Signing back on

Dewolla Stepon wrote:

So, for all my friends here, I thank you for your kind words and
encouragement. I had a loss this week (Yay!) and am on track to my
goal.

Today is the first day at my new job as a church bookkeeper. Wish me
luck!

Glad you're back! Enjoy your new job s You don't need luck.

--
Walking (but mostly biking!) on . . .
Laurie in Maine
207/110 60 inches of attitude!
Start: 2/02 Maintained since 2/03

On 8/3/2004 4:04 PM, byakee wrote:
A shot rang out! And Ignoramus7404
said:

In article r6MPc.239581$XM6.203034@attbi_s53, Dewolla Stepon wrote:


Well, after one week's reflection and some serious delving into Outlook
Express I've decided to come back. I know now not to share all the details
I had been, and I found a clever way to use OE to my advantage.


snip

I knew you would be back.


Sheesh, you're an asshole! Did the word "support" in the name of
this NG escape your notice?

....and here I thought that we had already established his reading
comprehension problem



--
jmk in NC

On 8/3/2004 4:04 PM, byakee wrote:
A shot rang out! And Ignoramus7404
said:

In article r6MPc.239581$XM6.203034@attbi_s53, Dewolla Stepon wrote:


Well, after one week's reflection and some serious delving into Outlook
Express I've decided to come back. I know now not to share all the details
I had been, and I found a clever way to use OE to my advantage.


snip

I knew you would be back.


Sheesh, you're an asshole! Did the word "support" in the name of
this NG escape your notice?

....and here I thought that we had already established his reading
comprehension problem



--
jmk in NC

On 8/3/2004 4:04 PM, byakee wrote:
A shot rang out! And Ignoramus7404
said:

In article r6MPc.239581$XM6.203034@attbi_s53, Dewolla Stepon wrote:


Well, after one week's reflection and some serious delving into Outlook
Express I've decided to come back. I know now not to share all the details
I had been, and I found a clever way to use OE to my advantage.


snip

I knew you would be back.


Sheesh, you're an asshole! Did the word "support" in the name of
this NG escape your notice?

....and here I thought that we had already established his reading
comprehension problem



--
jmk in NC

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 at 13:38:00, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

She became all upset and said that she does not take advice from self
appointed usenet doctors.

Is this rational behavior?

Yes, totally! We are here to support one another, I think, not to
dictate to one another, and advice that goes against what she was being
told by her own doctors is at best, silly, at worst, dangerous. We do
not know nearly everything about our fellow-posters, only what they
choose to tell us. Moreover, what works for one might be totally
dangerous for another!
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 at 13:38:00, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

She became all upset and said that she does not take advice from self
appointed usenet doctors.

Is this rational behavior?

Yes, totally! We are here to support one another, I think, not to
dictate to one another, and advice that goes against what she was being
told by her own doctors is at best, silly, at worst, dangerous. We do
not know nearly everything about our fellow-posters, only what they
choose to tell us. Moreover, what works for one might be totally
dangerous for another!
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 18 July 2004

"Ignoramus22665" wrote in message
...
In article , Annabel Smyth wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 at 13:38:00, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

She became all upset and said that she does not take advice from self
appointed usenet doctors.

Is this rational behavior?

Yes, totally! We are here to support one another, I think, not to
dictate to one another, and advice that goes against what she was being
told by her own doctors is at best, silly, at worst, dangerous. We do
not know nearly everything about our fellow-posters, only what they
choose to tell us. Moreover, what works for one might be totally
dangerous for another!

Blood sugar testing is not dangerous to anyone. It may or may not be
necessary, but it is not dangerous, unless you beat someone with it.

I was not the only person who suggested getting a glucose monitor. She
was told the same thing on the diabetes forum, by the way.

i

The problem wasn't with the advice, it was the fact that you continued to
beat her over the head with it after she acknowledged receiving the advice
because you couldn't accept that she chose to disagree with you about what
*she* wanted to do in *her* situation.

