Gordon Lightfoot Forums - View Single Post

Rebecca · 10-29-2002, 12:24 PM

Dear Watchman,

The term "aneurysm" had not been used
in official communications to describe Gord's condition. Someone -- I can't remember who, and it's really not important anyway -- wrote that Gord had suffered an aneurysm. Char mentioned that she hadn't read in official communications that Gord's condition had been described as such. You disagreed, arguing in effect that an aortic weakness in and of itself constituted an aneurysm. Cathy and Char both disagreed with you, stating essentially that an aneurysm is a ballooning of the aortic wall,not merely a weakening of the wall. You defended your position. I offered evidence that backed up Cathy's and Char's positions.

I'm not meaning to attack you personally, as you are probably a fine human being in real life, but you seem far more able to offer criticism than to take any of the same. You keep writing that it is time to move on, but you don't really move on. You respond, then I or someone else responds to you, then you respond back, and again say that it is time to move on. You don't have any real authority here; your only power to cause things to move on is to not respond yourself. If you respond, then once again say that it is time to move on, someone will almost surely respond.

You make the call.

Rebecca

P.S. This all reminds me of a certain character from "Cheers," the old sitcom.

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Rebecca,

I'm not sure why you feel threatened so easily and have to resort to the subtle put-downs in your posts. No need to feel threatened and act nasty just because you think someone posted some incorrect info., although you are only trying to disprove one thing that I wrote and leaving the many other facts alone.

I happen to be in a unique position around here. My writing is gone over with a fine toothed comb for the slightest inaccuracy. I used the word "aneurysm" and was immediately repsonded to with a statement that it was never verified. It even went as far as naming all the words that were used by Barry Harvey or the press, which were all essentially saying the same thing. Statements like that always have a reason behind them. If you don't think so, than why would they have been written in the first place? That statement about verification goes back to the original flames that unless Barry Harvey uses the word to describe Gord's condition, we cannot. So I explained why I used that word and got another reply that my reasoning for using it was incorrect. So, I was told that I used the wrong word and then I was told that my reasoning for using that word was wrong. Amazing.

You guys are spending too much time trying to find fault with others that you back people into corners and make them back up every little word that they use. When they respond you try to label them as troublemakers. It's a game that I am growing very tired of.

I keep writing that it is time to move on as it really doesn't matter anyway. But you keep it coming.

Nice ploy...apologizing to the moderator for your hostility in hopes that it goes unnoticed. Fortunately, I am in a position that I do not have to apologize for anything that I have written here as I have not made my remarks personal. I only use facts when I am questioned about why I used a specific word in my posts.

For the record, I am responding to your post, Rebecca, and have discussed your personal remarks about your comment that you question my ability to read thoroughly and and NOT about the the exact meaning of the word aneurysm.

[This message has been edited by TheWatchman (edited October 29, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Rebecca (edited October 29, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Rebecca (edited October 29, 2002).]

10-29-2002, 12:24 PM	#29
Rebecca Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: CA, USA Posts: 103	Dear Watchman, The term "aneurysm" had not been used in official communications to describe Gord's condition. Someone -- I can't remember who, and it's really not important anyway -- wrote that Gord had suffered an aneurysm. Char mentioned that she hadn't read in official communications that Gord's condition had been described as such. You disagreed, arguing in effect that an aortic weakness in and of itself constituted an aneurysm. Cathy and Char both disagreed with you, stating essentially that an aneurysm is a ballooning of the aortic wall,not merely a weakening of the wall. You defended your position. I offered evidence that backed up Cathy's and Char's positions. I'm not meaning to attack you personally, as you are probably a fine human being in real life, but you seem far more able to offer criticism than to take any of the same. You keep writing that it is time to move on, but you don't really move on. You respond, then I or someone else responds to you, then you respond back, and again say that it is time to move on. You don't have any real authority here; your only power to cause things to move on is to not respond yourself. If you respond, then once again say that it is time to move on, someone will almost surely respond. You make the call. Rebecca P.S. This all reminds me of a certain character from "Cheers," the old sitcom. quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman: Rebecca, I'm not sure why you feel threatened so easily and have to resort to the subtle put-downs in your posts. No need to feel threatened and act nasty just because you think someone posted some incorrect info., although you are only trying to disprove one thing that I wrote and leaving the many other facts alone. I happen to be in a unique position around here. My writing is gone over with a fine toothed comb for the slightest inaccuracy. I used the word "aneurysm" and was immediately repsonded to with a statement that it was never verified. It even went as far as naming all the words that were used by Barry Harvey or the press, which were all essentially saying the same thing. Statements like that always have a reason behind them. If you don't think so, than why would they have been written in the first place? That statement about verification goes back to the original flames that unless Barry Harvey uses the word to describe Gord's condition, we cannot. So I explained why I used that word and got another reply that my reasoning for using it was incorrect. So, I was told that I used the wrong word and then I was told that my reasoning for using that word was wrong. Amazing. You guys are spending too much time trying to find fault with others that you back people into corners and make them back up every little word that they use. When they respond you try to label them as troublemakers. It's a game that I am growing very tired of. I keep writing that it is time to move on as it really doesn't matter anyway. But you keep it coming. Nice ploy...apologizing to the moderator for your hostility in hopes that it goes unnoticed. Fortunately, I am in a position that I do not have to apologize for anything that I have written here as I have not made my remarks personal. I only use facts when I am questioned about why I used a specific word in my posts. For the record, I am responding to your post, Rebecca, and have discussed your personal remarks about your comment that you question my ability to read thoroughly and and NOT about the the exact meaning of the word aneurysm. [This message has been edited by TheWatchman (edited October 29, 2002).] [This message has been edited by Rebecca (edited October 29, 2002).] [This message has been edited by Rebecca (edited October 29, 2002).]