 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Asthma / June 2007MASS MURDER OF A PERFECTLY GOOD NEWSGROUP
mcs. and instead of dealing with real consequences of pollution which probably affects respiratory and asthma and cancer occurance more then anything else besides smoking and obesity, we should all be looking for the next post about people being healthy in Mexico city and bacteria causes of my air filter turning black but gee I got a long wait for that. Medication companies and centers that profit after people are poisoned should accept less business if people leave conditions that cause them to get sick in the first place ( except of course mexico city) lol > mcs. > and instead of dealing with real consequences of pollution which probably > affects respiratory and asthma and cancer occurance more then anything else > besides smoking and obesity, we should all be looking for the next post > about people being healthy in Mexico city and bacteria causes of my air > filter turning black but gee I got a long wait for that. What you should be doing is educating yourself as to how our environment works, understanding asthma and what can be done to improve both. That is your goal right? Instead you turn a deaf ear to learning something that contradicts your beliefs. We all agree that pollution is not a good thing. The trouble is that you really have little knowledge about pollution or asthma. In order to benefit people you first have to learn everything you can both good and bad. You haven't done that. Instead you take guesses that sound good but are devoid of facts. How many council meetings on pollution and/or health issues have you attended? How many air quality and asthma research centers have you spoken with? How many have you joined up with and volunteered time to help with research? My guess is that would be ZERO. Doesn't interest you to learn. Just blame someone else for your problems. The liberal way! Miles, I had the head of harvard talk to me about global warming and he was featured on pbs special. I have seen from personal experiences runners do worse after running in this thinking they were superior to those who didn't get this pollution. I have seen so many different health problems correlated to amounts of particulate pollution ( there are links if one wants them) that any other message pales in comparison. I do know that often the professionals for asthma have other agendas like promoting meds so why should I care what an asthma meeting is about. I don't pretend to talk about all asthma, or all cancers or all anything, in fact I am promoting objective research to show that what I am saying is worse then what people think is the case however small that lot is. You think most know about particulate pollution and peoples health problems, I assure you thats not close to the case . Suffice to say when the worse areas of suffering for number of people with respiratory asthma and deaths have virtually nothing done to counter it or media report on it, I am hesitant to believe what some group god forbid with you in it that don't believe in co2 rising in the air has to say to churn the numbers. , I can include the doc with bacteria theory and anti bacteria meds. I have to admit I never believed any of this till I went to another asthma doctor and said everyday conditions in air cause the most onset asthma and I couldn't believe it. I never heard that before. Later of course I ran it by him about bacteria and said he never heard that for onset adult asthma and rarely knew any professional treat asthma with anti bacteria meds. Anyway instead of saying I am uneducated. why not promote the conditions where people have the most respiratory health. You know which cities tend to have that, and I don't need the asthma meetings to NOT tell me .. its the cities usually like Seattle with less particulate pollution. The safest biggest places with least particulatecpollution attracts allot of high housing prices. I never had anyone from an asthma association suggest to train in Denver or Colorado Springs but that might be what is needed and not telling people to take their meds. Soo before you think I am uneducated, some people have thanked me when I suggested they move and their asthma would improve under certain conditions. However certain myths seldom die and like me there will be millions of people who never knew why their asthma got worse. Perhaps when they test the theory about particulate pollution their health will improve. Thats way more then anything you suggested niles. wait for that. > What you should be doing is educating yourself as to how our environment > works, understanding asthma and what can be done to improve both. That is [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > help with research? My guess is that would be ZERO. Doesn't interest you > to learn. Just blame someone else for your problems. The liberal way! > Miles, I had the head of harvard talk to me about global warming and he > was featured on pbs special. Wow, the head of Harvard talked to you--you are an educated person, after all. How could we have doubted? Get better meds. > Wow, the head of Harvard talked to you--you are an educated person, after > all. How could we have doubted? Get better meds. Maybe if MCS talked to the head of Berkley? > Miles, I had the head of harvard talk to me about global warming A highly liberal biased university head?? lol. Your personal experiences mean very little. You're looking at a very small picture rather than educating yourself as to the far bigger picture. You refuse to look at data from around the world if it conflicts with your own beliefs. Your data you say correlates is often refuted by other studies you choose to ignore. > I do know that often the > professionals for asthma have other agendas like promoting meds Are you implying that pulmonologists get kickbacks