren.....PLEEEEAAAAAASSSSSEEEEERalph on 7/06/05 at 07:18 (177906)
You may have felt like you were in a corner, but there really was another option 'just don't respond'. It's difficult to continue word exchanges and esculate anything if there is only one person posting. It's like they are talking to themselves.
I'm moving off this topic because I think there was enough said already.
Re: Dr Ed and Elysemarie on 7/07/05 at 18:08 (178024)
I'll drink to that!
Re: Dr Ed and ElyseLiboralis on 7/09/05 at 15:55 (178101)
Maybe the answer is that ALL the Doctors refrain from answering any ESWT questions for 1 week. For some reason the ESWT board is a source of stuff. The other lady that doesnt post anymore (P) was on a mission to slam ESWT and many times it crossed the line into personal.
It is easy for some to give advice to Dr Z or ED about how they need to drop it or ignore it etc. The ones giving that advice I would ask you, what if everyone on here knew your name location and job. Say that folks could directly use your name in calling you out ( I dont mean constructive debate but things that are wrong and we all know it when we see it)