On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:48:59 -0500, Jefferson
> wrote:

>Alan wrote:
>
>>>I will have to come back later. The twins have a birthday party.
>
>> It would be nice if you could bring yourself to speak less
>> pompous scientific words, so that the rest of us can
>> understand what you're saying.
>>
>> That might help a great many more people. . . .!
>
>I was attempting to respond to Chris Malcolm and I didn't think what I
>said was as abstract as what he said.
>
>I sorry that you feel this way, but I suppose that in my efforts to try
>and understand type 2 diabetes I have become somewhat of a freak. I put
>together most of the following about 4 years ago: GLOSSARY OF
>BIOCHEMICAL, MEDICAL CHEMISTRY, CELL BIOLOGY, AND DIABETIC TERMS -
>http://users.adelphia.net/~fwroy/glossary.html.

Thanks Frank - great page.

> As I was reading
>scientific and medical journals I would add more to the list, but have
>largerly neglected to maintain it. I did do this glossary for anyone
>but myself and therefore it is a work-in-progress. I need to update it
>some more, but there are some new search aids in it for anyone that
>wants their understanding beyond the elementary.
>
>Understand that I am a 71 year old man without much scientific
>background who was diagnosed almost 6 years ago. I came into what ever
>knowledge I have through the back door so to speak since I have taken no
>formal biochemistry, physiology, etc. courses.
>
>Frank
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

In alt.support.diabetes Alan Moorman > wrote:

> Sorry, Larry, but anyone who posts in a public forum needs
> to go to some pains to explain their scientific language in
> terms more of us can understand.

> I'm smart, educated, and have a large vocabulary, but
> several paragraphs of dense scientific terminology doesn't
> help me, or any other posters, understand what is being
> talked about.

*Any* other posters?

I assume firstly that at least a large minority of the population has
an educational background in the sciences rather than the arts, and
secondly that most of those reading asd have the largest and most
easily accessible encyclopedia yet invented just a mouse click
away. It wouldn't surprise me that more than half of asd wouldn't
understand paragraphs of dense scientific terminology, but you seem to
be claiming not only that almost everyone would fail to understand it
at first reading, but that they would all be so comprehensively
baffled that looking up the words they didn't know wouldn't help in
the slightest.

In fact, given that in asd we're all struggling with diabetes, I would
have expected that some of those with no scientific background
whatsoever would be motivated enough to learn something of the biology
and medicine relevant to diabetes.

> Otherwise, why post something that is, basically,
> meaningless?????

I think you're confusing your being baffled with meaninglessness in
general.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Alan Moorman wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 11:29:59 GMT, Chris Malcolm
> > wrote:
>
>>In alt.support.diabetes Alan Moorman >
wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Larry, but anyone who posts in a public forum
needs
>>> to go to some pains to explain their scientific language
in
>>> terms more of us can understand.
>>
>>> I'm smart, educated, and have a large vocabulary, but
>>> several paragraphs of dense scientific terminology
doesn't
>>> help me, or any other posters, understand what is being
>>> talked about.
>>
>>*Any* other posters?
>>
>>I assume firstly that at least a large minority of the
population has
>>an educational background in the sciences rather than the
arts, and
>>secondly that most of those reading asd have the largest
and most
>>easily accessible encyclopedia yet invented just a mouse
click
>>away. It wouldn't surprise me that more than half of asd
wouldn't
>>understand paragraphs of dense scientific terminology, but
you seem to
>>be claiming not only that almost everyone would fail to
understand it
>>at first reading, but that they would all be so
comprehensively
>>baffled that looking up the words they didn't know
wouldn't help in
>>the slightest.
>>
>>In fact, given that in asd we're all struggling with
diabetes, I would
>>have expected that some of those with no scientific
background
>>whatsoever would be motivated enough to learn something of
the biology
>>and medicine relevant to diabetes.
>>
>>> Otherwise, why post something that is, basically,
>>> meaningless?????
>>
>>I think you're confusing your being baffled with
meaninglessness in
>>general.
>
> OK, how about if I said that I think that 80% of the
people
> who would read that in this group wouldn't comprehend it,
> and would skip the information.

Which group? This is going to 3 groups, most of the
participants are long term posters and post in all 3 groups
regularly. I am not saying some won't skip some of the
posts but a lot participate in these types of threads, some
ask for the "English" version from time to time. No big
deal.

In alt.support.diabetes Jefferson > wrote:
> Alan wrote:

>>>I will have to come back later. The twins have a birthday party.

>> It would be nice if you could bring yourself to speak less
>> pompous scientific words, so that the rest of us can
>> understand what you're saying.
>>
>> That might help a great many more people. . . .!

> I was attempting to respond to Chris Malcolm and I didn't think what I
> said was as abstract as what he said.

It wasn't, but it did use more technical terms than mine did.

> I sorry that you feel this way, but I suppose that in my efforts to try
> and understand type 2 diabetes I have become somewhat of a freak. I put
> together most of the following about 4 years ago: GLOSSARY OF
> BIOCHEMICAL, MEDICAL CHEMISTRY, CELL BIOLOGY, AND DIABETIC TERMS -
> http://users.adelphia.net/~fwroy/glossary.html. As I was reading
> scientific and medical journals I would add more to the list, but have
> largerly neglected to maintain it. I did do this glossary for anyone
> but myself and therefore it is a work-in-progress. I need to update it
> some more, but there are some new search aids in it for anyone that
> wants their understanding beyond the elementary.

> Understand that I am a 71 year old man without much scientific
> background who was diagnosed almost 6 years ago. I came into what ever
> knowledge I have through the back door so to speak since I have taken no
> formal biochemistry, physiology, etc. courses.

