• Part 2 March 29 - 5:21 am

First suggestion: Keep the board sizes dinky. I hate having my browser crash constantly 'cause no one can take the time to make a new board and close the old one out.

Remember Morgan talking about the 400k project when Mike was still moderator?

Ok, I'll do that, MJ. Thanks for giving me my first suggestion!

Don't get po'ed by sock puppets. Leave that to "regular" popsters.

One of the first things you should do is post a FAQ about acceptable behavior. Phil's almost certainly watching this board now. It's probably better to be more harsh up front to cut down on the "what a bunch of ignorant nuts you all are" posts.

"This is a civil website: no fussin', no flamin', no cussin', no sleaze. And everybody gets a right to their own opinion!"

I would suggest that, for the next month or so, you police the boards on a regular basis, i.e. more than once a day, and immediately delete anything that is unacceptable. That is, thinly veiled insults, flames, calling people jerks, ••••••, etc. Bringing up past flame wars.

Do this consistently on a regular basis--and apply it equally to all peeps--and you should be able to maintain control over the boards and promote more dignified discussions.

There's no need to be mean or heavy handed or sarcastic, just post simple and clear rules, and then delete posts that do not follow them.

BTW, I am list mom of a list that's 3 years old, has 500 members, and sometimes over 2500 posts a month. We've found it necessary to ban 2 peeps during the last 3 years. The best advice I can offer you is when you feel like flying off the handle, discuss it with someone who is not emotionally involved with the issue. Also, we find it best, on my list, to switch 'list mom' duties back and forth every 3-4 months. That way you get to take a break and just enjoy the community every once in a while.


Best of Luck to you!

Merry

Thanks, guys. I'll definitely take those all into account. Mark, thanks for the quote. I was thinking of it when I wrote my announcement but forgot to save it before I deleted it and couldn't quite remember it word for word. As you can see I added it to the announcement, as well as one or two other minor details.

Merry, I'll police RM as much as I can everyday, but my work hours fluctuate so I'll be coming here at various times as well, just not at the same time everyday. I got the idea from another board about having a co-mod and I asked MJ if she'd like to do it if I decided to go ahead and have one and she accepted, so that way RM would almost always have a mod looking out for it at sometime or other. I suppose even MarkM could help out if he really wanted to. I just wouldn't want to end up having too many chefs spoiling the soup, but I really doubt that'd happen.

It looks good Mark. The dark tyranny of the Supermoderators is past. Good luck on the board. To logic! May our carefully charted out premises always lead to our conclusion.

Thanks, Matt.

If someone can justify why they need my phone number, I may give it. Of course, I don't really need you to tell me...

Wow. Stop visiting the site for a couple of months, and look what happens--it becomes civil!

The only suggestion I have that hasn't been mentioned already is, if you make a threat to delete, ban, etc., make sure to carry it out, no matter how much of a pain in the butt it might seem to be. It will save you a lot of work in the end.

Good luck, Mark!

Well, thank you very much for your support, Juli! If you have any ideas you'd like to see or boards you'd like posted I'm all ears.

You should have seen it three weeks ago, Juli. The moderator matters a lot and Sax was awful: worse than Wes over at PM. So far Mark has done a fine job.

Peter.

BTW, a couple of really radical suggestions:

*Open up the front page for general comments again, so people don't have to go off topic in real threads when they are just generally discussing events in their life.

*Reinstate the "Create New Conversation" button. I wasn't on the site when this was scrapped, but I seriously doubt it was necessary and remains so. You can't be online all the time, but assuming you are checking the board at least once a day, you can delete all the stuff that shouldn't be there then.

Peter.

Oh and welcome back, juli k. I was wondering what happened to you and Margie just the other day, and then you both returned.

Peter.

-- *Open up the front page for general comments again, so people don't have to go off topic in real threads when they are just generally discussing events in their life. --

That's what "General Discussion" is for, Peter.

