 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / November 2005An Invitation
New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated forum, the moderation primarily confined to keeping spammers out. Debates are carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction. The subscription process, which is simple, can be started at: http://listserv.acor.org/archives/prostate.html Regards, Steve J Thanks Steve. Goodbye all. > New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering > can check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve J I wish you well, jimhoney.  SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05 PSA .07 .05 .06 .05 .08 non Illegitimi carborundum > Thanks Steve. Goodbye all. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > Steve J <snip> >The subscription process, which is simple, can be started at: >http://listserv.acor.org/archives/prostate.html <snip> Been on it a couple of times and canned it, due to the deluge volume of irrelevant contributions that flood my email: Over the years, I've found Usenet to me more suitable for me as I can read the headers and then select which articles that interest me. Then,that's me from d/under with crocs snapping at my ankles as the big red boomers ('roos) try to dodge the Mack trucks (a Yank's take on Oz.) -- Reader to complete... -- Please reply to this ng as my email adress is fake: -- Regards -- CC On November 19, Clarence Crow replied to my post: > Been on it a couple of times and canned it, due to the deluge volume > of irrelevant contributions that flood my email: Hm. Well, I reckon the idea of what constitutes a deluge or flood or irrelevant is different as between CC and me. As usual, folks can and will decide for themselves what is best for them. (ka-snip) Don't let those crocs get much higher than the ankles.... Regards, Steve J "Dear Lord, give me chastity and self-restraint ... but not yet, O Lord, not yet!" -- Saint Augustine > New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can > check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated forum, > the moderation primarily confined to keeping spammers out. Debates are > carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction. Geez what a bunch of babies. A little in-fighting & debate, whether cordial or not never hurt anyone. Some guys like to yell and scream, and are transparently troubled in other areas. So what? This forum is for the masses. We need all kinds of folks here to help each other. Last year we had a guy complain about the open sexual content as silly as that sounds in a group with erectile dysfunction! He left in a huff. If someone rubs you the wrong way you can always ignore, but please don't leave. We need each other. "I'm not pompous, I'm SNARKY" JK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios http://www.sinrodstudios.com/ Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories/ > If someone rubs you > the wrong way you can always ignore, And, hey . . . maybe the wrong way works BETTER now. In fact, it DOES! '-) I.P. Thanks, Steve. But, I have found that the debates, and the debates about the debates, are usually short lived compared to the time spent here. And, I have never met a greater bunch of people, on a par. I'm staying. SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05 PSA .07 .05 .06 .05 .08 non Illegitimi carborundum > New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can > check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated forum, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve J > Thanks, Steve. But, I have found that the debates, and the debates > about the debates, are usually short lived compared to the time spent > here. And, I have never met a greater bunch of people, on a par. Steve K and JK Sinrod rather surprise me. I did not suggest an either/or choice between this NG and PPML. For example, I've been a subscriber to PPML for fully as long as I've been a participant in ascp. Regards, Steve J "I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. 'Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death." --Thomas Paine > > Thanks, Steve. But, I have found that the debates, and the debates > > about the debates, are usually short lived compared to the time spent [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve J " New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated forum, the moderation primarily confined to keeping spammers out. Debates are carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction." Did we misunderstand your above statement? Sure sounds like you were the one that was "fed up"? "I'm not pompous and agrogant, I'm SNARKY" JK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories On November 19, Glassman replied to me: Quoting me: > "New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can > check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated forum, > the moderation primarily confined to keeping spammers out. Debates are > carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction." > > Did we misunderstand your above statement? So it appears. Sure sounds like you were the one that was "fed up"? Nah. I've come through tremendous flamewars with hardly a singed eyebrow. This silliness is a walk in the park. There's really no opposition that's worthy of respect. All of us have, or our loved ones have, a vicious and merciless killer to deal with. Kiddy romps with yapping puppies are nothing to fear. Regards, Steve J "Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised." --Niccolo Machiavelli Based on your reply, and my experience and opinion as to your honesty, I will acquiesce that you did not mean to imply that we leave. However, so that you understand from whence I came to that conclusion, I leave you with your words, "New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List." SignaturePSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75 EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05 PSA .07 .05 .06 .05 .08 non Illegitimi carborundum > > Thanks, Steve. But, I have found that the debates, and the debates > > about the debates, are usually short lived compared to the time spent [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > death." > --Thomas Paine > New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can > check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated forum, > the moderation primarily confined to keeping spammers out. Not sure how you would have visibility into what the moderators actually do, suffice it say that most of their time is spent keeping the dialogue focused (often through private