Re: OT/ Sins of the Past

This post not CC'd by email
On 8 Nov 2005 13:13:27 -0800, "mrslang" <mslangerhans@xxxxxxx> wrote:

>well thanks for posting all this alan as I have never taken the time to
>google up what the brouha was about regarding tom.

G'day G'day Sally,

That was something I guessed long ago. It seemed too awful to
consider that you had read the record in Google and not realised how
much Tom has contributed to the treatment he has received. Now we
know you have never taken the time to google up what the brouhaha was
regarding Tom. Of course you still don't know and seemingly don't want
to know the half of it and I'm not blaming you. Who needs it?
It's like childhood diseases, once is more than enough and no thinking
adult wishes them on themselves if they can legitimately avoid it.

> there is a lynch mob mentality in here against him and that has
> always bothered me.

Lynch mob mentalities should bother people.
There is something disturbing about lynch mob mentalities.

There is often enough a lynch mob mentality here. It is something you
have spoken out about and I admire you for that. Not sure it was
entirely a success cataloguing all the nasty things people said about
Tom in a recent instance. You may well have helped reinforce them. I
mean people flick through each nasty statement and largely forget
them. Some no doubt forgot them because they wanted to say something
nastier or at least cleverer. Put simply there was a flood of pent up
emotion that poured out and like News at 10 you catalogued it.

What surprised me then and still surprises me is that you didn't go
back and check out for yourself why SO MANY people are so often fed up
with Tom's behaviour. (I mean you have on several occasions defended
Tom. You may have defended others. Of that I'm not sure. It is
reasonable to sense a pattern where Tom is concerned.)

The vehemence of what was written by so many is a thinking person's
clue that there is history and that the history is substantial. Of
course for the kook brain it points to conspiracy and I don't and
never will put you in the kook brain category.

You chose to defend him on general principles. More merit to you for
doing so. Still it must surely have made you wonder why there weren't
people coming out and saying Tom was a maligned saint and what was
being said was erroneous in general and in particulars. There is
usually someone around who gets a kick out of taking a contrary
position. I'm not about to subscribe to some nambie pambie notion that
people are too scared to because of the mob mentality. Folks do post
using the nom de plume "Anon".

FWIIW the lynch mob mentality sure comes to the fore when dealing with
persistent trolls. You might wonder why. Well they are people who
don't seem to understand the word "No" and phrases like, "You don't
belong here" and "You are endangering the lives of others."

The trolls see it as something in the way of an initial discussion.
After a while even the most open minded of us recognise kooks are more
dangerous or greed or poverty driven than we would like to believe of
the good nature of people. Intelligent people seek to reign in some
of the raw frustration felt by others so that they don't go off half
cock.

As far as I'm aware no actual trolls have died as result of the lynch
mob mentality to be found here. Rather some people's lives have
probably been saved by dissuading dangerous people from continuing to
post here.

>yes his post to ozgirl was vile and disgusting. but you know
>something, hers was much worse. do you not realize that she drew first
>blood?

According to whom? Alan has had the kindness to supply you with a
snippet of what went on with Tom. A snippet is just that. It starts
somewhere in what is essentially a continuum.

> when someone is first diagnosed with diabetes they are confused
>and angry and their body is raging with illness that can affect their
>mood.

Tell us about it. This group has dealt with some VERY angry and
confused characters. Some in total denial. Some just plain angry that
life has dealt them a nasty blow. Some were incredibly emotionally
labile, frantic, anxious, clutching at straws ... introducing all sort
of "natural" cures. Google what has happened to these people if you
like. Some of them became stable contributors, glad there were people
here who had the personal experience to know it was survivable and
tough enough to stiff it out with them.

>coming to this place isn't always a pleasant experience for
>someone who is new

Yeap.

>and someone who does not want to just blindly buy
>the heavy handed advice that is offered and god in heaven forbid if
>they support the ADA.