Peter, except for on the Religious Films board I chose not to reinstate the CNC button for now cuz it's been abused before elsewhere. I'm not totally against them, of course. I just want to be rather sparse in using them, but I'm always open to new ideas for boards, too. And thanks for being civil here, and the compliment, but please hold off on posts like that poem of yours on the Christmas board, ok? I didn't find it quite as bad as that story on the Wiccan Sabbats board (though others besides Jwb might) but it was still in poor taste.

Boy, am I going to get in trouble for this, for defending Peter...

I didn't find his poem to be in poor taste or offensive in the least. I didn't see it mocking anyone or anything, nor did it trample upon the legitmate beliefs of other people.

I saw it to be an expression of his own faith, and how he sees Christmas - not a time of buying and giving gifts, or sending holiday cards; rather, a time for Christians to reflect on what their faith means to them.

Would it have been any less offensive if Scott had posted a Jewish version under "Chanukah" or if I had posted a Wiccan version under "Yule"?

I think not. It wasn't that offensive at all.

I agree with MJ. It wasn't offensive. IMHO, he was posting something he completely agreed with, and it wasn't sarcastic.

Anyone who believes the Bible is complete bunkum would not be at all offended by that, as far as I can see. Only those who let their faith wain should really be worried (not offended) but its clarion call.

(Is the C silent in Chanukah?)

How has the "Create New Conversation" button been abused? And what, as moderator, prevents you from sorting out that abuse when it does occur?

Peter.

No, it's a gutteral, as in "Bach".

How has the "Create New Conversation" button been abused?

People posting topics with deliberately insulting titles so that right off the bat there's a flame war.

And what, as moderator, prevents you from sorting out that abuse when it does occur?

Nothing, but why waste the time?

Deliberately insulting titles can be changed easily, and that should apply as much to things like "Enlightenment. Knowledge. Peter doesn't seek these" and "Censorhip is as bad as homophobia" as it should to "Homosexuality: a sick perversion".

The reason for `wasting the time` is to allow people to discuss things freely on a topic that dominates their mind on a board not already discussing something else.

Peter.

Excuse me, but how is "Censorship is worse than homophobia" insulting you annoying pain in the ass? You clearly are an idiot Peter, like I've always said.

1) It implies censorship is bad
2) It uses a word designed to make out moral objection to homosexuality is a character flaw
3) It implies that opposition to homosexuality is bad
4) It implies that opposition to homosexuality is as bad as censorship (and so annoying anti-censorship pro-family people, and anti-family censors)

All such things are wrong in an unbiased title designed to promote open discussion.

Peter.

Well, sorry, Peter, but from our side of the pond, censorship IS bad.

1) Censorship IS bad.
2) Homophobia is not a 'moral objection' to anything, it's blind hatred, fear, and mistrusts of those who are different from what you were taught to beleive is the established 'norm.'
3) Beleiveing gays to be less than human or not 'noraml' as you put it, plus all your stereotypes and pojntless ramblings about how gays are ruinging things for all white conservative Chrsitians IS bad.
4) What does homosexuality have to do with family? To here you tell it every time a man kisses a man your parents get one step clsoer to divorce or somehting!

Try again Wingnut.

Woah try and hold two thoughts in your head at once, guys. I wasn't asking for your half-formed opinions. I was proving the title worked upon biased assumptions.

Peter.

My my my...I think I'm going for a record here (btw, Scott, I'm glad that someone else agrees with me! Morgan and I had a "discussion" about it at breakfast).

Anon and Dude, let me put this very politely: shut up.

You're as bad as Peter when he gets really going. However, as he has neither insulted nor flamed anyone on this board, then neither should the two of you.

Either offer our new moderator some constructive advice, or keep your mouths shut.

I haven't been spending a lot of time at nitcentral; I don't know what the consensus on this is. But I sometimes find news items on the Internet I feel like sharing; and sometimes it's silly, fun stuff. What I feel like doing is posting them under two or more subjects on
Nitcentral; always something fairly relevant, and I'd put it under an old subject if possible, instead of creating a whole new subject.
I know people are annoyed when people do that to boost a stock price or write, "Kill Wesley!" or similar things, but that's not what I want to do.
But would it be annoying, anyway?