e-mails) and helping people with subscription issues. > Debates are carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction. Usually, especially in the recent past, but, as in all groups, there have been some very trying times...Ron On November 19, ron replied to me: > Not sure how you would have visibility into what the moderators > actually do, suffice it say that most of their time is spent keeping > the dialogue focused (often through private e-mails) and helping people > with subscription issues. I know the moderator and his, er, moderate style. He is far from a dictator. Quoting me: >>Debates are carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction. Ron replied: > Usually, especially in the recent past, but, as in all groups, there have been some very trying times... I'm mystified. What, exactly, is Ron's point? I'm anxious to learn.... Regards, Steve J "You live and learn -- or you don't live long." --Lazarus Long > On November 19, ron replied to me: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I know the moderator and his, er, moderate style. He is far from a dictator. No one here is a dictator either, what does that have to do with the point we were discussing, namely what the moderators at PPML do? As one of the moderators, I was merely pointing out that your assessment of what they do was off the mark. > Quoting me: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I'm mystified. What, exactly, is Ron's point? I'm anxious to learn.... My point is that all groups go through difficult times and struggles, debates sometimes become acrimonius, be it PPML, PHML, or this group. No group is immune to such problems. Sticking with things, working our way through problems, increases our understanding of one another. It usually leads to positive growth for all involved...Ron. "Steve Jordan" wrote about moderated forums: > Debates are carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction. There'd be far less rancor here if you and Heather would try that, rather than sliding into ad hominem the minute you're asked to back up your claims with facts. While I've added well-deserved labels to otherwise relevant discussions once or twice in my last 25,000 USENET posts, and even -- heavens! -- gone off topic, ad hominem is apparently you two's first resort and a ready substitution for relevant discourse. It accomplishes nothing positive, it's irrelevant to PCa, and it reflects poorly on both you two and the forum. I.P. > "Steve Jordan" wrote about moderated forums: > > Debates are carried out with respect and decorum, a welcome distinction. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I.P. We love ya but lighten up IP will ya? I'm not defending anyone, because I hate you all anyway. No one needs to back up anything they say or feel with documented info. I know that this is what you crave at all times, but trust the reader to make his own judgement sometimes as to fact or opinion. Most of the folks here aren't qualified to give anything more than an opinion anyway. I know this is very very important to you, and you'll keep telling us why that is, but in reality we are all regular people that have only our personal experience to go by. The newbies and oldies alike don't need a guardian of truth and documentation to keep the world honest. All your studying obviously gives you comfort in your trying times, but it's just not the case for all of us. Count me as one of the idiots that likes to chat, spread false rumors, launch personal attacks, and otherwise create an atmosphere for chaos. (Snarky.... look it up). Signature"I'm not pompous and agrogant, I'm SNARKY" JK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories Did a search on "Snarky"...I can't read Russian?? http://www.snarky.com/ > <snip - a lot of the bickering that was being talked about in the first > place> > just not the case for all of us. Count me as one of the idiots that likes > to > chat, spread false rumors, launch personal attacks, and otherwise create > an > atmosphere for chaos. (Snarky.... look it up). > Did a search on "Snarky"...I can't read Russian?? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> an >> atmosphere for chaos. (Snarky.... look it up). David, Here's a link to the Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=snarky The Russian site might lead one to think that JK is from present day Brighton Beach rather than the old Coney Island. Tom > Did a search on "Snarky"...I can't read Russian?? 1. snarky (adjective) describes a witty mannerism, personality, or behavior that is a combination of sarcasm and cynicism. Usually accepted as a complimentary term. Snark is sometimes mistaken for a snotty or arrogant attitude. Her snarky remarks had half the room on the floor laughing and the other half ready to walk out. 2. snarky Adjective - Any language that contains quips or comments containing sarcastic or satirical witticisms intended as blunt irony. Usually delivered in a manner that is somewhat abrupt and out of context and intended to stun and amuse. Origin: Snark="snide remark". Signature"I'm not pompous and agrogant, I'm SNARKY" JK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories "Glassman" > > We love ya but lighten up IP will ya? I'm not defending anyone, because > I hate you all anyway. No one needs to back up anything they say or feel [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > an > atmosphere for chaos. (Snarky.... look it up). I couldn't agree more, if this forum were alt.icecream'n'cookies or alt.football. Its REAL name changes all that. I.P. > "Glassman" > > > We love ya but lighten up IP will ya? I'm not defending anyone, because [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I.P. It raises an interesting point about ones perception of death, and how we deal with it. I'm a fatalist and have no fear of death, or am I willing to give up my worldly pleasures in an attempt to live an extra couple of months. I'm not religious or spiritual in any way, but I do try to be a good person and help others by sharing my meager gifts. I just don't take too much that happens in this life seriously. I'm sure this all goes against everything you stand for and believe, and yet we have enough in common to shoot hoops, drink a beer, lust after women, and chat about PCa. Signature"I'm not pompous and agrogant, I'm SNARKY" JK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories > I'm a fatalist and have no fear of death, nor am I willing to > give up my worldly pleasures in an attempt to live an extra [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > against > everything you stand for and