from the drug companies and thus go against their oath in treating their patients? You do know that such practice is illegal and a Dr. can loose his or her license? You have no evidence of such conspiracy. You simply spew it because it fits your needs. Are you ever interested in actual facts? > so why > should I care what an asthma meeting is about. Because you would learn. I get the medical journals regarding pulmonology every 3 months. It shows the various studies, new treatments etc. and Dr.'s feedback. One of the more recent discussions is regarding lowering daily drug dosages of common asthma medications and showing an improvement with less...not more. That goes against your above conspiracy theory. You have no quest for knowledge on this matter do you? No desire to learn. That baffles me!! > all asthma, or all cancers or all anything, in fact I am promoting objective > research to show that what I am saying is worse That is simply NOT TRUE. You are looking for subjective research. Research that shows you ONLY what you want to hear. Objective would not be biased but thats not you at all. > You think most know about particulate > pollution and peoples health problems Many people do. You are not one of them and seem to resist learning anything about either one. For someone so interested in this it amazes me that you have no interest in attending meetings of groups researching these issues. No interest in talking with the very people involved...unless of course they agree with you...subjective research at its worst. > with you in it that don't believe in co2 rising in the air has to say to > churn the numbers. You refuse to comprehend what CO2 is, what produces it and where it goes. The amount of CO2 produced from pollution is miniscule compared to other sources of CO2. And you back people like Gore who feel they can be wasteful with their massive mansions, gas guzzling cars etc. as long as they are rich enough to buy the right people off. > another asthma doctor and said everyday conditions in air cause the most > onset asthma Generally its air quality inside the home that is worse than outside that causes this. > course I ran it by him about bacteria and said he never heard that for onset > adult asthma and rarely knew any professional treat asthma with anti > bacteria meds. This is true because Dr's prefer to treat with conventional methods. The concept of bacteria causing asthma is rather new and research is continuing. There is no single cause for asthma. > Anyway instead of saying I am uneducated. why not promote the > conditions where people have the most respiratory health. You know which > cities tend to have that, and I don't need the asthma meetings to NOT tell > me .. its the cities usually like Seattle with less particulate pollution. The occurrences of serious asthma problems do not correlate to cities with higher pollution levels. San Fransisco has a high number of people with asthma yet it's air is VERY clean. Most of the upper midwest has high numbers of asthmatics and its not just in polluted areas. One of the lowest areas for asthmatics is the California coastal regions. They are highly polluted. Your hypothosis (actually a guess) doesn't hold water. You refuse to educate yourself on other factors that contribute. Molds, pollens, dust etc. contribute far more than man caused issues. > high housing prices. I never had anyone from an asthma association suggest > to train in Denver or Colorado Springs but that might be what is needed and > not telling people to take their meds. Denver would be a horrible place for asthmatics. It has very high levels of mold and pollens. However, Dr's do suggest areas in far southern Colorado or west to Grand Junction, CO. Those areas are cold enough to limit molds have less pollen producing vegetation. > However certain myths seldom die and like me there will be millions of > people who never knew why their asthma got worse. Perhaps when they test the > theory about particulate pollution their health will improve. Thats way more > then anything you suggested niles. We agree that pollution is never a good thing. But your assumption that it's the leading cause of severe asthma is very wrong. There are other factors that contribute to a greater degree. liberal based university head of a particular department, featured on pbs and other reports on global warming. He was the guy who predicted a steep rise in pollution, co2 and temperatures for people in NE if more isn't done. as for liberal or conservative, the global warming debate is a done deal niles , we are not going back. More and more is going to be done, alternative energy is going to come to light in spite of your declarations of co2 being the same and rates of asthma in Mexico city showing pollution dont matter lol for some reason the people in the US are investing in alternative energy , companies are growing and the likes of people like you are growing less in importance . Republicans like you got voted out of office and the only problem is the dems are taking too long to change things also especially for those most affected by co2 and paritculate pollution . People who worry about cures for lung cancer and 10k walks would do better to worry about conditions that make people get it .People who worry about cures for asthma will never see it ever, especially for onset adult asthma because its the bodies response to breakdown of tissue and systems from constant exposure of pollution over time. Meds do help but its a bandaid approach. The smartest people avoid the situation instead of believing in staying in polluted areas and getting treated afterwards. I hope I added to that thought process. >> Miles, I had the head of harvard talk to me about global warming > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > it's the leading cause of severe asthma is very wrong. There are other > factors