Ok, so maybe I was a bit hasty this morning in saying the poem was in bad taste. I was getting tired and not at my best when I posted that, but that's no excuse, of course, so I'll try to be more careful. I was only thinking that maybe others might feel the poem was in bad taste when they read it, so I commented on that, but I didn't mean to speak for anyone else so from now on I'll let y'all speak for yerselves. Actually, I'd almost not said that cuz I wasn't sure just how much in bad taste it really may have been.

Dude, please refrain from the insults. Kindly state your opinions and disagreements in a more civil and considerate fashion, ok?

Isabel, I myself wouldn't mind your sharing some relevant articles or news stories on RM, as long as they're pretty much within the context of the boards and aren't of an inflammatory or insulting nature, or too off-topic (especially if you've noticed how off-topic some of NC's boards have become!). If you have any you'd like to post but are unsure then just email me or ask the board in general. You'll see that we're very easy to talk to, so don't be shy.

In this case, Peter is mostly right. If a thread is to engender frank and civil discussion, it's title should not advocate one side of the controversy, and particularly not in a way so as to be insulting to the other side.

This does apply to all posters, and Peter has been guilty of it in the past as well. However, this last month, Peter has gone out of his way to be more civil here (I hope it's not just a temporary "Christmas Spirit" sort of thing.), and we should, in the same regard, curb our baser instincts and keep it polite.

Apparently his civility is only a pretext here cuz over on the Religious Intolerance: Part III: "Any Dam Questions?" board he posted a very offensive message that I've had to remove.

Boy is my face red!

Not true, Censorship is neutral. It's been used many times in our history. It all depends who's being censored, what is being censored, and why is it being censored.

Agreed. It's wrong when the person being censored is an adult, in a situation that doesn't not violate the Clear and Present Danger Clause of the First Ammendment.

It isn't wrong for parents to make sure their kids don't use profanity, or for the govt. to make sure classified military secrets are sold by spies to an enemy, etc.

It's wrong when the person being censored is an adult, in a situation that doesn't not violate the Clear and Present Danger Clause of the First Ammendment.

There is no such thing. There was a Supreme Court ruling that said that speech can be limited only if it would create a clear and present danger. (Fire in a theater.) However, the First Amendment says *nothing* of the sort, and this phrase appears nowhere else in the Constitution.

It isn't wrong for the govt. to make sure classified military secrets are sold by spies to an enemy?

Luigi, Luigi, Luigi...

Oops on both counts! One was my misconception, Matt, and the other was a mistake in writing, MJ.

Thanks for the corrections, guys!

I just phoned Somerville College, Oxford and they told me I have been offered a place there from 2002-2005. Providing I get 2 As and a B in Philosophy, Politics and History I can go (three As would be a real hurdle, two is not).

Thanks a lot for all your kind wishes earlier. Who knows if that little extra made the difference?

Peter.

Peter, for someone who could make it into Oxford, which is quite a feat of achievement, why would one more A be harder?

Hrmmm...I'm kind of at a loss as to what to do over at Religious Intolerance. I'm drafting a reply to Peter (it takes a *lot* longer to write something short than something long), but the discussion has gotten a little, um, off-topic? Jamie Lee Curtis?

Beyond that...My ex-wife used to bring up every argument we ever had whenever we had a fight, never letting anything go. Do we really need to follow her example and flame Peter or Jwb52z or anyone else by bringing up anything they have ever said that bothers us, whenever they post?

Thank you, Mark Morgan. I wish I could have said that.

Jwb, a philosophy A level is a very hard thing to achieve. In my Sixth Form College's short history, no one has managed it. The History and Politics grades shouldn't be difficult, but philosophy will be. I am not saying I can't do it, but it would be a very difficult thing. I consider myself actually very good at thinking about deeper points, giving both sides of the argument convincingly and then concluding well in essays. But it takes me many hours to do it. In an exam, that is time I don't have.

Peter.

No "congratulations" or "well done" from anyone?

I did just get into one of the best universities in the world. You could say *something*.

Peter.

Peter, if you remember, I said it was quite an achievement. That is a congratulatory remark.

Sorry, Peter, I posted to you several times before I remembered to ask on the "Any dam question" board.