Impressive! There are some people who think that's impossible at the
age of thirty :-)

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In alt.support.diabetes Alan Moorman > wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 11:29:59 GMT, Chris Malcolm
> > wrote:

>>In alt.support.diabetes Alan Moorman > wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry, Larry, but anyone who posts in a public forum needs
>>> to go to some pains to explain their scientific language in
>>> terms more of us can understand.
>>
>>> I'm smart, educated, and have a large vocabulary, but
>>> several paragraphs of dense scientific terminology doesn't
>>> help me, or any other posters, understand what is being
>>> talked about.
>>
>>*Any* other posters?
>>
>>I assume firstly that at least a large minority of the population has
>>an educational background in the sciences rather than the arts, and
>>secondly that most of those reading asd have the largest and most
>>easily accessible encyclopedia yet invented just a mouse click
>>away. It wouldn't surprise me that more than half of asd wouldn't
>>understand paragraphs of dense scientific terminology, but you seem to
>>be claiming not only that almost everyone would fail to understand it
>>at first reading, but that they would all be so comprehensively
>>baffled that looking up the words they didn't know wouldn't help in
>>the slightest.
>>
>>In fact, given that in asd we're all struggling with diabetes, I would
>>have expected that some of those with no scientific background
>>whatsoever would be motivated enough to learn something of the biology
>>and medicine relevant to diabetes.
>>
>>> Otherwise, why post something that is, basically,
>>> meaningless?????
>>
>>I think you're confusing your being baffled with meaninglessness in
>>general.

> OK, how about if I said that I think that 80% of the people
> who would read that in this group wouldn't comprehend it,
> and would skip the information.

> Does that sound any more reasonable? It does to me.

Yup. And it seems to me that that shift in proportion completely
removes the basis for your argument. I'd say that for 20% of a
newsgroup to be able to understand a bit of technical conversation
between two posters who like to read the research is pretty good, and
is more than enough to justify the posting. I'll bet a lot less than
20% of the posters here understand the more technical discussions
about how to set T1 insulin dosages.

> Which doesn't change my opinion that they were _virtually_
> useless posts, and perhaps should have been in one of the

> sci._____________

> newsgroups instead of an "alt." one.

Suggesting that something which is understandable by only 20% of a
newsgroup is _virtually_ useless sounds like mob rule to me.

> It is simply short-sighted and non-productive to post dense
> scientific verbiage in a group like this.

Since some of us understand it, some of us like the challenge of
finding out what it means, and some of us like to see that some of us
understand it and would answer questions on it if we were interested,
what's your problem?

There are a number of posters here who suffer from what to the rest of
us are really obscure medical conditions which give them added
complications in dealing with their diabetes. They sometimes get
involved in technical discussions of their specific disorder and its
treatment which I'll bet less than 5% of folk here are capable of
understanding. There's certainly a lot that I don't understand, and
which I have no interest in coming to understand, but I'm very pleased
indeed to see that that there's enough variety of life experience and
education here that these posters are able to get some helpful
feedback here.

> I don't doubt his good intentions, but his communications
> skills are completely lacking.

Of course they are. If you've had a formal education is a subject then
you've been exposed to teachers who've had special training in how to
communicate the technicalities to people who don't know anything about
it. That gives you a big leg up in trying to explain it to someone
else. It's very hard to develop the communication skills for helping
non-specialists to understand a technical area if you're self-taught,
as he is.

> And, he apparently doesn't
> realize when he's wasting his energy.

Given the support he's got from other posters in this thread I can't
imagine how you can make that claim.

I'll let you into a secret. I sometimes come across postings here
which I can hardly understand a word of, yet I suspect that if only I
did, I'd learn something useful about my kind of diabetes. So I save
those posts for a future time when I have more time to try and
understand them. When I first started posting here there were many
more of those posts than there are today. I owe most of my education
in diabetes to the asd posts I didn't understand two years ago, but do
today.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Alan Moorman wrote:
>>>>I think you're confusing your being baffled with
meaninglessness in
>>>>general.
>>>
>>> OK, how about if I said that I think that 80% of the
people
>>> who would read that in this group wouldn't comprehend
it,
>>> and would skip the information.
>>
>>Which group? This is going to 3 groups, most of the
>>participants are long term posters and post in all 3
groups
>>regularly. I am not saying some won't skip some of the
>>posts but a lot participate in these types of threads,
some
>>ask for the "English" version from time to time. No big
>>deal.
>
>
alt.food.diabetic,misc.health.diabetes,alt.support .diabetes
>
> Are the groups. Sorry I didn't say "news groups".
>
> I read several diabetic groups and several food groups,
and
> many of the posts are cross-posted, so I usually just say
> "news group" or "group". Jeez, I'm sorry.
>
> Regardless, posting in opaque scientific terminology is
> wasted effort unless one is in a professional group,
perhaps
> one of the "sci." groups.
>
> Alan Moorman

misc.health.diabetes is a "scientific" group by their
charter, asd is obvious - "support" and the food group is
used for posting recipes mainly to keep that out of the
other two groups.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:04:28 -0600, Alan Moorman >
Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:

>
>>>>
>>>>I think you're confusing your being baffled with
>>meaninglessness in
>>>>general.
>>>
>>> OK, how about if I said that I think that 80% of the
>>people
>>> who would read that in this group wouldn't comprehend it,
>>> and would skip the information.
>>
>>Which group? This is going to 3 groups, most of the
>>participants are long term posters and post in all 3 groups
>>regularly. I am not saying some won't skip some of the
>>posts but a lot participate in these types of threads, some
>>ask for the "English" version from time to time. No big
>>deal.
>
>alt.food.diabetic,misc.health.diabetes,alt.suppor t.diabetes
>
>Are the groups. Sorry I didn't say "news groups".
>
>I read several diabetic groups and several food groups, and
>many of the posts are cross-posted, so I usually just say
>"news group" or "group". Jeez, I'm sorry.
>
>Regardless, posting in opaque scientific terminology is
>wasted effort unless one is in a professional group, perhaps
>one of the "sci." groups.
>
>Alan Moorman


if you don't like it, don't ask the original poster/s to dumb down
their posts. just skip over it or ask for clarification on the points
you do not understand.

raise the bar, don't lower it. the last time we lowered the bar bush
stayed in office.

--
Mck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco"



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins


DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

Alan Moorman wrote:
> Regardless, posting in opaque scientific terminology is
> wasted effort unless one is in a professional group, perhaps
> one of the "sci." groups.

Sometimes there are posts here that I just don't have
the energy to decipher. So I skip them. It's not like
I'm losing much with 300-500 more posts to choose from.

Anyway, the one you are complaining about was NOT
one of those.

--
Wes Groleau

Nobody believes a theoretical analysis -- except the guy who did it.
Everybody believes an experimental analysis -- except the guy who
did it.
-- Unknown

In alt.support.diabetes Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:10:03 +1100, "Ozgirl"
> > wrote:
>>Alan Moorman wrote:

>>>>Which group? This is going to 3 groups, most of the
>>>>participants are long term posters and post in all 3
>>groups
>>>>regularly. I am not saying some won't skip some of the
>>>>posts but a lot participate in these types of threads,
>>some
>>>>ask for the "English" version from time to time. No big
>>>>deal.