that contribute to a greater degree. > the global warming debate is a done deal > niles It will not be a done deal until there is proof the earth is warming because of man made pollutants. Currently there is only speculation and nothing more. We know so little about our environment and have data for only a little over 100 years with most of it inaccurate from technologically inferior methods. We know global weather patterns can cycle over 100's or 1000's of years yet our data is based on only a century. Hardly conclusive of anything. Instead of worrying about whether global warming exists or not, why not focus on just saying pollution isn't a good thing which we all agree on? Stop the division and work towards solutions that everyone understands and agrees with. > More and more is going to be done, > alternative energy is going to come to light in spite of your declarations > of co2 being the same and rates of asthma in Mexico city showing pollution > dont matter They do matter for those of us who wish to find real solutions to the problems we face. People such as yourself use knee jerk reactions and try to dictate so called solutions that don't attack the problem because you don't understand the problem. > lol for some reason the people in the US are investing in > alternative energy , companies are growing For the very reasons I have given you. The only ones that are going to fund change are consumers. Thats where the money is, not in government mandated changes. High gas prices cause people to conserve and fund alternative measures. Not because you feel your asthma is worse in PA because of air quality. > Republicans like you got voted out of > office And the Dem controlled congress' approval rating is plunging rapidly ever since! > and the only problem is the dems are taking too long to change things Gee really? Too funny! >> More and more is going to be done, alternative energy is going to come to >> light in spite of your declarations of co2 being the same and rates of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to dictate so called solutions that don't attack the problem because you > don't understand the problem. Knee jerk reactions? Look I sometimes generalize and I am open for debate but I stand by the most important parts like particulate pollution in my area, causes severe damage. Now whether other areas have the same exact formula for particulate pollution or not, I tend to think if they did, it would affect the same people negatively at the same rates. I said the point in which govt says so many people die from it and yet nothing much more is said is the point in which more needs to be done. Reporters ignore what makes asthma so bad to so many people . Over 136 million Americans â?" nearly half the population -- breathe polluted air. Breathing dirty air increases the risk of sickness, disease and even premature death. This is simply unacceptable. The American Lung Association is fighting hard and helping to get cleaner air for everyone. One out of eight Americans live in areas where ozone smog and particle pollution are so bad, so often, that the air quality failed, according to the American Lung Associationâ?Ts State of the Air: 2007 report so I would think having seen that and my take on particulate pollution we would see more done to stop the damage especially in areas where cities are on the list of worse polluted places over and over again.. For me to jump the gun and suggest all areas might have the exact same reaction and don't , don't necessarily mean its not doing damage. . Whats bad is having all these vast generalization and numbers often contradict and dilute the most important point.... and .... the whole crux of my posts that the damage pollution is causing is not fully described accurately and people in its way are not by any stretch of the imagination warned or even know why they get sick .yet they end up sick , unprotective unproductive and paying for this poison. >> lol for some reason the people in the US are investing in alternative >> energy , companies are growing [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Gee really? Too funny! > Knee jerk reactions? Look I sometimes generalize and I am open for debate > but I stand by the most important parts like particulate pollution in my > area, causes severe damage. Your area may indeed have pollution problems. But your attempt to link asthma to it can only be made by looking at the world at large. Thats where your guesses fall short. You have failed to do any real research into the matter and continue to show a complete lack of interest in conflicting scientific studies done elsewhere with regards to asthma and particulate pollution. >> Knee jerk reactions? Look I sometimes generalize and I am open for >> debate but I stand by the most important parts like particulate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > conflicting scientific studies done elsewhere with regards to asthma and > particulate pollution. Unfortunately, outdoor air quality is the lesser problem in the western world. I did my Master's level research working on air quality as there are concerns over a major industrial / petrochemical area on one side of the city I live in. Outdoor air quality hardly varied (as in not statistically significant) from a suburb upwind to the one downwind from the "polluters." The control suburb was selected to match the "problem" suburb as best as possible other than by location (upwind vs. downwind). Heck, even the asthma rates were similar... The air inside, where we spend more of our time, is generally far worse than the air outside...even downwind of a major industrial area. In fact, the apportionment of indoor sources failed to give a reasonable correlation coefficient as there was not enough variation in the data (the houses were too similar...including the levels of indoor pollutants). Sure, there are some cities and times where this is not the case (i.e. smog days) but to flat out say that some industrial polluter is the source of all evil is a generalization and wrong. Now, can we get back to discussing asthma? That's the reason most of us joined the alt.support.asthma newsgroup... >>Now, can we get back to discussing asthma? That's the reason most of us joined the alt.support.asthma newsgroup...