Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 > yep.. its MUCH more mature to equate said list members with rude, > rowdy teenagers while posting to an open list... this was > completely uncalled for- they kept it private, so should you. > If it bugs you that much, filter those folk out of your mailbox > or just hit delete w/out reading it. But keep it OFF the list. > Sheesh. That's a very interesting double standard you have going there. On the one hand, Deb equated Dr. Ren with a BUTCHER, " while posting to an open list " but you signed the petition to " uncensor " her. On the other hand, Nan equates a list member who stoops to vulgar hate mail with " rude, rowdy teenagers while posting to an open list " and you jump on her and demand that she keep it off the list. Didn't Dr. Ren do whatever she did " OFF the list? " So why don't you demand that Deb keep it " OFF the list " as well? Hmmm... On the one hand, Deb made statements which directly threatened a doctor's standing in her profession, as well as her ability to earn a living... .... On the other hand, Nan pointed out that certain list members have sent her hate mail for the crime of daring to express her opinion. And let me make sure I've got this right... Deb is a victim/hero, but Nan is a villain? WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC OF THIS TO ME? On the other hand, don't bother trying. You will fail. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 > That's a very interesting double standard you have going there. Its not a double standard at all. I think it was a very passive-aggressive sideswipe bid for sympathy. > > On the one hand, Deb equated Dr. Ren with a BUTCHER, " while posting > to an open list " but you signed the petition to " uncensor " her. > > On the other hand, Nan equates a list member who stoops to vulgar > hate mail with " rude, rowdy teenagers while posting to an open list " > and you jump on her and demand that she keep it off the list. > Until you have walked in Deb's shoes, reserve judgement. Nan's comments were not called for & very childish. Deb is angry over something that affects her entire life. Nan had a bad day & e " some list members " are being mean to her. You figure it out. > Didn't Dr. Ren do whatever she did " OFF the list? " So why don't you > demand that Deb keep it " OFF the list " as well? > Dr Ren has not been emailing Deb. If surgery counts as things that one cannot discuss on-list, then I suppose that postops can no longer answer questions for preops... using your logic. > Hmmm... > > On the one hand, Deb made statements which directly threatened a > doctor's standing in her profession, as well as her ability to earn a > living... Funny... I haven't noticed too many folks refusing to make appointments with Ren.... > > ... On the other hand, Nan pointed out that certain list members have > sent her hate mail for the crime of daring to express her opinion. AS OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP HAVE DONE TO ME. IT IS NOT LIST-APPROPRIATE. > > And let me make sure I've got this right... > > Deb is a victim/hero, but Nan is a villain? Nan is not a villan... but the comment WAS petty and passive-aggressive. Deb is no hero, but she deserves the right to speak. > > WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC OF THIS TO ME? > > On the other hand, don't bother trying. You will fail. > Yep... like parachutes, minds only function when they are OPEN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 > Until you have walked in Deb's shoes, reserve judgement. Nan's > comments were not called for & very childish. Deb is angry over > something that affects her entire life. Nan had a bad day & " some > list members " are being mean to her. You figure it out. I don't judge Deb. I think her anger is quite justified and I hope she has good attorneys. She is going to need a great deal of medical care for the rest of her life, and that is going to be quite expensive. But if she persists in libeling her surgeon, she is likely to invite an easy countersuit that will wipe out the recompense to which I believe she is entitled, and which she will need to pay for her long-term care. Anyone who cares about her should not want her to do this to herself. I realize that Deb feels her life has been destroyed. In her position I would probably feel exactly the same way. She has the right to seek recompense through the legal system, and she most certainly has the right to vent her feelings. But she doesn't have the right to seek revenge -- to try to damage her surgeon's life in retaliation for the wrong she believes was done to her. That is clearly what she was trying to do with her " butcher " comments, among others. In addition, Deb's posts jeopardize the very existence of this list, since, as pointed out, Yahoo would shut this group down in a minute if the doctor's lawyers sent them a letter of complaint. Nan had a long and exhausting day of testing at the hospital, and then came home to find her email box full of hate mail from members of this so-called " support " group. The hate mail was sent to her in an attempt to keep her from expressing her opinions on this list -- to silence her. So she vented to another member of this " support " group. For that you chastise her further, in yet another attempt to silence her. By the way, using Yahoo's services to send hate mail is also a violation of the terms of service. So, if Nan had really felt like being passive-aggressive, she could have simply forwarded the emails to Yahoo's abuse department, and Yahoo quite possibly would have banned the offenders from Yahoo Groups. I think I'm beginning to understand your " logic. " Deb jeopardizes her financial future, as well as the future existence of this group, and that's okay with you, but it's not okay for Nan to comment on it in any way with which you do not agree. Nan should be silenced. The list members who sent Nan the hate mail violated the TOS and jeopardized their standing as members of Yahoo Groups, but that's okay, so long as Nan does not complain about it to the group. Again, Nan should be silenced. It seems to me that your true agenda is simply to silence anyone who disagrees with you. How sad. > If surgery counts as things that > one cannot discuss on-list, then I suppose that postops can no > longer answer questions for preops... using your logic. That's really rather a silly statement. Let me try to explain this again, since you seem to be having so much resistance to understanding. Deb has a perfect right to express her feelings about her surgery or her surgeon. She can say: " I hate Dr. X. " " I'm very angry at Dr. X. " " I wish Dr. X had never been born. " etc... Similarly, Deb is free to share with us any factual information she has regarding the surgery. For example: " I went to sleep expecting to have a BPD/DS, but that is not what I received. " " My health care proxy was never used. " " Dr. X removed my pyloric valve. " " I have constant dumping syndrome. " etc... BUT, Deb does not have the right to make statements of fact for which she has no knowledge, nor does she have the right to characterize Dr. X in ways she cannot prove to be true. For example, she does not have the right to say: " Dr. X is a butcher. " " Dr. X butchered me. " " Dr. X is incompetent. " > > On the one hand, Deb made statements which directly threatened a > > doctor's standing in her profession, as well as her ability to > > earn a living... > Funny... I haven't noticed too many folks refusing to make > appointments with Ren.... Even if you had the ability to count the people NOT making appointments with Dr. Ren as a result of Deb's statements, it doesn't matter. All Dr. Ren needs to prove is that Deb defamed her to a third party or parties in such a way as to damage her reputation. I dare say that Deb has accomplished that much. > > ... On the other hand, Nan pointed out that certain list members > > have sent her hate mail for the crime of daring to express her > > opinion. > AS OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP HAVE DONE TO ME. IT IS NOT > LIST-APPROPRIATE. Well, you are getting closer to reason, by a little bit at least. I think that the correct statement is that sending hate mail to list members IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT ALL, ESPCIALLY SINCE IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE YAHOO GROUPS TERMS OF SERVICE! As I pointed out before, by uncovering the offenders here, rather than to Yahoo's abuse department, Nan was letting them off easy. All of the hate-mailers out there should think long and hard about whether Nan would let them off that easy again if they repeat their assaultive scribblings. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT. > Deb is no hero, but she deserves the right to speak. Yes, she certainly deserves the right to speak. But the right to speak is not absolute, for Deb, or for any of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 You know, what the whole lot of you have failed to notice was that post of mine yesterday was not about anything but how I was feeling and was a commiseration with a fellow list member who was also feeling lousy. So much for your understanding about what a support group should be for. Someone also posted that Deb got her head taken off for posting about how she felt -- Just exactly what a number of folks on the DEB reinstatement list did to me. There is no difference in what happened, just in degree. Of the dozen or so folks on the Deb list, only a couple are going postal on me and anyone else who has the unmitigated gall to disagree with them to even a slight degree. These select few have no common sense, no understanding about support not necessarily meaning total agreement and rubber stamping of another's behavior. I personally would appreciate it if they would go found an unmoderated list for whatever they want to talk about and leave the rest of us alone. I dare say any one of you who got the stuff in their e-mail that I did yesterday would be posting to the list moderators and demanding the perpetrator be expelled for rank insensitivity and emotional terrorism. That select few is desperately in need of some emotional and spiritual growth, I really hope someone feels inclined to pray for you lot, I won't waste my energy on you any more. Nan E. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 Way to go Tom!!!!! > Re: Weight Insults-Lili > > > > > > yep.. its MUCH more mature to equate said list members with rude, > > rowdy teenagers while posting to an open list... this was > > completely uncalled for- they kept it private, so should you. > > If it bugs you that much, filter those folk out of your mailbox > > or just hit delete w/out reading it. But keep it OFF the list. > > Sheesh. > > > That's a very interesting double standard you have going there. > > On the one hand, Deb equated Dr. Ren with a BUTCHER, " while posting > to an open list " but you signed the petition to " uncensor " her. > > On the other hand, Nan equates a list member who stoops to vulgar > hate mail with " rude, rowdy teenagers while posting to an open list " > and you jump on her and demand that she keep it off the list. > > Didn't Dr. Ren do whatever she did " OFF the list? " So why don't you > demand that Deb keep it " OFF the list " as well? > > Hmmm... > > On the one hand, Deb made statements which directly threatened a > doctor's standing in her profession, as well as her ability to earn a > living... > > ... On the other hand, Nan pointed out that certain list members have > sent her hate mail for the crime of daring to express her opinion. > > And let me make sure I've got this right... > > Deb is a victim/hero, but Nan is a villain? > > WOULD SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LOGIC OF THIS TO ME? > > On the other hand, don't bother trying. You will fail. > > Tom > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 Amen Nan! --- leafyleaves@... wrote: > You know, what the whole lot of you have failed to > notice was that post of > mine yesterday was not about anything but how I was > feeling and was a > commiseration with a fellow list member who was also > feeling lousy. So much > for your understanding about what a support group > should be for. Someone > also posted that Deb got her head taken off for > posting about how she felt -- > Just exactly what a number of folks on the DEB > reinstatement list did to me. > There is no difference in what happened, just in > degree. > Of the dozen or so folks on the Deb list, only a > couple are going postal on > me and anyone else who has the unmitigated gall to > disagree with them to even > a slight degree. These select few have no common > sense, no understanding > about support not necessarily meaning total > agreement and rubber stamping of > another's behavior. I personally would appreciate it > if they would go found > an unmoderated list for whatever they want to talk > about and leave the rest > of us alone. I dare say any one of you who got the > stuff in their e-mail > that I did yesterday would be posting to the list > moderators and demanding > the perpetrator be expelled for rank insensitivity > and emotional terrorism. > That select few is desperately in need of some > emotional and spiritual > growth, I really hope someone feels inclined to pray > for you lot, I won't > waste my energy on you any more. > Nan E. > __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 Thank you.. I don't dislike Nan, & feel badly that she had a hard day & was then mailbombed with nasty emails.. I was commenting more on the fact that, rather than confront them directly & say " back off " , she chose to bring it up out of context.. comparing the two situations & then saying, " you can't reply in kind or you drop to your level " after comparing them to unruly teens is rather.. bringing herself down to their level. When I was hate mailed concerning Deb, I responded calmly & defended my point of view. As she was (in my case) implying that my defense of Deb would somehow jinx her upcoming surgery with Dr Ren, I tried to reassure her.. but maintaining the right to have an opinion. My point was that private emails are not list material. Just because I support Deb doesn't mean that I condone everything she's done. Nor does it mean I condone hate mail, flaming, or anything else of the sort. I was a bit confused as to how you had equated the two, until I realized that you thought it was because defenders of Deb wrote the hate mail. Nope.. they were wrong, too. Thanks for taking a second look. Hugs, Liane > > Until you have walked in Deb's shoes, reserve judgement. Nan's > > comments were not called for & very childish. Deb is angry over > > something that affects her entire life. Nan had a bad day & " some > > list members " are being mean to her. You figure it out. > > I don't judge Deb. I think her anger is quite justified and I hope > she has good attorneys. She is going to need a great deal of medical > care for the rest of her life, and that is going to be quite > expensive. But if she persists in libeling her surgeon, she is > likely to invite an easy countersuit that will