>>alt.food.diabetic,misc.health.diabetes,alt.suppo rt.diabetes
>>>
>>> Are the groups. Sorry I didn't say "news groups".
>>>
>>> I read several diabetic groups and several food groups,
>>and
>>> many of the posts are cross-posted, so I usually just say
>>> "news group" or "group". Jeez, I'm sorry.
>>>
>>> Regardless, posting in opaque scientific terminology is
>>> wasted effort unless one is in a professional group,
>>perhaps
>>> one of the "sci." groups.
>>>
>>> Alan Moorman
>>
>>misc.health.diabetes is a "scientific" group by their
>>charter, asd is obvious - "support" and the food group is
>>used for posting recipes mainly to keep that out of the
>>other two groups.

> So you read the charter of every new news group you have an
> interest in?

It's a good idea to read the charter before you start pontificating
about inappropriate posts.

> I would never guess that a "misc" category was scientific
> and/or professional.

That's why there are charters.

> I wonder why they didn't get a "sci" designation, which
> would indicate that without anyone having to read the
> charter.

Maybe one day your curiosity will rise to such consuming dimensions
that you'll actually bother to look it up.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In alt.support.diabetes Alan wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:09:42 -0500, Ma?k
> > wrote:

>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:04:28 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>>Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:

>>>Regardless, posting in opaque scientific terminology is
>>>wasted effort unless one is in a professional group, perhaps
>>>one of the "sci." groups.

>>if you don't like it, don't ask the original poster/s to dumb down
>>their posts. just skip over it or ask for clarification on the points
>>you do not understand.

> Posting in obtuse, scientific language just doesn't help
> people.

For certain values of people. You're excluding anyone with a basic
grounding in biology or an interest in diabetic research publications.

> Not gonna change my mind about that!

Have you considered the possibility that the information wouldn't be
of any use to someone not prepared to try to understand the
terminology? The terminology isn't just shorthand for longer phrases
in everyday English.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

In alt.support.diabetes Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:59:32 GMT, Wes Groleau
> > wrote:

>>Sometimes there are posts here that I just don't have
>>the energy to decipher. So I skip them. It's not like
>>I'm losing much with 300-500 more posts to choose from.

[snip]

>>Anyway, the one you are complaining about was NOT
>>one of those.

> Yes it was. Perhaps you missed that part of the thread.

> In fact, I _would_ like do know what it was about.

So why on earth didn't you ask?

> But I'm
> so irritated that one of the few posts that might have been
> interesting and informative to me was so deliberately opaque
> that it might have been in code.

Aha! So that's the reason for your complaints! It wasn't the
scientific terminology. It was the fact that the OP was deliberately
using scientific terminology so you wouldn't be able to understand.

What a *******! No wonder you got so annoyed!

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Default] On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:12:32 -0600, Alan
Giggled into the madness of usenet:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:09:42 -0500, Ma¢k
> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 12:04:28 -0600, Alan Moorman >
>>Huffed and Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:
>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think you're confusing your being baffled with
>>>>meaninglessness in
>>>>>>general.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, how about if I said that I think that 80% of the
>>>>people
>>>>> who would read that in this group wouldn't comprehend it,
>>>>> and would skip the information.
>>>>
>>>>Which group? This is going to 3 groups, most of the
>>>>participants are long term posters and post in all 3 groups
>>>>regularly. I am not saying some won't skip some of the
>>>>posts but a lot participate in these types of threads, some
>>>>ask for the "English" version from time to time. No big
>>>>deal.
>>>
>>>alt.food.diabetic,misc.health.diabetes,alt.supp ort.diabetes
>>>
>>>Are the groups. Sorry I didn't say "news groups".
>>>
>>>I read several diabetic groups and several food groups, and
>>>many of the posts are cross-posted, so I usually just say
>>>"news group" or "group". Jeez, I'm sorry.
>>>
>>>Regardless, posting in opaque scientific terminology is
>>>wasted effort unless one is in a professional group, perhaps
>>>one of the "sci." groups.
>>>
>>>Alan Moorman
>>
>>
>>if you don't like it, don't ask the original poster/s to dumb down
>>their posts. just skip over it or ask for clarification on the points
>>you do not understand.
>>
>>raise the bar, don't lower it. the last time we lowered the bar bush
>>stayed in office.
>
>
>And I didn't vote for him either time!!
>
>My only problem is this: If a person takes the time to
>learn about a specific sub-set of diabetes, and posts it in
>language that is virtually not comprehensible to most of the
>posters in the group, there is a big opportunity being
>missed.
>
>If I understood the information the OP researched, and felt
>it was worth posting, I would try to make it comprehensible
>to most of the general readers of the group -- just because
>they all might learn more from that.
>
>Posting in obtuse, scientific language just doesn't help
>people.
>
>Not gonna change my mind about that!
>
>Alan Moorman


quoting the original source is something that is asked for over and
over again. doing so at the beginning of a thread is not being
obtuse, using scientific language as you call it, is not being obtuse,
it is being exact, correct, in the use of terminology. Just because
you don't understand the language doesn't make it obtuse. asking
people to dumb it down is not necessary.

assuming as you do that no one can understand it is a separate issue.


--
Mck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco"



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins


DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

[Default] On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:16:32 -0600, Alan
Giggled into the madness of usenet:

>Yes it was. Perhaps you missed that part of the thread.
>
>In fact, I _would_ like do know what it was about. But I'm
>so irritated that one of the few posts that might have been
>interesting and informative to me was so deliberately opaque
>that it might have been in code.
>
>Alan Moorman

¿?¿?¿?

please decipher what you wrote above.

--
Mck©® Deltec CoZmore Pumper
Type 1 since 1975
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
http://www.diabetic-talk.org
http://www.insulin-pumpers.org
http://www.pandora.com enter "Jason & Demarco"



"To announce that there must be no criticism of the
President, or that we are to stand by the President
right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public."
....Theodore Roosevelt

(o ô)
--ooO-(_)-Ooo--------------------

"I don't know half of you
half as well as I should like;
and I like less than half of you
half as well as you deserve."
....Bilbo Baggins


DISCLAIMER If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...
..

Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 08:10:03 +1100, "Ozgirl"
> > wrote:
>
>>Alan Moorman wrote:
>>>>>>I think you're confusing your being baffled with
meaninglessness
>>>>>>in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, how about if I said that I think that 80% of the
people
>>>>> who would read that in this group wouldn't comprehend
it,
>>>>> and would skip the information.
>>>>
>>>>Which group? This is going to 3 groups, most of the
>>>>participants are long term posters and post in all 3
groups
>>>>regularly. I am not saying some won't skip some of the
>>>>posts but a lot participate in these types of threads,
some
>>>>ask for the "English" version from time to time. No big
>>>>deal.
>>>
>>>
>>alt.food.diabetic,misc.health.diabetes,alt.suppo rt.diabete
s
>>>
>>> Are the groups. Sorry I didn't say "news groups".
>>>
>>> I read several diabetic groups and several food groups,
and
>>> many of the posts are cross-posted, so I usually just
say
>>> "news group" or "group". Jeez, I'm sorry.
>>>
>>> Regardless, posting in opaque scientific terminology is
>>> wasted effort unless one is in a professional group,
perhaps
>>> one of the "sci." groups.
>>>
>>> Alan Moorman
>>
>>misc.health.diabetes is a "scientific" group by their
>>charter, asd is obvious - "support" and the food group is
>>used for posting recipes mainly to keep that out of the
>>other two groups.
>
> So you read the charter of every new news group you have
an
> interest in?
>
> I would never guess that a "misc" category was scientific
> and/or professional.
>
> I wonder why they didn't get a "sci" designation, which
> would indicate that without anyone having to read the
> charter.
>
> Alan Moorman

One of the first things you will read in basic netiquette is
to read the charter (if they have one) of a group so you can
keep in "sync" with the original aim of the group.

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:12:32 -0600, Alan
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 21:09:42 -0500, Ma¢k
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>>
>>
>>if you don't like it, don't ask the original poster/s to dumb down
>>their posts. just skip over it or ask for clarification on the points
>>you do not understand.
>>
>>raise the bar, don't lower it. the last time we lowered the bar bush
>>stayed in office.
>
>
>And I didn't vote for him either time!!
>
>My only problem is this: If a person takes the time to
>learn about a specific sub-set of diabetes, and posts it in
>language that is virtually not comprehensible to most of the
>posters in the group, there is a big opportunity being
>missed.
>
Not at all - because among the readers will be a few who
have the ability to understand it and who may (or may not)
then dumb it down to my comprehension level.

>If I understood the information the OP researched, and felt
>it was worth posting, I would try to make it comprehensible
>to most of the general readers of the group -- just because
>they all might learn more from that.
>
There are several conversations occurring on the three ngs
this is posted on. At various times several of those are way
over my head. However, eventually the discussion often leads
to pearls for people like me. That's why I happily skim
through posts by Frank, Quentin, Gys and others - even the
small bits I do understand have sometimes led to significant
improvements in my own management of my diabetes.

And, oddly, I seem to understand a hell of a lot more these
days than I used to - partly because I struggled through
lots of those posts a while back, skipping back and forwards
from other sites that clarified them, such as medical
dictionaries.

>Posting in obtuse, scientific language just doesn't help
>people.
>
>Not gonna change my mind about that!
>
No need to. Keep doing what you're doing, and we'll keep
doing what we're doing. Somehow, among all that, a lot of
good info gets passed on to those who want it.
Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

Alan wrote:
> learn about a specific sub-set of diabetes, and posts it in
> language that is virtually not comprehensible to most of the
> posters in the group, there is a big opportunity being

How many of these "most of the posters" have piped up to confirm
it was "virutally not comprehensible" to them?

Sometimes "M&M" stands for mountains and molehills.

--
Wes Groleau

Change is inevitable.
Liberals need to learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "good."
Conservatives should learn that "inevitable" is not a synonym for "bad."
-- WWG

Alan wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:59:32 GMT, Wes Groleau
>> Sometimes there are posts here that I just don't have
>> the energy to decipher. So I skip them. It's not like
>> [snip]
>> Anyway, the one you are complaining about was NOT
>> one of those.
>
> Yes it was. Perhaps you missed that part of the thread.

So my comments were also opaque? I understood it, therefore
it was NOT one of those.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------
Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
(Not necessarily my opinion, but worth reading)