Peter in Oxford? Congrats, you're following in the footsteps of Bill Clinton.

Waitaminit...

Oh, I do remember the 400K project. Sorry about the inconvenience, but there was a time when I considered making a new chapter before it passed the 250K mark a blasphemy.

What a bizarre day I have had. I have flirted with science-worshipping athiesm and and a brain-sucking cult all within the last 8 hours. Can we please have a create new conversation button so I can make some topics about them? We will run out of things to say pretty quickly if we can't make new topics. The whole point of forcing people to make topics on the relevant board and not on the wrong one is undermined by someone not being able to make a religious topic in the right place. Removing the CNC button forces people to make religious style topics on the Political Musings board.

Peter.

I agree with the moderator's position on the "Create a New Conversation" button. It sounds like you wanna whine and make fun of things you disagree with There's always the General Discussion board for it, if you really must put us through another of your silly little rants.

Quite so, Anon, thank you. Peter, I'll kind thank you not to whine, at least on RM. If you want a board for a particular RM topic then just suggest one here, on General Discussions or email it to me and I'll consider it. That's reasonable, isn't it? I seriously doubt that "[w]e will run out of things to say pretty quickly if we can't make new topics." As I've said before I don't want to have too many CNC buttons as yet (if at all) to avoid possible abuse of them by allowing anyone to create just any board they want. And there's no "point of forcing people to make topics". Why would you think otherwise? Remember, I want to have RM remain an enjoyable place to visit.

Never mind. If you are going to thank people for flaming me, quote fractions of my sentences that make no sense without the rest (or rather make out a completely different message) and think it is abuse for people to create any board they want - subject to your decision on whether or not it is religious in topic - there is no point even discussing it with you.

That `fair and sensible` moderator act didn't last long did it?

Peter.

Lessee, here are some of the great and meaningful topics created on the Political Musings board:
"Things other than Hollywood's glorification of witches that are EVIL (other than the obvious)", "New Coke and the XFL: Coincidence?", "Is Halloween a Relgious Holiday" (posted on Political Musings, mind you!) and a classic by you - "Amusing political chats". Yessir, very important political topics those. I can just imagine what would be created on Religious Musings if there were a "Create a New Message" function here. Lay off the pouting, Peter.

And yet, during the 'fair and sensible' moderator act, Peter, I recall that Mike rid himself of the CNC real fast. And so did Sax.

I cannot possibly fathom why you think that Mark is going to roll over and be your lap dog now. Is it 'cause he's agnostic or something?

Does that offend your delicate, flower like, sensibilities?

Peter, your whining has become very tiresome, very quickly, so grow up and stop acting the victim because no one's buying it, least of all me. I was being very kind to you in my last post and what do you do in return? You attack me! But of course that's de rigeur for you so I can't really say that I was expecting otherwise.

You are a liar and a fool.

Peter.

Honestly, Peter. You obviously consider the majority of us to be incompetent liberal morons. Why do you come somewhere filled with people you cannot stand?

And if you *do* like everyone, or even very many people here, why do you never, ever say so?

"You are a liar and a fool.

Peter."

Yet another of what a great example of what a "decent, civil Christian" Peter is. If someone can act the way you do Peter and expect to go to Heaven, I certainly won't have any trouble getting through the Pearly Gates. Does your hypocrisy ever bother your conscience? Or have you managed to deaden it over the years?

By the way, Peter, I suggest you familiarize yourself with this verse: Matthew 5:22 - "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." (emphasis mine.) In other words, by calling Mark a fool, you, Oh Great Holy Decent Civil Christian, have committed a sin. I doubt you'll ask Mark forgiveness, much less your "God". Most likely, you'll weasel your way out of it. You always do.

Yes. Because, you know, the best way to get Peter to realize that we're not horrible people is to respond to him with as much hostility as he gives us. That'll show him.

Understand well: I am not saying that I agree with you or that I approve of the way you treat people, Peter. It is infantile and extremely counterproductive. However, I don't see the point of screaming and carrying on about it.

Once again, I call for a complete silent treatment of every post Peter makes. Once Peter realizes no-one will fight with him, he'll leave. Standard troll-starving tactics.