wipe out the > recompense to which I believe she is entitled, and which she will > need to pay for her long-term care. Anyone who cares about her > should not want her to do this to herself. > > I realize that Deb feels her life has been destroyed. In her > position I would probably feel exactly the same way. She has the > right to seek recompense through the legal system, and she most > certainly has the right to vent her feelings. But she doesn't have > the right to seek revenge -- to try to damage her surgeon's life in > retaliation for the wrong she believes was done to her. That is > clearly what she was trying to do with her " butcher " comments, among > others. > > In addition, Deb's posts jeopardize the very existence of this list, > since, as pointed out, Yahoo would shut this group down in a > minute if the doctor's lawyers sent them a letter of complaint. > > Nan had a long and exhausting day of testing at the hospital, and > then came home to find her email box full of hate mail from members > of this so-called " support " group. The hate mail was sent to her in > an attempt to keep her from expressing her opinions on this list -- > to silence her. So she vented to another member of this " support " > group. For that you chastise her further, in yet another attempt to > silence her. > > By the way, using Yahoo's services to send hate mail is also a > violation of the terms of service. So, if Nan had really felt like > being passive-aggressive, she could have simply forwarded the emails > to Yahoo's abuse department, and Yahoo quite possibly would have > banned the offenders from Yahoo Groups. > > I think I'm beginning to understand your " logic. " > > Deb jeopardizes her financial future, as well as the future existence > of this group, and that's okay with you, but it's not okay for Nan to > comment on it in any way with which you do not agree. Nan should be > silenced. > > The list members who sent Nan the hate mail violated the TOS and > jeopardized their standing as members of Yahoo Groups, but that's > okay, so long as Nan does not complain about it to the group. Again, > Nan should be silenced. > > It seems to me that your true agenda is simply to silence anyone who > disagrees with you. How sad. > > > > If surgery counts as things that > > one cannot discuss on-list, then I suppose that postops can no > > longer answer questions for preops... using your logic. > > That's really rather a silly statement. Let me try to explain this > again, since you seem to be having so much resistance to > understanding. > > Deb has a perfect right to express her feelings about her surgery or > her surgeon. She can say: > > " I hate Dr. X. " > " I'm very angry at Dr. X. " > " I wish Dr. X had never been born. " > etc... > > Similarly, Deb is free to share with us any factual information she > has regarding the surgery. For example: > > " I went to sleep expecting to have a BPD/DS, but that is not what I > received. " > " My health care proxy was never used. " > " Dr. X removed my pyloric valve. " > " I have constant dumping syndrome. " > etc... > > > BUT, Deb does not have the right to make statements of fact for which > she has no knowledge, nor does she have the right to characterize Dr. > X in ways she cannot prove to be true. For example, she does not > have the right to say: > > " Dr. X is a butcher. " > " Dr. X butchered me. " > " Dr. X is incompetent. " > > > > > > On the one hand, Deb made statements which directly threatened a > > > doctor's standing in her profession, as well as her ability to > > > earn a living... > > Funny... I haven't noticed too many folks refusing to make > > appointments with Ren.... > > Even if you had the ability to count the people NOT making > appointments with Dr. Ren as a result of Deb's statements, it doesn't > matter. All Dr. Ren needs to prove is that Deb defamed her to a > third party or parties in such a way as to damage her reputation. > > I dare say that Deb has accomplished that much. > > > > > ... On the other hand, Nan pointed out that certain list members > > > have sent her hate mail for the crime of daring to express her > > > opinion. > > AS OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP HAVE DONE TO ME. IT IS NOT > > LIST-APPROPRIATE. > > Well, you are getting closer to reason, by a little bit at least. I > think that the correct statement is that sending hate mail to list > members IS NOT APPROPRIATE AT ALL, ESPCIALLY SINCE IT IS A VIOLATION > OF THE YAHOO GROUPS TERMS OF SERVICE! > > As I pointed out before, by uncovering the offenders here, rather > than to Yahoo's abuse department, Nan was letting them off easy. All > of the hate-mailers out there should think long and hard about > whether Nan would let them off that easy again if they repeat their > assaultive scribblings. I CERTAINLY WOULD NOT. > > > > > Deb is no hero, but she deserves the right to speak. > > Yes, she certainly deserves the right to speak. But the right to > speak is not absolute, for Deb, or for any of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.