On Feb 11, 4:47 pm, Chris Malcolm > wrote:
> In alt.support.diabetes Jefferson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Alan S wrote:
> >>>Catherine E. Gleason, Michael Gonzalez, Jamie S. Harmon, and R. Paul
> >>>Robertson. Determinants of glucose toxicity and its reversibility in
> >>>pancreatic islet Beta-cell line, HIT-T15. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
> >>>279: E997-E1002, 2000
>
> >>>http://ajpendo.physiology.org/cgi/co...act/279/5/E997
>
> >> That's a really interesting paper. It's specifically
> >> interested in beta-cell damage and recovery, not other
> >> damage that may occur to the body from spikes.
> > (snipped)
> >> "In summary, these findings indicate that glucose
> >> toxicity of the b-cell is a continuous rather than a
> >> threshold function of glucose concentration and that
> >> the shorter the period of antecedent glucose toxicity,
> >> the greater the degree of recovery.
> > (snipped)
> >> On the other hand, a spectrum of pathophysiological
> >> changes may occur with more prolonged exposure of
> >> the b-cell to supraphysiological glucose concentrations.
>
> > (snipped)
>
> >> In this context, it seems likely that early, effective
> >> management by diet and drugs of hyperglycemia in type 2
> >> diabetes is an important aspect of preserving residual
> >> b-cell function. The same argument for meticulous glycemic
> >> control can be made after pancreas or islet
> >> transplantation."
>
> If this is like many other cases of mild recoverable damage which if
> too prolonged can become permanent, then it's not just the length of
> exposure to high BGs which will matter, but the time interval between
> episodes. What often seems to harden mild temporary recoverable damage
> into permanent damage is if the interval between the damaging episodes
> is not long enough for full recovery to take place. That's what would
> make the episodes have a cumulatively damaging effect, even though
> they may be brief and only very mildly damaging.
>
> I have no idea how long it takes to recover from soft recoverable
> glycation damage, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it was longer
> than a day. In fact on first principles I would suspect that it would
> follow the common half life logarithmic progression of recovering by
> 50% each fixed half-life interval of time (because that's the law of
> chemical mass action in solution). If that were the case, then a big
> long high spike once a week might be ok, but a brief little one every
> day might lead to progressive permanent damage.
>
> The A1C test is based on blood cell glycation damage. If there are
> some important kinds of glycation damage which have different recovery
> rates than blood cell glycation (which would hardly be surprising),
> then all a low A1C will tell you is that you're protected from those
> kinds of damage which recover at the same rate or more slowly than
> blood cell glycation damage.
>
> I note that at diagnosis I was already suffering from some typical
> diabetic complications, such as some neuropathy in hands and feet,
> despite having an A1C of 5.6%. My problem was that a few times a day I
> was having brief (probably 30-45mins) BG spikes in excess of 200. When
> I reduced the size and frequency of those spikes my neuropathy started
> to improve.
>
> My condition now seems to be close to the threshold of neuropathic
> damage, because if I keep my BG spikes down my neuropathy continues
> very slowly to improve, but one single brief BG spike over 150 will
> produce mild tingling in the edges of my hands.
>
> Other T2s posting here have reported the same kind of thing, even
> though they too are in the 5% A1C club.
>
> That suggests to me that there may be some merit in this idea that the
> interval between brief BG spikes is a critical factor in certain kinds
> of glycation damage. This idea does not seem to be a component in the
> medical models of glycation damage I see in epidemiological diabetic
> research reports, although I'd be surprised if it wasn't understood by
> specialists who were trying to build mathematical models of very
> specific kinds of glycation. One of the weaknesses of the current
> medical fashion for "evidence-based medicine" is that the kind of
> statistical attitude it encourages tends to devalue and distract
> attention from such modelling work.
>
> T1s please note that these observations are made in the context of the
> entire possible T2 metabolism, including IR and failures in lipid
> metabolism. They can't necessarily be generalised to T1s.
>
> > TABLE 1 Literature supporting chronic oxidative stress as a mechanism
> > for glucose toxicity of the beta-cell -
> >http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org...ll/52/3/581/T1
> > Treating Postprandial Hyperglycemia Does Not Appear to Delay Progression
> > of Early Type 2 Diabetes -
> >http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...full/29/9/2095
> >
>
> Yebbut look at what they tested!
>
> "OBJECTIVE: Postprandial hyperglycemia characterizes early type 2
> diabetes. We investigated whether ameliorating postprandial
> hyperglycemia with acarbose would prevent or delay progression of
> diabetes, defined as progression to frank fasting hyperglycemia, in
> subjects with early diabetes (fasting plasma glucose [FPG] <140 mg/dl
> and 2-h plasma glucose .200 mg/dl)."
>
> It puzzled them that this study contradicts other findings. They did
> recognise that their definition of "early diabetes" may be a little
> late, e.g.:
>
> "Another possible explanation is that our subjects, like those in the
> UKPDS and in clinical practice, were "too far gone" along the path of
> -cell failure for the intervention to affect progression. This would
> require us to believe that early diabetes is quite different from IGT,
> a condition in which controlling postprandial hyperglycemia seems to
> preserve -cell function or at least delay onset of diabetes (20). Our
> post hoc analysis of subjects who entered with FPG <126 mg/dl
> (presumably with even earlier diabetes) suggested that the rate of
> progression to FPG .126 mg/dl may have been reduced by acarbose. This
> would support the argument that once FPG exceeds 126 mg/dl, it may be
> too late to significantly affect -cell function."
>
> Note BTW that the current FPG diabetes diagnostic threshold is
> 126mg/dl...
>
> Finally they say curiously, without explanation:
>
> "It is unlikely that diabetes could be easily diagnosed in stages
> earlier than that of our subjects, ..."
>
> Why on earth is that unlikely? Medical politics?
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Good informative post, thanks.

Btw, it looks, in insulin resistance and glucotoxicity, body's natural
mechanism tries to lower insulin senstivity and quantity progressively
WHEREAS we try somewhat opposite. Why?

Can such more and continual insulin's exposure cause persisting
hyperglycemia insulin resistance, increased energy stores and their
decreased usage/breakdown?
Can such increased synthesis and decreased breakdown be pro-oxidation,
stimulate and promote oxidative stess orsystemic inflammatory
condition?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:16:32 -0600, Alan wrote:

>In fact, I _would_ like do know what it was about. But I'm
>so irritated that one of the few posts that might have been
>interesting and informative to me was so deliberately opaque
>that it might have been in code.

Oh dear! He used words that were too long for you! How bad of him.

Why the hell do you think anyone should dumb things down to cater for
you? They would like to have peer discussions - you appear to be
ruling yourself out of even making the effort to get there one day.
Tough luck for you - stop wittering on about it, will you.

Nicky.
T2 DX 05/2004
A1c 5.5% BMI 25 D&E
100ug Thyroxine

Alan Moorman wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:16:00 +0000, Nicky
> > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:16:32 -0600, Alan
wrote:
>>
>>>In fact, I _would_ like do know what it was about. But
I'm
>>>so irritated that one of the few posts that might have
been
>>>interesting and informative to me was so deliberately
opaque
>>>that it might have been in code.
>>
>>Oh dear! He used words that were too long for you! How bad
of him.
>>
>>Why the hell do you think anyone should dumb things down
to cater for
>>you? They would like to have peer discussions - you appear
to be
>>ruling yourself out of even making the effort to get there
one day.
>>Tough luck for you - stop wittering on about it, will you.
>>
>>Nicky.
>>T2 DX 05/2004
>>A1c 5.5% BMI 25 D&E
>>100ug Thyroxine
>
> OK. I give up. You guys aren't going to change your
minds,
> and neither am I.
>
> Hope you're all happy in your smugness.
>
> Alan Moorman

