Guest guest Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 I suppose so, , if you believe that " Swinging Chickens, " " Conga-Rats, " and " Happy Dance " posts are the all that there is to advocating the cause of WLS. Personally, I believe that censorship (yet again) is what degrades the group. Are we going down that road yet again? Nick in Sage, who is not a moderator, thus has limited rights to express himself and cannot go on his own power trip. RE: health care rights bill > > Get real on your antipolitical thing! > > Nick, > > My " antipolitical thing " , as you call it, is a list rule. It is intended > to prevent fame wars tat are unrelated to the topic at hand which is DS > support and education. > > I stated that I see the connection in this thread, but also said I hoped > the thread wouldn't degenerate. > > Nick -- you are causing this thread to now degenerate, aren't you? Hmm? > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 Nick, The point of my friendly moderator note was simply to try to remind folks not to let the discussion of the " politics of getting WLS " degenerate into a polarized discussion that would ultimately end up having nothing to do with WLS. Religion and politics are two topics that are rife with potential to degenerate into completely unrelated junk that doesn't help anyone. All I was trying to do was gently ask folks to stay on point with the issue as it related to WLS. I'm not sure why this request on my part has caused you to throw a temper tantrum. I want this list to help people. I have been on this list almost since its inception. I created and continue to maintain the DS website out of a desire to help my DS friends, and it can be a lot of work at times. And now I have you implying that I'm on a " power trip " simply because I want to help keep things on an even keel on this list. Please try to get some perspective as to why we're here. I would appreciate if if you wouldn't presume to know my motivations for remaining here to help people long after my surgery and weight loss are finished. > I suppose so, , if you believe that " Swinging Chickens, " > " Conga-Rats, " and " Happy Dance " posts are the all that there is to > advocating the cause of WLS. > > Personally, I believe that censorship (yet again) is what degrades the > group. Are we going down that road yet again? > > Nick in Sage, who is not a moderator, thus has limited rights to express > himself and cannot go on his own power trip. > > > RE: health care rights bill > > > > > Get real on your antipolitical thing! > > > > Nick, > > > > My " antipolitical thing " , as you call it, is a list rule. It is intended > > to prevent fame wars tat are unrelated to the topic at hand which is DS > > support and education. > > > > I stated that I see the connection in this thread, but also said I hoped > > the thread wouldn't degenerate. > > > > Nick -- you are causing this thread to now degenerate, aren't you? Hmm? > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________ > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 > The point of my friendly moderator note was simply to try to remind > folks not to let the discussion of the " politics of getting WLS " > degenerate into a polarized discussion that would ultimately end up > having nothing to do with WLS. My point, , is that eliminating politics from discussion here eliminates an important aspect of advocacy for people who have coverage that is denied. This IS related to WLS. I could care less about other aspects of politics for discussion here. As far as I can see, the political discussion has related to WLS. Thus your protest was unneeded. Religion and politics are two topics > that are rife with potential to degenerate into completely unrelated > junk that doesn't help anyone. Only religion and politics???? Hmmmmmmm. > I'm not sure why this request on my part has caused you to throw a > temper tantrum. Labeling the opposition in this way is not appropriate, . I want this list to help people. Then don't be so quick to try to put a wet blanket on relevant discussion. I have been on this > list almost since its inception. I created and continue to maintain > the DS website out of a desire to help my DS friends, and it can be a > lot of work at times. How long you have been here is not relevant. If you want to help your DS friends, you will surely want to have all issues related to WLS discussed. And now I have you implying that I'm on > a " power trip " simply because I want to help keep things on an even > keel on this list. Does an " even keel " mean that you get to limit discussion of relevant information? I would hate to think that. > > Please try to get some perspective as to why we're here. You might just want to read this one (above) yourself. I would > appreciate if if you wouldn't presume to know my motivations for > remaining here to help people long after my surgery and weight loss > are finished. I have no idea what your motivations are. I can only evaluate your actions. Best - Nick in Sage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 > > > The point of my friendly moderator note was simply to try to > > remind folks not to let the discussion of the " politics of > > getting WLS " degenerate into a polarized discussion that would > > ultimately end up having nothing to do with WLS. > > My point, , is that eliminating politics from discussion here > eliminates an important aspect of advocacy for people who have > coverage that is denied. This IS related to WLS. And I never tried to squelch WLS-related discussions, Nick. If you can't understand my point, I'm not sure how better to explain it. If you look at the message I was initially REPLYING to when I made my " moderator note " , THAT message had nothing to do with WLS, and was wandering afield into debate completely unrelated to WLS. THAT is what I was cautioning about. You are wrong to infer that I want to squelch anything remotely " political " . You took offense and flew off the handle without noticing the context in which I initially spoke up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2001 Report Share Posted June 30, 2001 , if this is truly the case, then I will shut up and I extend to you my humblest apology. Let's keep the dialog going on WLS, political action and HMO reform. Best- Nick in Sage Re: List Degradation > > > > > > The point of my friendly moderator note was simply to try to > > > remind folks not to let the discussion of the " politics of > > > getting WLS " degenerate into a polarized discussion that would > > > ultimately end up having nothing to do with WLS. > > > > My point, , is that eliminating politics from discussion here > > eliminates an important aspect of advocacy for people who have > > coverage that is denied. This IS related to WLS. > > And I never tried to squelch WLS-related discussions, Nick. If you > can't understand my point, I'm not sure how better to explain it. > > If you look at the message I was initially REPLYING to when I made > my " moderator note " , THAT message had nothing to do with WLS, and was > wandering afield into debate completely unrelated to WLS. THAT is > what I was cautioning about. You are wrong to infer that I want to > squelch anything remotely " political " . You took offense and flew off > the handle without noticing the context in which I initially spoke up. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.