Introduction: Louise Johnson and a statement about our Guest House incident.

[Msvetrn]

Agree with Rae and John...this is such OLD news...let's not start it up, AGAIN. DOZENS of people have gone to the clinic since the incident (including myself) and there ahve been no theft issues.

[UK Tim]

John

I am more than happy to hear the arguments. I just don't decry the questioner in the first place. Of course, I accept that it is is possible to start trouble by asking a question. I did not form the view that that was happening here. Consider - the thread is still open. S/he is a new member. It still seems reasonable to ask any question that comes to mind.

What I question in particular is the previous value-judgement that only someone with direct knowledge of something can comment about it. That was my main point. I am sorry that I did not make it clear.

I appreciate your view. If a new poster is circumspect, then perhaps there should be a qualification period for posting. If that person is mischief-making, then we ought to know, because the truth will eventually out. And that will enable us all to make sound, reasonable,judgements about the overall incident.

[Rae]

Rae's not the boss, but she's obviously not an idiot either.

Thank you, I was worried :-)

[Rae]

Rae

How can mrssem be "starting trouble" by asking pertient questions about a thread that is still in the public domain? Why is her perspective unhelpful because she was not there? I wasn't present when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. And my views on that are probably more valid now than the people who were there at the time, because a) They are dead and b) I can assess the situation more objectively.

Why is it not appropriate to pass on a comment from somebody else? Who says? You? Fine?

Well, you're the boss...

I prefer to work with facts and those facts should come from the people it happened to. I read a first hand experience on this forum of what happened from someone that was there when it happened. There have been many here before, during, and after the event in question. Do not try to pick on me, I won't respond. Find a new victim, might I suggest a Hiroshima forum.

[UK Tim]

(Trying now for the third time to post, because of computer glitches - spit/rage)

Rae, I am not "picking on you" any more than John was "picking on" me, just because he gave a robust and contrary view to mine - although I shall leave it to others to decide if you were "picking on" mrssem. What appears to distinguish you and me is that you can hand it out, but you can't take it.

My point is that we can all learn from these things, however negative, no matter how much they threaten our value system or frighten us. Otherwise we are in denial about reality.

The reason that I used Hiroshima as an example is that, overall, many people might argue that it was a bad thing. But it wasn't bad for everyone. Including the allied servicemen whose lives would likely have been lost if the Pacific War had continued (including my father).

And the reason those heroes went to war was to stop people saying: "How dare you?" when unpaletable truths were aired.

Should we not acknowledge every pertitent fact about a situation, before we arrive at our own conclusions? Isn't that what debate is about, rather than being censorious when our value system is challenged?

Can we not acknowledge that other arguments, contrary to ours, exist (without necessariliy agreeing with them, of course)?

I am not so arrogant as to say that all my thoughts are perfect, far from it. Which is why I welcome John's perspective (although don't agree with all of it) - and am prepared to give way if I didn't get it all right first time. Part of discourse is to clarify what someone has said, which is difficult on an internet forum, where context (or, more likely, lack of context) can lead to mis-understandings.

Neither I am too naive to recognise that bad people use the cloak of free speech to promulgate totalitarian views.

So, like Voltaire, I may not agree with everything you say - but I would die to defend your right to say it. Unfortunately, when the tables are reversed, you play the victim card. That is clearly a matter for you.

[Msvetrn]

How about making NON-sleeve related posts PRIVATE MESSAGES? Especially those of you who seem to HAVE to have the last post, then the rest of us don't have to be bothered with all this crap.

[kitty]

I agree Christy! Everyone has the right to an opinion! But God gave us all the intelligence to make our own choices!

[Jersey John]

John

I am more than happy to hear the arguments. I just don't decry the questioner in the first place. Of course, I accept that it is is possible to start trouble by asking a question. I did not form the view that that was happening here. Consider - the thread is still open. S/he is a new member. It still seems reasonable to ask any question that comes to mind.

What I question in particular is the previous value-judgement that only someone with direct knowledge of something can comment about it. That was my main point. I am sorry that I did not make it clear.

I appreciate your view. If a new poster is circumspect, then perhaps there should be a qualification period for posting. If that person is mischief-making, then we ought to know, because the truth will eventually out. And that will enable us all to make sound, reasonable,judgements about the overall incident.

Points well taken, classy response Tim - thanks.

[Jersey John]

(Trying now for the third time to post, because of computer glitches - spit/rage)

Rae, I am not "picking on you" any more than John was "picking on" me, just because he gave a robust and contrary view to mine - although I shall leave it to others to decide if you were "picking on" mrssem. What appears to distinguish you and me is that you can hand it out, but you can't take it.

My point is that we can all learn from these things, however negative, no matter how much they threaten our value system or frighten us. Otherwise we are in denial about reality.

The reason that I used Hiroshima as an example is that, overall, many people might argue that it was a bad thing. But it wasn't bad for everyone. Including the allied servicemen whose lives would likely have been lost if the Pacific War had continued (including my father).