believe. Altogether, now, folks . . . what's my attitude towards giving up years of good QOL to -- maybe -- gain a few extra months of heartbeat? And rather than fearing death, I resent losing life . . . until death becomes a better alternative. And hedonism is my middle name, as I don't give a hoot what somebody says about ADT SEs or my veracity when the surf's up. If I were still into multiple year-round sports I'd almost never be sitting here. > I just don't take too > much that happens in this life seriously. Now THAT we do differ on, obviously. I have proven countless times that my actions can make differences --- sometimes gigantic ones -- in my life and in many others. Multiply that by millions -- especially for SERIOUS planners and do-gooders -- and the impact is downright global. It's the rest of the population's actions, not fate, that determines the lives of fatalists. I.P. You guys need to visit the dog ng's if you want to see the fur fly. This place is tame compared to those. Observation: This post sparked the very kind of OT family argument that I suspect was being referred to in "carried out with respect and decorum". Although no one approached the boiling point my guess is that Heather is not planning to invite I.P. to dinner anytime soon. I came to this ng shortly after being diagnosed. Confused, scared, and never been on a ng before. This indeed became "family" to me. I still think of it that way, although I do not post all the often anymore. It still is a comfortable place for me to come back to though. I agree with Steve that there are a lot of great people here. And when someone leaves because of a disagreement, Canada Bob for example, that makes me sad. In case you are wondering, I woke up at five A.M., took the dog out, and now cannot go back to sleep. So, I am hanging out here. Hope that is okay? David S. > New folks and any others who are fed up with screeching and yammering can > check out the Prostate Problems Mailing List. This is a moderated forum, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Steve J Oh, yeah, forgot about Canada Bob.... oh, that racist... what was his name? Began with a "W". > You guys need to visit the dog ng's if you want to see the fur fly. This > place is tame compared to those. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > > > Steve J > I woke up at five A.M., took the dog out, and now cannot go back to sleep. > So, I am hanging out here. Hope that is okay? Well, it WOULDDA been if ya hadn't turned on them dang lights and WOKE ME UP. ;-) I.P. > You guys need to visit the dog ng's if you want to see the fur fly. This > place is tame compared to those. And there's a lesson there. I witnessed two great forums slide into that dog-eat-dog morass permanently when some aggro pit bulls and began spraying ad hominem at anyone they didn't like, from top dogs to new pups. Objectors were quickly mauled, fewer and fewer old dogs spoke up, and before long the place contained more dog $#!+ than dog food. The dog training books were chewed up, to be supplanted by a bunch of Great Danes standing around seeing who could piss higher up the telephone pole, knowledge be damned. And that's no tall tail. I.P. So I look around and find... An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, their circumstances, or their actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form: 1) Person A makes claim X. 2) Person B makes an attack on person A. 3) Therefore A's claim is false. The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Example of Ad Hominem Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong." Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest." Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?" Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can't believe what you say." Uh-HUH. VERY clear. And all this time...I thought that 'ad hominem' was what Ralph Kramden used to keep repeating on 'The Honeymooners'. Shows what "I" know. :-) Ron B. Chicago > And all this time...I thought that > > 'ad hominem' > > was what Ralph Kramden used to keep repeating on 'The Honeymooners'. it was "humahumahuma." Can't remember what I had for breakfast, but 50+ year-old TV lines stick :-/ Sure miss Jackie. AIUI he smoked himself to death. Regards, Steve J To the snowbirds from Parad.... I mean Arizona: "No sun - no moon! No morn - no noon - No dawn - no dusk - no proper time of day. No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease, No comfortable feel in any member - No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees, No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds, November!" -- Thomas Hood Steve, You're such a kidder. :-) I knew that Ralph actually mumbled "homina-homina-homina" but I was trying to be cute. But I'm NOT cute so maybe I shouldn't try. :-) Actually, I would have SHOWN that it was a joke...but I thought that I had already used up my allotment of smiley faces. :-) Always the best to all, Ron B. Chicago > Steve, You're such a kidder. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > but I was trying to be cute. Not quite my recollection, but I'll defer to Ron's probably-better memory. Anyway, it was good for a laugh. > Actually, I would have SHOWN that it was a joke...but I thought that I > had already used up my allotment of smiley faces. And I should have shown that I was pretty sure that Ron knew perfectly well what the line was. Regards, Steve J "Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it." -- James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd in "Harvey" Hi Steve J. I think it WAS 'homina homina' but as you quoted Jimmy Stewart... overcoming reality is a long process. :-) Ron B. Chicago > > And all this time...I thought that > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sure miss Jackie. AIUI he smoked himself to death. Story I heard was that right after his first quadruple bypass he was seen chain smoking and drinking. When asked about it he said that it took all these years for his heart go bad, so he figured he could now start all over again with a fresh slate. Signature"I'm not pompous and agrogant, I'm SNARKY" JK Sinrod Sinrod Stained Glass Studios www.sinrodstudios.com Coney Island Memories www.sinrodstudios.com/coneymemories > The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the > character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) > have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the > quality of the argument being made). Which is precisely why, in important issues, backing up controversial claims of relevant fact is important. I.P. |
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.