If he wants to start a flame war all he has to do is post anonymously like the guy who started this one did yesterday. Where was Peter whining anyway?

Peter's post at 10:37p.m. yesterday sure qualifies as whining.

The post at 10:57 came after they both said he was whining

Well, Peter, this "fool and liar" has just decided to once and for all permanently ban you from RM for good. Anything you post from now on, no matter what it is, will be removed. You're not welcome here anymore and you've only got yourself to blame. Ya got a problem with that you can complain to Phil about it, to whom I've sent an email asking that you be permanently banned from NC altogether. Your abusive behavior won't be tolerated anymore. It's just that simple.

About time. Jwb52z and Matt Pesti should get similar treatment if they continue.

Benn is the one who posted anonymously and started this flame war. He posted to clarify earlier but it was deleted by MarkN, probably because he realised Benn hadn't hit the Anon button this time.

Mea culpa. I did post anonymously, for my own reasons. Certainly not because I'm unwilling to stand by my words. I've said worse to Peter before under my own name.

I'll assume you're the same Anon who misquoted me as saying that Peter was whining. I did not. My exact words were "It sounds like you wanna whine and make fun of things you disagree with." My intent wasn't to flame, though obviously that's your view of it. Although, I'll admit the "silly little rant" reference goes too far.

That said, there is a "General Discussion" thread here. There's no reason why Peter couldn't've used it. As I've also pointed out, I think bandswidth has been wasted on other boards by people creating new conversations at whim. I personally, and honestly, would not trust Peter with it. At any rate, I believe Mark has asked, as MikeC did before him, that requests for a new topic be addressed to him. I see no problem with that. Peter does. Because it doesn't give him the control he wants, I guess.

I guess what it comes down to I should've kept my mouth shut. I really don't won't want to deal with Peter any longer because it is worthless.

I do find a few things interesting, Anon. Number one that it took you an hour to make your post outing me. Number two, that you yourself are posting anonymously.

Anonymous, whoever you are, I'll thank you not to lump me in with Matt and Peter. I'm not like them no matter how much you may say that I am.

Anonymous,

(Oh, I assume the same person is "anonymous" because there is no way to differentiate between anonymouses.)
I created "Things other than Hollywood's glorification of witches that are EVIL (other than the obvious)", "New Coke and the XFL: Coincidence?", "The differnces between Nazis and Communists", and other silly ones with the first message of "Do you really want to give unregistered users the create new conversation button?"

The answer via silence was yes. Besides mine, few foolish chats have started. As for the "Is Halloween a Relgious Holiday", and "Amusing political chats", so? If you have free speech sometimes Nazis march in Skokie. Peter flees the RM board to the PM board where people are free to ignore him. (I'm not saying the people on RM are worse than than the people on PM. Religion is much more emotional than anything in politics.)

By the way, annonymous, did you notice that Peter started to act up because of you? MarkN stepped in and Peter didn't stop.

(Oh, Peter, "You are a liar and a fool," is not a great arguement.)

You conclude, anonymous, by reccomending Pesti and Jwb52z be banned. I haven't followed all the conversations on this board but I suspect they disagree with you. If the conversations became heated (as religious conversations can) you have the freedom to not read their posts. You also may posses the intelligence to read them but consider their source. Or, of course, you can suggest I be banned too.

So far only one person has admitted to being an Anonymous, and that's Benn. I doubt that the other one(s) will do so as well, but it doesn't really matter anymore, either, because I've disabled the Anonymous function.

That doesn't stop people typing in Anonymous as their username. This tyranny isn't going to work.

Or posing as someone else.

No, anonymous it isn't tyranny. MarkN is not a king. With Phil above him he isn't even dictator.

MarkN, have you considered more targeted banning. I'm serious. If person "A" tends to offend groups "B","C","D", and "F" why ban him from group "G"? I can see the need to prevent someone who insists on calling Catholics "Papists" and isists that Papal infallability makes Catholics mindless drones should be banned from the Catholicism board. (Note: I'm not saying that. It is an example. I am allegedly Catholic and using my group as an example seemed safe.) However, on more general boards (say, abortion) shouldn't people be expected to defend their views even from the most vitrolic, opionated, falsely based attacks? If person "A" offends everyone, including the moderator, do you respect his right to be an, um, anatomical term?