And the reason those heroes went to war was to stop people saying: "How dare you?" when unpaletable truths were aired.

Should we not acknowledge every pertitent fact about a situation, before we arrive at our own conclusions? Isn't that what debate is about, rather than being censorious when our value system is challenged?

Can we not acknowledge that other arguments, contrary to ours, exist (without necessariliy agreeing with them, of course)?

I am not so arrogant as to say that all my thoughts are perfect, far from it. Which is why I welcome John's perspective (although don't agree with all of it) - and am prepared to give way if I didn't get it all right first time. Part of discourse is to clarify what someone has said, which is difficult on an internet forum, where context (or, more likely, lack of context) can lead to mis-understandings.

Neither I am too naive to recognise that bad people use the cloak of free speech to promulgate totalitarian views.

So, like Voltaire, I may not agree with everything you say - but I would die to defend your right to say it. Unfortunately, when the tables are reversed, you play the victim card. That is clearly a matter for you.

Perhaps Tim, our friend Rae's defensive response was a result of the "Well you're the boss..." comment, and not the facts - or opinions of the facts - we were discussing. I think you're both right, and as Tim alludes to we don't always have to agree - we should just try to be civil to each other.

[Rae]

(Trying now for the third time to post, because of computer glitches - spit/rage)

Rae, I am not "picking on you" any more than John was "picking on" me, just because he gave a robust and contrary view to mine - although I shall leave it to others to decide if you were "picking on" mrssem. What appears to distinguish you and me is that you can hand it out, but you can't take it.

My point is that we can all learn from these things, however negative, no matter how much they threaten our value system or frighten us. Otherwise we are in denial about reality.

The reason that I used Hiroshima as an example is that, overall, many people might argue that it was a bad thing. But it wasn't bad for everyone. Including the allied servicemen whose lives would likely have been lost if the Pacific War had continued (including my father).

And the reason those heroes went to war was to stop people saying: "How dare you?" when unpaletable truths were aired.

Should we not acknowledge every pertitent fact about a situation, before we arrive at our own conclusions? Isn't that what debate is about, rather than being censorious when our value system is challenged?

Can we not acknowledge that other arguments, contrary to ours, exist (without necessariliy agreeing with them, of course)?

I am not so arrogant as to say that all my thoughts are perfect, far from it. Which is why I welcome John's perspective (although don't agree with all of it) - and am prepared to give way if I didn't get it all right first time. Part of discourse is to clarify what someone has said, which is difficult on an internet forum, where context (or, more likely, lack of context) can lead to mis-understandings.

Neither I am too naive to recognise that bad people use the cloak of free speech to promulgate totalitarian views.

So, like Voltaire, I may not agree with everything you say - but I would die to defend your right to say it. Unfortunately, when the tables are reversed, you play the victim card. That is clearly a matter for you.

First - make no mistake about it, I am not playing a victim card. If you knew me outside of what you read in this support group forum you would never describe me as a "victim". What I post here are my insecurities, fears, and experiences on a very sensitive topic. In my day to day life, you would be surprised at who is on the other side of the keyboard. Your comments "you can hand it out but not take it" and "Why is it not appropriate to pass on a comment from somebody else? Who says? You? Fine? Well, you're the boss... " are far from you trying to have an adult conversation with me and remind me of a school yard bully. I refuse to waste my time arguing with someone in a support forum. That's not why I am here. You mention having a debate, well I am not here for that either. Can I debate, yes and trust me I am skilled but that is not my purpose for visits to this site.

You know, Voltaire had a lot of very strong opinions in his writings and after further research changed those opinions. Maybe that's something to learn from also.

[jerzeygirl]

I think that a good dose of protien can help all of those who are arguing a point that, as John so eloquently says, hasn't really even proven to be true. If this happened, it's a shame for those involved, but it could happen anywhere and this is a site for people trying to be positive and share in a safe environment. Making references to other disasters where people were hurt/died, etc., does nothing but make us upset and upset people who are/used to be addicted to food, want to eat... I totally agree w/John, msvetrn and others who want to discuss important topics, but not topics that can't be proven or substantiated and we can't solve. The folks who are/already went to Mexico for sugery deserve all our respect and positive thoughts since, in my opinion, they took a bigger risk to have the surgery of a lifetime. I felt fortunate that I had insurance that covered all the costs of pre-testing and the surgery, but not everyone is that lucky and thankfully, they do have another alternative. I'm the first one to "rally" for a cause, but all we can do is hope this is a ploy to discredit the Mexico WLS experience or if there is some credence to this story, I hope all is well with the victims.

[crystal]

I thought we were over this! Daaaammmmmnnnnnnnn!

[Camellia301]

This thread is another fine example of "Eating(into) what we're fed, and NOT knowing when to STOP!!"~~> Ridiculous! ~ _ ~
Then thinking to yourself..... Did I really need to eat(do, say) all of that!!!~~> Priceless! o_O
What a waste of time! TRUTH! O _ O

[msdavis]

well said...