<< Good luck with that request. They don't care what the purpose of the newsgroup is. It's all about them and their ego's. If they REALLY cared about people, they'd move this debate over to the proper group rather than hijacking this one, or they would take it to email, which really wouldn't feed their ego's, would it? You might want to killfile them. I realized after doing so the other day how late I was in taking this action. Instead of getting twenty new posts from these obsessed egomaniacal blowhards, I'm now only seeing posts from people who want to discuss asthma. That alone has reduced the pollution here for me. > Good luck with that request. They don't care what the purpose of the > newsgroup is. It's all about them and their ego's. If they REALLY cared > about people, they'd move this debate over to the proper group rather than > hijacking this one, or they would take it to email, which really wouldn't > feed their ego's, would it? Is the above your idea of valid, useful and informative posting? Good grief. Move your off topic irrelevant discussion to email!! Dang net-nanny's. > > Good luck with that request. They don't care what the purpose of the > > newsgroup is. It's all about them and their ego's. If they REALLY cared [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > grief. Move your off topic irrelevant discussion to email!! Dang > net-nanny's. It's like being downwind from an offgassing fetid, foul, funky, gamy, infested, lousy, musty, nasty, noxious, offensive, pestilential, poisonous, polluted, putrid, rancid, rank, reeking, rotten, smelly, stale, stenchful, stinking, tainted, vile, yechy mcspool. We would definitely be more flush without it. > The air inside, where we spend more of our time, is generally far worse > than the air outside...even downwind of a major industrial area. Bingo!! It's not the outside air thats the problem. It's the inside air quality. Most of the problems are factors generated INSIDE the house. Such as molds which are present in FAR greater amounts inside than outside. Most people do not do whats needed to improve air quality in their homes. air doesn't vary? I bet everything I own is affects vary. Every conceivable way I was ( and I am not even a scientists) able to get links show quality of air that is bad to more deaths.. more illness. People would have no need to care about cleaner emissions or greener energy if not of its effects. The tide to make diesel cleaner and areas cleaner is not only because of greenhouse effects. In almost every concievable area, from 10 k results to housing prices, the people downwind are at a distinct disadvantage. The way its allowed to continued is by ignoring the consequences and Presidents past abuse of his right to impose his substandards on the rest of us which is not ok since the Supreme Court says its not. You had to prove damages and states lawyers have said they have shown proof of harm and should win in future..beside the proof needed for the Supreme Court stating epa needs to do more to clean areas up that are more effected. I might have a long wait but I do know its exactly opposite what you say about effects. I think the effects are the most unbelivable contrasts as much as those from cig smoking if the comparisons were done. Philly is best example of that. Warning level air. commercial after commercial for asthma and nebulizers, most prescription meds, and most days with so called moderate or worse particulate pollution. >>> Knee jerk reactions? Look I sometimes generalize and I am open for >>> debate but I stand by the most important parts like particulate [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Now, can we get back to discussing asthma? That's the reason most of us > joined the alt.support.asthma newsgroup... > air doesn't vary? I bet everything I own is affects vary. > Every conceivable way I was ( and I am not even a scientists) able to get > links show quality of air that is bad to more deaths.. more illness. And I got links showing people living in highly polluted areas did not have worse asthma occurrences than average. Nature controls our air in far greater ways than man can ever achieve. >> Knee jerk reactions? Look I sometimes generalize and I am open for >> debate but I stand by the most important parts like particulate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > conflicting scientific studies done elsewhere with regards to asthma and > particulate pollution. I am coming late to this discussion, but: in measuring pollution, the US has a problem, when the EPA was started in the early '70's, and the the Clean Air act was passed, the only data base extant was from the Los Angles basin. Consequently, the laws and regulations concerning air pollution was based on this data. This was a problem, because air pollution is extremely dependent on local conditions. For instance, in Los Angles, the average residence time for a emitted air pollutant molecule is seven (7) days. In other cities, like Oklahoma city, the average residence time is only a matter of hours at most. In particulate matter, the important measurement is the pm10, the particulates that are small enough to get into your lungs, yet large enough to settle out (theoretically) during breathing. Phoenix does have high particulate levels, and it is primarily dirt, yet the rules apply the same as if the particulate was from burning coal. When I first started in the '70's we used to talk about the