Re: Steve Goldstein's Post of Today

[Guest guest]

Regardless of content (unless directly vulgur), our views (and yours)

have always been and will continue to be welcome here. That does not

mean that the response will be kind, correct, or specific to you. My

suggestion is to say what you need to to vent, find information,

respond, think things out or whatever you need to in order to get

healthy.. and ignore the posts unrelated. Good luck!

Love,

Sue

post op 9/11/01

Dr. Warden

> I should feel gratified that Hazem Elariny's love-blinded loyalists

> are so threatened by me that they find it necessary to mount a

sleaze

> campaign against me. I'm an infrequent poster–just one post every

> couple of months or so–but I'm now being flamed to an extent I don't

> believe I've seen happen to anyone on this list since I joined.

I've

> hit the big time.

>

> I have made no secret of the circumstances under which I ceased to

be

> an Elariny patient. I have made no secret of my opposition to

> Elariny's advocacy of the stand-alone sleeve gastrectomy.

> I have not hesitated to post about both on more than one occasion.

> So why, and about what, am I being " outed " ?

>

> Steve Goldstein did not reply to my original post last week

> about " the fallibility of surgeons. " (The point of that post,

> ironically, was that a patient can have an experience with a surgeon

> that's very different from someone else's experience with that

> surgeon without either becoming blind to the surgeon's shortcomings

> or attacking the other patient.) When M. posted a reply to my

> post that showed she had apparently misunderstood me to say that

> Elariny was no longer doing the BPD/DS, Steve posted a reply that

> took issue with several of the points I'd made about Elariny's

> practice--and then asked me if I was " still " pursuing a lawsuit

> against Elariny.

>

> I am not suing Elariny, and have not sued him in the past, as I said

> in my reply to Steve's post. I then asked him to continue the

> discussion with me privately–thus showing Steve more courtesy than

he

> had shown and is showing me.

>

> Where had he heard that I was suing Elariny? In an informal, oral

> discussion group, Steve replied. Who'd said it? Steve didn't

> remember. How did that person acquire the information? From a post

> to another list–and under a different name. Which list? Steve

> didn't remember. What name? Steve didn't remember. How did the

> person know that it was I posting under a different name? Steve

> didn't know. Had he seen the post? Steve had not.

>

> In other words, Steve had posted gossip to the list as fact, having

> made no effort to verify his allegation before doing so. That's a

> reckless thing for any responsible, intelligent adult to do; it's a

> surprising thing for a list moderator to do.

>

> Nor did Steve ask my permission to post my private e-mails to him to

> the list.

>

> Before this episode, Steve and I had exchanged a few friendly

private

> e-mails. If he really wanted to know if I was suing Elariny, why

> post such a question to the list? Why not just e-mail me? Steve's

> question was responsive to nothing I had written, to nothing anyone

> else had written. When I first saw the question, I could think of

> only one purpose for it: to batter my credibility as a critic of

> Elariny, by imputing a financial motive to me. That suspicion is

> now a certainty.

>

> Steve's pluckings from Elariny's page on the AMOS website don't

> substantiate his allegation that I am or ever was a litigant against

> Elariny. They don't show that Miss CLF or Kay Bee Too is, are, was,

> or were so involved, either. And, they don't explain why Steve saw

> fit to target me in the first place. If we can't exchange

> information and, yes, criticism about DS surgeons without fear of

> being personally targeted ourselves, why are we here?

>

> Steve's post doesn't disprove a single thing I said about the way

> Elariny abandoned me after my surgery was canceled due to his

> inefficiency. It doesn't make Elariny's sleeve gastrectomy any more

> efficacious as a means to permanent weight loss. It doesn't make

> Elariny an hour more mature or his judgment a whit better.

>

> I am a witness to the way Elariny dismissed me from his care, and

> Steve isn't, so he can't attack me for that. There's plenty of

> evidence in posts on the DS-Elariny list from current Elariny

> patients that he's encouraging people to opt for the stand-alone

> sleeve gastrectomy, so Steve can't attack me for that. I cited

> chapter and verse from the DS-Elariny list for my claim that Elariny

> has offered to intentionally disable the pylorus, including Steve's

> own contribution on the subject, so Steve can't attack me for that.

> When you can't attack the argument, attack the person. It's an

> ancient stratagem.

>

> Nothing can be done here about oral gossip among members of a

support

> group, but when gossip about a member of this list is posted to the

> list as fact, by a moderator, I say, " Foul. "

>

> I haven't researched the issue of whether Elariny's disclosures to

> Steve and possibly others constitute a violation of patient

> confidentiality, but at the very least Elariny showed poor judgment

> in the telling. Whoops! Fodder for another " negative " post!

>

> And if you thought, Steve, that I would unsubscribe from the list,

or

> stop posting " negative " things about your favorite surgeon whenever

I

> see a need to do so–

>

> Think again.