It's not a matter of smugness, it's a matter of people
enjoying speaking to others on certan levels, no harm in
that. No one is forced to read every post. You have been
advised to ask for help, I myself occasionally ask what does
something mean in English, but you don't want to. Sounds
like you just like to whine without actually doing something
about it. Don't make that everyone else's problem. Accept
that it is everyone's right to post how they want. I would
never expect any group to conform to my level.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:52:42 -0600, Alan
wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:59:57 +1100, "Ozgirl"
> wrote:
>
>>Alan Moorman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:16:00 +0000, Nicky
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:16:32 -0600, Alan
>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In fact, I _would_ like do know what it was about. But
>>I'm
>>>>>so irritated that one of the few posts that might have
>>been
>>>>>interesting and informative to me was so deliberately
>>opaque
>>>>>that it might have been in code.
>>>>
>>>>Oh dear! He used words that were too long for you! How bad
>>of him.
>>>>
>>>>Why the hell do you think anyone should dumb things down
>>to cater for
>>>>you? They would like to have peer discussions - you appear
>>to be
>>>>ruling yourself out of even making the effort to get there
>>one day.
>>>>Tough luck for you - stop wittering on about it, will you.
>>>>
>>>>Nicky.
>>>>T2 DX 05/2004
>>>>A1c 5.5% BMI 25 D&E
>>>>100ug Thyroxine
>>>
>>> OK. I give up. You guys aren't going to change your
>>minds,
>>> and neither am I.
>>>
>>> Hope you're all happy in your smugness.
>>>
>>> Alan Moorman
>>
>>It's not a matter of smugness, it's a matter of people
>>enjoying speaking to others on certan levels, no harm in
>>that. No one is forced to read every post. You have been
>>advised to ask for help, I myself occasionally ask what does
>>something mean in English, but you don't want to. Sounds
>>like you just like to whine without actually doing something
>>about it. Don't make that everyone else's problem. Accept
>>that it is everyone's right to post how they want. I would
>>never expect any group to conform to my level.
>
>Well sure. Smug people always see themselves as completely
>justified because they are so much more intelligent and
>knowledgeable than others.
>
>Too bad they can't recognize the need for effective
>communications in a group like this.
>
>
>
>Alan

I'm starting to realise that you really mean that. And that
you really don't see what that means.

Why the passion on this? Read and write what you want, let
others fail to communicate in their own way.


Cheers, Alan, T2, Australia.
d&e, metformin 1000mg, ezetrol 10mg
Everything in Moderation - Except Laughter.
--
http://loraldiabetes.blogspot.com/
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Epidaurus

Alan Moorman wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:59:57 +1100, "Ozgirl"
> > wrote:
>
>>Alan Moorman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:16:00 +0000, Nicky
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:16:32 -0600, Alan
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In fact, I _would_ like do know what it was about. But
I'm
>>>>>so irritated that one of the few posts that might have
been
>>>>>interesting and informative to me was so deliberately
opaque
>>>>>that it might have been in code.
>>>>
>>>>Oh dear! He used words that were too long for you! How
bad of him.
>>>>
>>>>Why the hell do you think anyone should dumb things down
to cater
>>>>for you? They would like to have peer discussions - you
appear to be
>>>>ruling yourself out of even making the effort to get
there one day.
>>>>Tough luck for you - stop wittering on about it, will
you.
>>>>
>>>>Nicky.
>>>>T2 DX 05/2004
>>>>A1c 5.5% BMI 25 D&E
>>>>100ug Thyroxine
>>>
>>> OK. I give up. You guys aren't going to change your
minds,
>>> and neither am I.
>>>
>>> Hope you're all happy in your smugness.
>>>
>>> Alan Moorman
>>
>>It's not a matter of smugness, it's a matter of people
>>enjoying speaking to others on certan levels, no harm in
>>that. No one is forced to read every post. You have been
>>advised to ask for help, I myself occasionally ask what
does
>>something mean in English, but you don't want to. Sounds
>>like you just like to whine without actually doing
something
>>about it. Don't make that everyone else's problem. Accept
>>that it is everyone's right to post how they want. I would
>>never expect any group to conform to my level.
>
> And you seem to have an agenda which is extreme, and a
> defensive fixation about it.

Would you like to put a name to the agenda and explain it?

> I'm sure you feel totally justified, but you SEEM to be
> quite off-kilter about all this!

> Way too sensitive and defensive.

> I think that's what provoked me.

You complained that YO couldn't understand what others were
saying, that makes it your problem not theirs. The only
thing I defend is their right to post (quote) however they
wish, there will always be some who can understand and
happily converse amongst each other on their level. I really
don;t see why you have a problem with this.

Alan wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 10:59:57 +1100, "Ozgirl"
> > wrote:
>
>>Alan Moorman wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:16:00 +0000, Nicky
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 10:16:32 -0600, Alan
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In fact, I _would_ like do know what it was about. But
>>I'm
>>>>>so irritated that one of the few posts that might have
>>been
>>>>>interesting and informative to me was so deliberately
>>opaque
>>>>>that it might have been in code.
>>>>
>>>>Oh dear! He used words that were too long for you! How
bad
>>of him.
>>>>
>>>>Why the hell do you think anyone should dumb things down
>>to cater for
>>>>you? They would like to have peer discussions - you
appear
>>to be
>>>>ruling yourself out of even making the effort to get
there one day.
>>>>Tough luck for you - stop wittering on about it, will
you.
>>>>
>>>>Nicky.
>>>>T2 DX 05/2004
>>>>A1c 5.5% BMI 25 D&E
>>>>100ug Thyroxine
>>>
>>> OK. I give up. You guys aren't going to change your
>>minds,
>>> and neither am I.
>>>
>>> Hope you're all happy in your smugness.
>>>
>>> Alan Moorman
>>
>>It's not a matter of smugness, it's a matter of people
>>enjoying speaking to others on certan levels, no harm in
>>that. No one is forced to read every post. You have been
>>advised to ask for help, I myself occasionally ask what
does
>>something mean in English, but you don't want to. Sounds
>>like you just like to whine without actually doing
something
>>about it. Don't make that everyone else's problem. Accept
>>that it is everyone's right to post how they want. I would
>>never expect any group to conform to my level.
>
> Well sure. Smug people always see themselves as
completely
> justified because they are so much more intelligent and
> knowledgeable than others.
>
> Too bad they can't recognize the need for effective
> communications in a group like this.

So we should dumb down to the lowest denominator? We could t
alk in a way that my dughter, who has Down syndrome and has
an IQ of less than 50 might understand. Would that be better
for you? If you want stuff dumbed down how will you ever
learn anything? You will stay at the same level of
understanding and then whine about it.