Part of the problem I had was differentiating between a "flame" and "something said in the heat of anger." I've said many things I would prefer to take back.

I think it's difficult to ban people just from one particular board. How can you differentiate? Let's say I disagree with, say, Wicca, and I go to the Wicca board and engage in a conversation about why I disagree with it. This offends Wiccans. Should I be banned? On the flip side, an atheist goes to a Christian board, and writes why he thinks Jesus never existed. This offends Christians. Should that person be banned? I would say no to both questions.

I suggested this to Peter while I was moderator, but he didn't go with it. I said to take some time off for a while, then return under a new name, and try to start from square one.

We would all know him as soon as he started posting again with his new name because of the viws he espoused and his rather blunt and rude way of expressing them. On the other hand, the only time Ive seen Peter flame anyone in months was when they did it to him first, but it's easier to blame it all on him.

Apparently Anonymous you missed the Wiccan Story Peter posted. This was viewed as flaming by some It was also completely unprovoked. My guess is that you and William Berry are both Peter's sock puppets. You both seem to go out of your way to defend him.

Yes, I knew people could still post as Anonymous without that function and I'm seriously thinking of removing all Anon posts, especially those that insult and/or wish to incite flaming. Please, people, is it really asking too much that we not have anymore flamewars? Can't we all just be adults about things, instead of immature little children? That's all I want for RM. For all of NC, really.

Stranger,

I am the person who claims Peter is a sock puppet who makes outrageous straw arguments that the "real" poster can then debunk. In fact, I claim that sock puppet is a registered trade mark (OK, a stealth trade mark). Fencing rods at 20 paces at dawn, stranger.

:: Yes, I knew people could still post as Anonymous without that function and I'm seriously thinking of removing all Anon posts, especially those that insult and/or wish to incite flaming. :: MarkN

Then they can just use the name A or X and post anonymously. Your only solution is to ban everyone who is not on your list of allowed members. Even then, someone could get around the ban by posting using the name of a registered member.

I mean listed member.

Okay, just for the record here: YOU DON'T NEED A USERNAME AND PASSWORD IN ORDER TO POST HERE UN-ANONYMOUSLY. Pick any name you like for yourself, it don't matter. Only moderators get passwords.

LIBERAL HOMOSEXUAL WICCANS!!

---

Quote:

YOU DON'T NEED A USERNAME AND PASSWORD IN ORDER TO POST HERE UN-ANONYMOUSLY

---

Addendum: although the above quotes Patterson, it is not directed at him, but at the various anons (and Peter) who apparently have far too much time on their hands.

Hey, 'Test' -

Um, just a word to the wise here. As I am (to the best of my knowledge), the only liberal Wiccan here (or better yet, the only Wiccan, liberal or not), may I remind you that I am not homosexual?

I should think that my impending troth to the liberal Atheist might be a clue.

Thank you for playing, though. And if I ever develop homosexual tendencies, I'll be sure and let you know.

Hmmm kinky. ;)

Ill bet Phil would be delighted that a couple of weeks into MarkN's moderatership everyone is banned except those who moderate another board. Great idea.

We shan't discuss kinky, thanks.

You ain't Morgan.

Anyway, why were you hollering for liberal and homosexual Wiccans?

I'm the first "test" and meant no offense to you.

No, not everyone's banned. Just Peter. And First Test, my apologies but I've removed your first two sentences because of whom they made references to. Please go read the announcement to see my reasons for that.

So... do this password thing work?

Qap'la! Sucess! Victory is mine!

Password? Test?

Testing: 1-2-3. Testing.

Good news. It appears that when I described how your names will appear as RM members I was only talking about how they appear in my users list, which isn't indicative of how they'll appear on RM, so your names should all appear just fine, capitals and separations and all. Frinstance, Joe Blow (sample name) would appear as Joe_blow in my list but on RM it'd be Joe_Blow, with the underscore hidden by the underline in the link.

Hey. Does this thing work?