plume emitted from stacks, estimate the wind speed, estimate dispersion, and take measurements where the plume touched down, later we could measure directly at the stack. Today, you don't see any plumes from stacks. The air is much cleaner. I have asthma, and my grandson does too. I don't think pollutants in the enviroment were the cause. I have read that if your parents smoked your chances of getting asthma are higner though. j. >>> Knee jerk reactions? Look I sometimes generalize and I am open for >>> debate but I stand by the most important parts like particulate [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> conflicting scientific studies done elsewhere with regards to asthma and >> particulate pollution. Like? Please show me studies in the US? > I am coming late to this discussion, but: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > on this data. This was a problem, because air pollution is extremely > dependent on local conditions. Ok but those conditions somehow correlate to particulate and ozone pollution. The particulate pollution , at least on the east coast automatically make my asthma worse in moderate or worse levels. Now moderate or worse levels seems also to be the point that the epa warns those sensitive to limit activity outdoor. Lately in tests done, soot seems to be added to the equation based on the link that shows Philly on the list of virtually every most polluted top ten list. If I concluded then that particulate pollution from other areas cause the same number of respiratory deaths and asthma, corresponding to levels of particulate or how often people perhaps I am wrong. I assumed that the particulate pollution and its makeup was formulated the same way. However that doesn't prove that the particulate pollution in this area is not responsible for the vast majority of most asthma in the entire US maybe coupled with soot. I assume that if the particulate pollution on the east coast is the same for the most part on the East Coast, we still have allot to worry about. . In every conceivable way the people who are exposed to this are not only not protected from exposure or toxic consequences,they are most likely poisoned and in worse condition in almost every conceivable category of health. Before you tell me to prove it, I say prove it otherwise. If particulate pollution causes tens of thousands of deaths I would be way more concerned to know where, and how often and in what conditions do people die from this instead of worrying if I am exactly right or not. > For instance, in Los Angles, the average residence time for a emitted air > pollutant molecule is seven (7) days. In other cities, like Oklahoma [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Phoenix does have high particulate levels, and it is primarily dirt, yet > the rules apply the same as if the particulate was from burning coal. > When I first started in the '70's we used to talk about the plume emitted > from stacks, estimate the wind speed, estimate dispersion, and take [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The air is much cleaner. > I have asthma, and my grandson does too. I don't think pollutants in the > enviroment were the cause. > > I have read that if your parents smoked your chances of getting asthma are > higner though. Of course all you have to do except make guesses is to do comparitative studies much like you do to find the cause of illness from bad spinanch.. Its interesting these subjective opinions , withourt evidence,,, and you blame me when I give evidence? The city with most asthma and most asthma respiratory deaths, and most prescriptions also have probably the most times in a year the particulate pollution reaches moderate and added soot whatever that new category is. . The cities on east coast seem to produce the most asthma so obviously the common thread is pollution . If you think the air is cleaner , it might well be but not for people downwind with the most asthma! and coal pollution as we build more plants. It doesn't matter what one or two people here say. lawyers have proven the cases. They have a higher degree of proof to use then what I have said. They convinced a very conservative supreme court. I have seen the damages. I have known people tens of thousands who I see go to better air places to train. They don't need opinions without proof, they have their own. > j. > Like? Please show me studies in the US? I provided you one such study to which you dismissed because it did not list any PA city in the top 20 for asthmatics. You'll only believe studies that agree with your views and dismiss all else. > liberal based university head of a particular department, featured on pbs > and other reports on global warming. He was the guy who predicted a steep [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > staying in polluted areas and getting treated afterwards. I hope I added to > that thought process. There are two or more causes of global warming. Natural causes such as volcanic eruptions. According to the 2005 Time Almanac--there have been 47 major volcanic eruptions in the past 2000 years. I don't know how many minor volcanic eruptions we had during that period of time. Even if you stopped all use of fossil fuels, we could not prevent more volcanic eruptions. Cycles--Anyone that has taken a college Biology coure knows about all of those cycles (eras) that the earth has been through. We even had to memorize the major eras such as Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic and Precambrian. Some of those eras, the earth was very warm (global warming) and other eras were extremely cold (ice age). People were not burning fossil fuels during those eras that were extremely hot (global warming). There are some experts that the global warming that we now have is nothing more than a natural cycle. At least one expert is concerned that we may