Alan Moorman wrote:

> Oh, for Christ's sake!
>
> No.
>
> Talk so a person with an IQ of about 100, who isn't a
> scientist, can understand how the otherwise incomprehensible
> blather relates to their daily struggle to maintain their
> health with diabetes.
>
> What the heck is so off-putting about that concept?
>
> Really, what's wrong with that?????????
>
> I can't see ANY reason for you all to object to my
> criticism, unless you WANT to be all elite and snobby.
>
> Too bad for you guys, it limits you soooo much.
>
> Alan
>

And then Alan Moorman appears. He feels he has the right to tell
everyone else how to post, despite the fact that he's never contributed
anything worthwhile to this group since his first post in 1996. He's
apparently very proud of his ignorance, and wants the information dumbed
down to his level. And, in his self-centered little world, he can't see
ANY reason to object to his whiney wanking. In the future, please do all
Alan's research for him. He's both too stupid or too busy blubbering to
do it for himself.

Too bad for me? I'm so ashamed of myself that I can no longer trust
myself to help you, Alan. Sure hope this doesn't cause you to hold your
breath and stomp your little feet. So sorry. <sob> (How will I ever go on?)

Jim

In alt.support.diabetes Alan Moorman > wrote:
: >So we should dumb down to the lowest denominator? We could t
: >alk in a way that my dughter, who has Down syndrome and has
: >an IQ of less than 50 might understand. Would that be better
: >for you? If you want stuff dumbed down how will you ever
: >learn anything? You will stay at the same level of
: >understanding and then whine about it.

: Oh, for Christ's sake!

: No.

: Talk so a person with an IQ of about 100, who isn't a
: scientist, can understand how the otherwise incomprehensible
: blather relates to their daily struggle to maintain their
: health with diabetes.

: What the heck is so off-putting about that concept?

: Really, what's wrong with that?????????

: I can't see ANY reason for you all to object to my
: criticism, unless you WANT to be all elite and snobby.

: Too bad for you guys, it limits you soooo much.

: Alan

If you actually had a group aimed at the 100IQ we could not have all the
non-scientific posts we have here. It is remarkable how limited it would
be. As it is, we have posts suitable for all kinds of people so each can
find what s/he needs and just can skip what they don't want to plow
through or is too repetitious for them. using the lowest cmmon
denominator would bore most people here to death very soon and would not
give us all kinds of new information that many of us can only get part of,
but would otherwise miss entirely.

Oversiplification is one of the problems with much of the material we get
as diabetics in all those leaflets and booklets at the doctor's office.
We want more, so we come here and often struggle to understand, but our
intellegence is not insulted as it would be with dumbed down material.

Wendy

In alt.support.diabetes Alan Moorman > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:34:36 +1100, "Ozgirl"

>>So we should dumb down to the lowest denominator? We could t
>>alk in a way that my dughter, who has Down syndrome and has
>>an IQ of less than 50 might understand. Would that be better
>>for you? If you want stuff dumbed down how will you ever
>>learn anything? You will stay at the same level of
>>understanding and then whine about it.

> I can't see ANY reason for you all to object to my
> criticism, unless you WANT to be all elite and snobby.

> Too bad for you guys, it limits you soooo much.

You're the only one who's complaining of being limited!

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Hi Alan,

I'm genuinely sorry you feel this way but we all have areas of learning others don't understand and an NG forum is as appropriate a place to air them as any.
For those who don't understand something (or even just don't want to read it), they are free to skip it.

If we *want* to understand but don't then we should ask, ask and ask again - that's an effective way of learning.

But it achieves nothing to criticise posters whose posts we don't properly understand.
It even achieves nothing to criticise those who appear to deliberately obfuscate matters to prevent non-geeks understanding (which criticism *doesn't apply here*).

So just ask!

Take care,
Phil.
--
"Time wounds all heels."

http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/diabetes.html
http://uk.geocities.com/philadkinsp/index.html

"Alan Moorman" > wrote in message
news : On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:28:51 +0000,
: lid (Phil Aypee) wrote:
:
: >Hi Alan,
: >
: >I'm genuinely sorry you feel this way but we all have areas of learning
others don't understand and an NG forum is as appropriate a place to air
them as any.
: >For those who don't understand something (or even just don't want to read
it), they are free to skip it.
: >
: >If we *want* to understand but don't then we should ask, ask and ask
again - that's an effective way of learning.
: >
: >But it achieves nothing to criticise posters whose posts we don't
properly understand.
: >It even achieves nothing to criticise those who appear to deliberately
obfuscate matters to prevent non-geeks understanding (which criticism
*doesn't apply here*).
:
: But, that's just wrong and irresponsible, isn't it?
: "to deliberately obfuscate matters to prevent non-geeks
: understanding"
:
: Isn't it?
:
: I mean, it is someone's right, I guess, but how does what
: they learned, but can't express for us, help us?
:
:
: Sure, anyone can post anything on topic.
:
: But, isn't there an implied courtesy to make it
: understandable to most of the readers of a group?
:
: I simply don't see the point of posting what is mumbo-jumbo.
: Sure, they can, if they want. But, what a waste!
:
: What is it you don't understand about that?
:
: Alan Moorman
:

I've pretty much stayed out of this argument, but I think something
needs to be mentioned. While some of you that are "high and mighty"
that think others need to come up to your level.. did you ever think
that there might be some here that aren't able to come up to that
type of reading comprehension no matter how long they sit and read
a page? There are some I'm sure here that have learning disabilities,
thoses who take other medications that prevent reading comprehension,
etc.. is it fair to those folks to basically call them "stupid" or "lazy"
because
they have issues that prevent them from being able to follow along. I am
posting this for a friend that is a psychologist, who's now been diagnosed
a T2 and happens to have been born deaf and without a terp it takes her
much longer to try to figure out what all of your big fancy words translate
into simple everyday english since in ASL, they don't use fancy words.. Life
is real, life is simple.

We aren't in a college lecture.. this is a simple newsgroup where the
average person SUPPORTS the average person.. if you aren't able to
be supportive however or whatever that might be.. then maybe you
need to just not post and waste bandwidth.

It certainly can go both ways.