It's not working. Mark, it's not working...hey! I'm talking to you! It's not working!

Freakin' hey! You promised me that with this new set up, I'd have complete and utter mind control over all of RM, not just over one piddling poster named Morgan!

I demand a rebate! A refund! I want to speak to the moderator around here!

Oh. You're the moderator?

Sorry.

I could have sworn I posted in here already.

Mark, is there any way to change the login name to ScottN (no "_") for me?

Just curious

I'm sorry, your request could not be processed due to lack of humour.

That, and curiousity is quite unseemly in the Council Philosopher.

Another display like that, and it'll be two hundred lashes for you.

Mj, I was just asking about it in a philosophical manner!

Scott, I've tried that with your name and some of the others and it just comes out as Scottn. I dunno why Discus won't let me capitalize and separate first and last names. I asked Phil if he could change my name to MarkN when it's linked with my email address but he said he wasn't able to. Maybe if he went to the pro version, I dunno.

Well, my password seems to work. Now where's Captain Obvious?

Very well, Scott.

However, please remember that all philosophically mannered curiousity must be referred to inquisitive or other synonyms.

Two hundred lashes would hurt terribly, as Luigi could testify...

If'n I don't post from AZ, see ya'll next week!

Funny how MJ makes a joke about giving me lashes just one day after the doctor gives me a shot in my ass. She must be psychic.

Haven't I said that numerous times already?

Looked at in a philosophical manner, 200 lashes couldn't possibly be worse than what I went through back in August.

What happened in August? Did I miss something?

No, I didn't discuss it... I came down with [drum roll please...] Whooping Cough (believe it or not)!

Trust me, it is horrendous. I coughed continuously for a month, and nobody had a clue why. I still get fits now and then, and probably will for another 6 months or so...

And yes, I was vaccinated as a kid.

It must have been some mutated form of whooping cough, or something else which had similar symptoms as whooping cough.

Mover over on the Can't Breathe Bench, Scott. I've had bronchitis for the past TWO MONTHS, and the doctor's visit I had Monday was the FOURTH one in about a month. Thank God I'm finally beginning to feel better now.

or something else which had similar symptoms as whooping cough.

Nope. It was whooping cough (Pertussis). Blood antibody tests don't lie.

But we're waaaaay off topic here, philosophically speaking.

OK, no need to brag!!

Is this thing on?

Cool, I'm in!

No, I didn't discuss it... I came down with [drum roll please...] Whooping Cough (believe it or not)!

Trust me, it is horrendous. I coughed continuously for a month, and nobody had a clue why. I still get fits now and then, and probably will for another 6 months or so...

Ouch. Sounds terrible. You mean nobody had a clue why you were coughing until the antibody test came back, or could they not stop the coughing even after they determined the cause?

Speaking of coughing, in September my husband and I had a horrible cold for over a month--right around the time of the anthrax scare. We didn't think we had anthrax, but it was eerie going downtown and hearing about half the people around us coughing the exact same cough. It was a reminder of how easily anyone could spread an infectious disease if they wanted to. It turned out that a type of pneumonia was going around. Our 5-year-old nephew, a friend of the family in his 20's, and my friend's 10-year-old daughter were all hospitalized with pneumonia at around the same time.

Blood antibody tests don't lie.

"Antibodies! ANNN-TIIII-BOOO-DIIIEEES!!!"

A cookie for anyone who gets that reference.

The first. It was a month before they guessed it might be whooping cough and ordered the test. Oh, and there *is* a reason it's called "whooping cough". You do literally "whoop".

Well, it is a very distinctive cough. You would think they'd have figured it out sooner. They must have discounted the possibility because you were an adult. Doctors rely so heavily on tests these days, they don't seem to be capable of diagnosing patients by their symptoms anymore. I could tell you my story, but it would be a very long one.

As a matter of fact, my daughter's pediatrician figured it out first. When I asked my doctor to get me tested, he said "Have you been vaccinated? Then you don't have it!" It took me 15 minutes just to get him to call my daughter's pediatrician, and they're members of the same medical group! What a jerk.