have a cycle of global cooling (eg another ice age) within the next hundred years. The last cause is related to the burning of fossil fuels. Al Gore is convinced that is the primary cause of global warming. Many experts agree that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to global warming. I agree. For the sake of discussion, let's say we 1. made it illegal to burn fossil fuels 2. made the operation of motor vehicle to be illegal 3. closed all power plants and factories that produce any products 4. made it illegal for people to cool or heat their homes After 20 years--do you think that we would still have global warming? Would the changes in those laws mentioned above cause volcanic eruptions to no longer occur? Would the changes in those laws mentioned above cause natural cycles to no longer occur? If we changed those laws in America, do you think that every country in the world would change their laws and no longer allow people in those countries to drive motor vehicles or use electricity? Did you know that while Al Gore was promoting his book and movie, that he flew in a private jet plane to many different cities. Do you believe that he would have done that if he was really concerned about global warming? Do you think that he would own about 5 different huge houses in various parts of the world if he was really concerned about global warming? Al Gore burns more fossil fuels in a year than most middle class people burn in their entire life times. jason You aren't "dealing" with anything, just yapping. In your thousands of useless postings, you haven't noticed that nobody has ever (not even once) replied that you have brought them new information. There's no "Wow, I didn't know that pollution was bad, thanks for letting me know." This is all about your getting to indulge your messiah complex and nothing more. > and instead of dealing with real consequences of pollution which probably > affects respiratory and asthma and cancer occurance more then anything [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> >> mcs. Add miles to the list since he seems to like adding to the pollution here. > Add miles to the list since he seems to like adding to the pollution here. You're keeping a list? You have way too much free time!! Some peoples kids. >> Add miles to the list since he seems to like adding to the pollution >> here. > > You're keeping a list? You have way too much free time!! Some peoples > kids. Based on the sheer volume of repetitive posting here , it isn't CEO who has the free time. One doesn't need a list, just a glance. I guess that it is being "hinted" that it is pointless to engage mcs in any attempt at meaningful discussion. It is tantamount to trying to reason with the recorded time message on the phone. I know that you are attempting to discredit the loon, but that presumes that he had any credibility in the first place. He doesn't. He is just another of myriad misson/conspiracy posters on usenet, and the mission is fed by response--at the moment, your response. Maybe I'm too subtle. Trying to argue with him is only adding to his posts and increasing the rubble here. They should take it to email and allow the group to get back to the topic of asthma. > Maybe I'm too subtle. Trying to argue with him is only adding to his posts > and increasing the rubble here. They should take it to email and allow the > group to get back to the topic of asthma. This is usenet. You're not going to like nor agree with every post or every one. If you can't seem to ignore then use your killfile and quit trying to be a net-nanny moderator. >> Maybe I'm too subtle. Trying to argue with him is only adding to his >> posts and increasing the rubble here. They should take it to email and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > every one. If you can't seem to ignore then use your killfile and quit > trying to be a net-nanny moderator. You're right, I should have kill-filed both of you long ago. It's just that (unlike mcs) I thought that you might return to discussing asthma at some point, and didn't want to miss a genuine discussion. Obviously, it's more important to you to continue your meaningless dialog with a mental case. plonk. > You're right, I should have kill-filed both of you long ago. Yes you should. Would be best and would stop your net-nanny tendencies. > It's just that > (unlike mcs) I thought that you might return to discussing asthma at some > point, and didn't want to miss a genuine discussion. This group would do far better without net-nanny moderator wanna-bes. Is this statement by you what you define as genuine discussion? You're no better than what you dislike. Why some people have so much trouble just ignoring what they don't like is amazing. You 'girls' have BOTH hijacked the discussion here with your blowhard speeches about pollution and politics. You don't want any criticism for this, of course, because you think everything is about YOU and what YOU want. The hell with what the group is about, right? You're as bad as mcs. I'll add you to the list of whacko's I've had to put on ignore, so don't bother replying - I won't see it. > You 'girls' have BOTH hijacked the discussion here with your blowhard > speeches about pollution and politics. You don't want any criticism for > this, of course, because you think everything is about YOU and what YOU > want. The hell with what the group is about, right? This is a group!! It's not about you anymore than me or mcs or anyone else. Quit with the net-nanny crap. Post what you want, ignore what you don't like and stop trying to moderate usenet to suit your needs. You are not the 'group'. > Based on the sheer volume of repetitive posting here , it isn't CEO who has > the free time. One doesn't need a list, just a glance. CEO tends to be a net-nanny. That was my point. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.