 |
 | 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 / January 2008Free Speech
"Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled; but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, *that* is an outrage." --Sir Winston L. S. Churchill And, IMNSHO, those who post hateful messages should expect criticism and not whine when they get it. As for defining "troll," I would never rely upon Wikipedia for anything at all. Note that anyone, even thee and me, can post whatever we want there and have it published as if it made sense. Here is one of the definitions of "troll" from what I consider to be a reliable source: "An individual who ..... regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that they have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as in, 'Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.' Compare: kook." See http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html Regards, Steve J Who knows very well how to flame someone. > "An individual who ..... regularly posts specious arguments, flames or > personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net, as > in, 'Oh, ignore him, he's just a troll.' Compare: kook." I read Doug's definition and now Steve's. He fits every element of both. Or at least he did before I plonked him. >> "An individual who ..... regularly posts specious arguments, flames or >> personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I read Doug's definition and now Steve's. He fits every element of both. >Or at least he did before I plonked him. I disagree. Am I allowed? I haven't been around for awhile, but no need: safire more than adequately has articulated a similar minority - and anti-establishment - answer to the question of when and how to treat a diagnosis of prostate cancer. But know this, those of you who somehow think that not swallowing the conventional b.s., having the balls to be vocal about it, and not backing down in the face of ridicule by the old school die hards, constitutes "trolling:" We ALL are cancer survivors. You can't take that away from me, nor as far as I know, him. The majority of you, who extol what you view as the "gold standard" and what I view as anachronistic, do not own the designation. So sorry. Feel free to filter anything I post. Frankly, I don't give a damn. I'm sure that safire doesn't either. > I disagree. Am I allowed? Always have been. > I haven't been around for awhile, but no need: safire more than > adequately has articulated a similar minority - and anti-establishment > - answer to the question of when and how to treat a diagnosis of > prostate cancer. Based on your posts, I assume he has, since I plonked him, began to articulate some semblence of an opinion with regards to someone's diagnosis. But, before I plonked him, he made no attempt at such. I invite you to review his earlier posts and then decide whether or not you disagree. Regardless of your opinion at that point as to whether or not I am correct, I will assert that based on your description of what you have seen of his prose, that would not constitute either definition of a "troll" > We ALL are cancer survivors. > > You can't take that away from me, nor as far as I know, him. You and I are. That assertion was not established yet with regard to him. Maybe it has now. > The majority of you, who extol what you view as the "gold standard" > and what I view as anachronistic, do not own the designation. I haven't heard that term since 2001. I think the more we all learn, the more we realize that there is no gold standard. So, Doug, how IS your cancer. Last I recall was four years ago and then your PSA was 1.68. >> The majority of you, who extol what you view as the "gold standard" >> and what I view as anachronistic, do not own the designation. > > I haven't heard that term since 2001. I think the more we all learn, the > more we realize that there is no gold standard. Steve Kramer claims not to have heard the term "gold standard" since 2001. A simple Google search reveals that Steve Kramer himself has *used* that term 26 times since 2001. Many times Steve Kramer asserts that it is "undebatable" that robotic prostatectomy is or will be the gold standard (e.g. May 6, 2005). It is "undebatable" that Steve Kramer is a liar, though not a very smart one. Kramer and Herr Freely are committed to the official party line: cancers should be treated, no matter what. Freely said so as recently as January 9, responding to Fred Olson about whom he didn't know anything relevant to make that judgment. Kramer falsifies the facts for everyone to see. Freely doesn't care about the facts. Freely considers my critical views about the way these grumpy old men have previously insulted and attacked Sy as "endless personal attacks on anyone that tried to help me". Freely likes free speech provided the speaker agrees with Freely. > Steve Kramer claims not to have heard the term "gold standard" since 2001. > A simple Google search reveals that Steve Kramer himself has *used* that > term 26 times since 2001. (snip) > Kramer and Herr Freely are committed to the official party line (snip) > Kramer falsifies the facts for everyone to see. (snip) Oh yeah. Let's weigh Safire's contribution to this NG against Steve Kramer's. >> Steve Kramer claims not to have heard the term "gold standard" since >> 2001. A simple Google search reveals that Steve Kramer himself has *used* [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Oh yeah. Let's weigh Safire's contribution to this NG against Steve > Kramer's. LIB! It sure seem longer than that. I wonder in what context I used it. A simple search would indicated I used it again yesterday. I do remember using it, now that it's mentioned, with relation to penile prosthetics. Hmmmmmmmmmm. Oh, well. It's not important. Thanks, Alex, for the vote. >So, Doug, how IS your cancer. Last I recall was four years ago and then >your PSA was 1.68. I get tested every 6 mos. but pay zero attention. It's low enough I will never undergo any treatment again, no matter what. My true, sincere and honest opinion is that I'll take death over incontinence. I'm already bearing the cross of low libido and vitamin V to get a hard on. In other words, quality of life trumps death. No, I'm not depressed, I'm just cynical as hell. I read a local uro-surgeon's "Free Prostate Cancer Screening" ad in the local paper, and I think: "You freaking vulture" NOT "How altruistic." How many schlumps will be scared into unnecessary treatment and ruin their QOL for low level results? Add "bitter" to my attitude. >>So, Doug, how IS your cancer. Last I recall was four years ago and then >>your PSA was 1.68. > I will never undergo any treatment again, no matter what. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, I'm not depressed, I'm just cynical as hell. > Add "bitter" to my attitude. I would not consider you depressed; at least not that I have seen any indication of. Nor, though I've seen your cynical side, would I consider your decision regarding treatment to be cynical. And, Hell! Who isn't bitter? I accept that there are some people in some circumstances and environments who make the pragmatic decision to opt between several alternatives knowing full well what they are doing. I see in you a man who has made a difficult decision based on sufficient knowledge to make the decision.  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 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum I agree with you 100% Sy > >> "An individual who ..... regularly posts specious arguments, flames or > >> personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Feel free to filter anything I post. Frankly, I don't give a damn. > I'm sure that safire doesn't either. am i too late to start liking winston? snip > As for defining "troll," I would never rely upon Wikipedia for anything at > all. Note that anyone, even thee and me, can post whatever we want there > and have it published as if it made sense. snip Actually there is an informative discussion of trolls in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll I also notice that there is an entry for Prostate Cancer where even the much admired Dr. Strum is cited in the reference section. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer Perhaps one may not want to rely on Wikipedia as a sole source for Prostate Cancer, but it seems adequate for the definition of a Troll. Regards, |
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.