Agreed for many people there is a bias against the ADA. Of course you
have thought about why this might be so. Once again at the risk of
sounding repetitive I don't believe you fall for the kook brain
conspiracy theory. Everything I have read of yours suggests
intelligence ... not just above average intelligence ... high
intelligence. The reason for many is that they followed the ADA
advice or advice given to them by dieticians who thought they were
following the ADA advice and suffered. They suffered until they found
a better way of dealing with maintaining acceptable blood glucose
levels. My guess is you have heard that a few times and have come to
understand.

Why would they want others to suffer unnecessarily as they had done?


FWIIW I have taken the opportunity on several occasions to learn from
those such as yourself and Tom who have been happy with the ADA advice
just how you have achieved success. Unfortunately I have found my
enquires dropped without reply. I'm willing to try again if you like.

The sad part, as I see it, is the expert opinion sponsored by the ADA
does have some excellent advice that is worth reading and
understanding on diet for T2s but the more public pages seem too often
to pander to the public by not advocated real dietary change.
However that is my opinion.

>yes tom's response was bad but not near as bad as a newbie being told
>that they are going to die anyway and making a very sick joke about the
>ADA paying for the funeral.

It does seem insensitive even down right thoughtless. I'm sure there
were other ways of making the point. On the other hand it presupposes
that Tom is or was somehow delicate and this wasn't recognised. IMHO
his supposed delicacy could be easily overstated as he himself does
from time to time for effect. Whatever, his language such as you have
now witnessed in small part, should suggest beyond any shadow of
doubt, someone who has had MUCH experience in resisting the
suggestions of others and is prepared at the drop of a hat to defend
himself in a manner most of us wouldn't dream.

ASD didn't make Tom what he is and what you now see. He came made.
Some sensed that faster than I did and responded accordingly. If you
Google a bit you will see that I invested quite a bit of effort into
bringing him around. Sorry I can't recall which identity he was
assuming at the time but the length exchange can be found if you are
interested. Eventually I decided that he was on a mission and wasn't
to be brought around. OK, there have been moments when we have had
long amicable intelligent discussions for instance on monounsaturated
fats.

IMHO his obsession with ADA has little to do with the possible merits
of their advice. He certainly has had limited benefits from it
personally if rumours of his recent weight gain are at all valid. As
is typical of monotheist trolls he has adopted a cause. He just
happens to be a residential troll. Advocating the ADA and visiting
dieticians at every opportunity has become his vehicle to reek
vengeance on asd. Frankly I must say it is quite clever bait for a
monotheist troll.

>the fact that many in here can forgive the one and not the other is
>mind boggling.

Not really. Most people have had enough of Tom if their "expressions
of interest" are anything to go by and enough is enough.

You obviously haven't and that is as it is.

Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT/ Sins of the Past
    ... Information you can trust from the diabetes experts... ... >>google up what the brouha was about regarding tom. ... who insisted i either follow their advice or leave. ... " thats right your going to die anyway, i hope the ADA pays for your ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Diabetes Education
    ... Obviously I believe the ADA is a great organization. ... Tom has become the a.s.d. ... when it comes to the constant attacks and dredging up of the past. ... team insults that are thrown his way on a pretty regular basis. ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Wavelets and Encryption
    ... > tomstdenis@yahoo.com writes: ... >> this useless behaviour which is nothing more than a childs game ... > Your advice is good; I understand why you find it difficult to follow ... Google this summer. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: OT/ Lower than a Snakes Belly
    ... > common is fostering forthright discussion about the ADA. ... > IMHO she frequently uses debating skills very adeptly to support her ... > bothered discussing it at all until Tom or Sally fire them up. ... Your American Diabetes Association ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)
  • Re: Diagnosis confirmation?
    ... The words about the ADA being where no one goes to create a diet were ... If you read my post carefully, Kurt, I have never levelled any charge ... which Tom, the Gantlet, responded as follows: ... I question doctors, ...
    (alt.support.diabetes)