In alt.support.diabetes Alan wrote:
: On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 01:11:24 +0000 (UTC), "W. Baker"
: > wrote:

: >In alt.support.diabetes Alan Moorman > wrote:
: >: >So we should dumb down to the lowest denominator? We could t
: >: >alk in a way that my dughter, who has Down syndrome and has
: >: >an IQ of less than 50 might understand. Would that be better
: >: >for you? If you want stuff dumbed down how will you ever
: >: >learn anything? You will stay at the same level of
: >: >understanding and then whine about it.
: >
: >: Oh, for Christ's sake!
: >
: >: No.
: >
: >: Talk so a person with an IQ of about 100, who isn't a
: >: scientist, can understand how the otherwise incomprehensible
: >: blather relates to their daily struggle to maintain their
: >: health with diabetes.
: >
: >: What the heck is so off-putting about that concept?
: >
: >: Really, what's wrong with that?????????
: >
: >: I can't see ANY reason for you all to object to my
: >: criticism, unless you WANT to be all elite and snobby.
: >
: >: Too bad for you guys, it limits you soooo much.
: >
: >: Alan
: >
: >If you actually had a group aimed at the 100IQ we could not have all the
: >non-scientific posts we have here. It is remarkable how limited it would
: >be.

: Isn't 100 average?

: Are you saying people in this group are way below average?



: >As it is, we have posts suitable for all kinds of people so each can
: >find what s/he needs and just can skip what they don't want to plow
: >through or is too repetitious for them. using the lowest cmmon
: >denominator would bore most people here to death very soon and would not
: >give us all kinds of new information that many of us can only get part of,
: >but would otherwise miss entirely.
: >
: >Oversiplification is one of the problems with much of the material we get
: >as diabetics in all those leaflets and booklets at the doctor's office.
: >We want more, so we come here and often struggle to understand, but our
: >intellegence is not insulted as it would be with dumbed down material.
: >
: >Wendy

: Of course, but I would hope that someone who had researched
: some point, and who could post it in a way that only a
: scientist could understand, would also have the courtesy to
: relate it in a way that an average person could understand
: it and apply it to their own on-going battle with diabetes.

: What's so darn strange about that?????

: Alan Moorman

If you follow a thread you often get, from the comments of others, what is
being said that you may not have understood at first. Because of the way
I read mail it is a dreadful nuisance to check oupt urls without going
through a whole rigamarole. I, therefore, "cheat" and and wait for later
posters to makecomments that make clear to me what is being discussed.

Exercise a little patience in these threads and you will, generally,
understand what is being discussed.

Wendy

Alan Moorman wrote:
> Something was posted in impenetrable scientific jargon -- a
> conversation between two posters. I'm smart, but there was
> no way any of us could have understood it!

That's right. None of us understood it.
We're all liars but you figured us out.

--
Wes Groleau
"Beware the barrenness of a busy life."
-- George Verwer

"Alan Moorman" > wrote in message > Something was posted
in impenetrable scientific jargon -- a
> conversation between two posters. I'm smart, but there was
> no way any of us could have understood it!
>
> But, your point is well taken.
>
> Alan Moorman
>

just do what the loudest ones here do - make a lil report on a web page you
read, change a few words around to make it look like your words and you are
done. dont for get to ad.... thats common sense at the end and tada instint
expert.

--
Tom

www.TomsDiabeticDiary.com

In alt.support.diabetes rk > wrote:
> "Alan Moorman" > wrote in message
> news > : On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 09:28:51 +0000,
> : lid (Phil Aypee) wrote:

> : >Hi Alan,
> : >
> : >I'm genuinely sorry you feel this way but we all have areas of learning
> others don't understand and an NG forum is as appropriate a place to air
> them as any.
> : >For those who don't understand something (or even just don't want to read
> it), they are free to skip it.
> : >
> : >If we *want* to understand but don't then we should ask, ask and ask
> again - that's an effective way of learning.
> : >
> : >But it achieves nothing to criticise posters whose posts we don't
> properly understand.
> : >It even achieves nothing to criticise those who appear to deliberately
> obfuscate matters to prevent non-geeks understanding (which criticism
> *doesn't apply here*).
> :
> : But, that's just wrong and irresponsible, isn't it?
> : "to deliberately obfuscate matters to prevent non-geeks
> : understanding"
> :
> : Isn't it?
> :
> : I mean, it is someone's right, I guess, but how does what
> : they learned, but can't express for us, help us?
> :
> :
> : Sure, anyone can post anything on topic.
> :
> : But, isn't there an implied courtesy to make it
> : understandable to most of the readers of a group?
> :
> : I simply don't see the point of posting what is mumbo-jumbo.
> : Sure, they can, if they want. But, what a waste!
> :
> : What is it you don't understand about that?
> :
> : Alan Moorman
> :

> I've pretty much stayed out of this argument, but I think something
> needs to be mentioned. While some of you that are "high and mighty"
> that think others need to come up to your level.. did you ever think
> that there might be some here that aren't able to come up to that
> type of reading comprehension no matter how long they sit and read
> a page? There are some I'm sure here that have learning disabilities,
> thoses who take other medications that prevent reading comprehension,
> etc.. is it fair to those folks to basically call them "stupid" or "lazy"
> because
> they have issues that prevent them from being able to follow along.

That's not the problem. Nobody has been calling those who don't
understand this or that stupid or lazy. Not understanding everything
is a basic feature of human existence. The attack is coming from a
very small vociferous minority who are accusing others of pretending
to be clever by using big words.

> I am
> posting this for a friend that is a psychologist, who's now been diagnosed
> a T2 and happens to have been born deaf and without a terp it takes her
> much longer to try to figure out what all of your big fancy words translate
> into simple everyday english since in ASL, they don't use fancy words.. Life
> is real, life is simple.

If it was we wouldn't have had to invent science in the first place.

> We aren't in a college lecture.. this is a simple newsgroup where the
> average person SUPPORTS the average person..

Check out the BGs being reported by folk in asd. Then compare them to
the average BGs of diabetics in the US as reported by ADA. The posters
here are obviously very far from average. What's more, many of them
have quite explicitly pointed out that it is their ambition to get
even further away from being an average diabetic.

Asd is a support group for those who don't want to be the average
diabetic with the average diabetic complications. Nothing whatsoever
average about it, and that is its great virtue.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Chris Malcolm wrote:

> Check out the BGs being reported by folk in asd. Then
compare them to
> the average BGs of diabetics in the US as reported by ADA.
The posters
> here are obviously very far from average. What's more,
many of them
> have quite explicitly pointed out that it is their
ambition to get
> even further away from being an average diabetic.

There is always more! (no, not steak knives..) Not only are
their many success stories in ASD, there are always the
praises and general consensus that ASD helped individuals to
gain and maintain excellent control.

> Asd is a support group for those who don't want to be the
average
> diabetic with the average diabetic complications. Nothing
whatsoever
> average about it, and that is its great virtue.

Absolutely.