Jenn

Jenn, let me just wade back in here to say something.

First, thanks for your (and everyone else's) support and understanding. It
means a lot.

Second, in response to Ig: Your blanket generalities do not work. If you
recall, more than once I have stated I am on blood thinners. That means
that my blood does not clot normally. That makes me a chemical-induced
hemophiliac. I am under doctor's orders to avoid anything which may cause
bruising or cuts. I cannot shave my legs or underarms. I have to adjust my
medications even when I go to the dentist for a checkup or a cleaning.

When you say "Blood sugar testing is not dangerous to anyone" you don't know
what you are talking about. For me, it is dangerous. Until you have ALL
of my medical history you are in NO position to insist that your advice to
me is valid. You don't know the first thing about me.

Try to keep that in mind the next time you try to argue or scare others into
following your prescriptions.

- Dewolla


"JMA" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus22665" wrote in message
...
In article , Annabel Smyth wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 at 13:38:00, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

She became all upset and said that she does not take advice from self
appointed usenet doctors.

Is this rational behavior?

Yes, totally! We are here to support one another, I think, not to
dictate to one another, and advice that goes against what she was
being
told by her own doctors is at best, silly, at worst, dangerous. We do
not know nearly everything about our fellow-posters, only what they
choose to tell us. Moreover, what works for one might be totally
dangerous for another!

Blood sugar testing is not dangerous to anyone. It may or may not be
necessary, but it is not dangerous, unless you beat someone with it.

I was not the only person who suggested getting a glucose monitor. She
was told the same thing on the diabetes forum, by the way.

i

The problem wasn't with the advice, it was the fact that you continued to
beat her over the head with it after she acknowledged receiving the advice
because you couldn't accept that she chose to disagree with you about what
*she* wanted to do in *her* situation.

Jenn

Jenn, let me just wade back in here to say something.

First, thanks for your (and everyone else's) support and understanding. It
means a lot.

Second, in response to Ig: Your blanket generalities do not work. If you
recall, more than once I have stated I am on blood thinners. That means
that my blood does not clot normally. That makes me a chemical-induced
hemophiliac. I am under doctor's orders to avoid anything which may cause
bruising or cuts. I cannot shave my legs or underarms. I have to adjust my
medications even when I go to the dentist for a checkup or a cleaning.

When you say "Blood sugar testing is not dangerous to anyone" you don't know
what you are talking about. For me, it is dangerous. Until you have ALL
of my medical history you are in NO position to insist that your advice to
me is valid. You don't know the first thing about me.

Try to keep that in mind the next time you try to argue or scare others into
following your prescriptions.

- Dewolla


"JMA" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus22665" wrote in message
...
In article , Annabel Smyth wrote:
On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 at 13:38:00, Ignoramus7404
wrote:

She became all upset and said that she does not take advice from self
appointed usenet doctors.

Is this rational behavior?

Yes, totally! We are here to support one another, I think, not to
dictate to one another, and advice that goes against what she was
being
told by her own doctors is at best, silly, at worst, dangerous. We do
not know nearly everything about our fellow-posters, only what they
choose to tell us. Moreover, what works for one might be totally
dangerous for another!

Blood sugar testing is not dangerous to anyone. It may or may not be
necessary, but it is not dangerous, unless you beat someone with it.

I was not the only person who suggested getting a glucose monitor. She
was told the same thing on the diabetes forum, by the way.

i

The problem wasn't with the advice, it was the fact that you continued to
beat her over the head with it after she acknowledged receiving the advice
because you couldn't accept that she chose to disagree with you about what
*she* wanted to do in *her* situation.

Jenn

"Beverly" wrote in message
...

"Ignoramus7404" wrote in message
...
I knew you would be back.

i


This is such a childish response, Ig.

Of course it is. He knows of no other way to be.

It's entirely uncalled for and just a
prime example of why you're in many people's filters.

heh heh...yes indeedy. : D

Martha