While there are some great doctors out there, I hate to say it, but most of them are jerks, or at least sorely uninformed and/or apathetic about their profession.

I didn't want to bore everyone with my story, but when I think of it I can remember at least three other people on this message board who have said they have struggled with depression at some point in their lives, so it might actually help someone. If you can't be bothered to read all this, please skip to the last few paragraphs for an important public service announcement.

When I was 17 I suddenly developed a horrendous case of depression and fatigue. Whereas I had been a pretty energetic person before, suddenly I couldn't get through the day without a good 2-hour nap every afternoon. I was spaced out and could not concentrate, and felt like I was on the verge of losing consciousness most of the time. I had a lot of disturbing physicial symptoms. Every day of my life I wished I was dead, partly because of the symptoms, and partly because there was this black feeling of doom hanging over me all the time. The thing was, it didn't seem to be connected to anything in my life, it was just there, for no reason.

Over the next 15 years, I saw I don't know how many psychiatrists and counselors and tried more than a dozen different antidepressants, including Prozac, Ritalin, and even Lithium. Nothing helped.

The symptoms improved somewhat in my late 20's, but I was still exhausted all the time and had frequent fits of depression where for example in the middle of a shower I would have to sit down and have a sobbing fit for no apparent reason. The more this went on, the more I became convinced that there was some physical cause to my problems. I mean, how could anyone stay depressed about something for 15 years? You would either get over it or you would kill yourself. But I ouldn't get a single doctor to listen to me, because all the blood tests and physical exams I had came back "normal."

So I kept researching on my own, and one day about two years ago I came across a site on the internet about thyroid disease, and I couldn't believe how many of the sympoms fit me. I had myself tested by a thyroid specialist, and lo and behold I had Hashimoto's Disease, a somewhat rare form of thyroid disease where your body attacks its own thyroid gland with antibodies (ANNN-TIIII-BOOO-DIIIEEES!!!--has no one picked up on that yet? Think Captain Kirk...).

The doctor prescribed me a synthetic thyroid hormone pill and said that I should feel better in a few weeks.

A few months later, I still didn't feel any better. But when I told the doctor, he said that my blood levels were normal now, so my symptoms could not possibly be related to my thyroid. Huh?!?! I had classic, classic textbook Hashimoto's Disease symptoms, my blood test results confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had the disease, but my symptoms had nothing to do with it? WTF???

He didn't even bother to suggest a possible course of action for me. It was like, "Well, I gave you your medicine and got your lab numbers into the normal range. I've done my job. Why are you still in my office?" I asked him what my options were, and he said, "I dunno. I guess you should see a psyciatrist." ••••!!!! After I had told him I had already pursued that course for 15 years with zero results?!?!

Anyway, I kept researching, and finally found a decent doctor who was willing to try a controversial course of treatment. He gave me a natural hormone (made from a pig's thyroid gland), which was the standard treatment before the synthetics were developed. Apparently lots of people did fine on the natural hormones in the old days, but their symptoms came back or worsened once they switched over to the "improved" synthetics.

You can't get most doctors to tell you this, because many medical associations and even individual doctors are backed by gigantic pharmaceutical corporations.

Anyway, after a few months on natural thyroid replacement, I noticed that I was having fewer and fewer depressive episodes. After a year and a half, I can't remember the last time I had one. I still have too much fatigue for someone in her 30's, but at least I don't wish I was dead all the time.

I harbor more resentment toward the medical establishment than you can possibly imagine. I wasted 15 freaking years of my life dealing with horrible physical symptoms and thinking I was a weak, pathetic person for not being able to pick myself up by my bootstraps and "snap out of it" like everybody told me I should. Not to mention all the time and money I and my parents have wasted over the years.

Anyway, if anyone who is reading has had problems with depression or chronic fatigue that just won't go away, please, please, please go to the About.com Thyroid site and check your symptoms. If you're thinking, "Nah, it can't happen to me," I was absolutely stunned to learn that at least one in ten Americans has some kind of thyroid problem, and that Synthroid (a synthetic thyroid hormone) is the third-most prescribed drug in the U.S. It's practically an epidemic, yet you never hear about it, and doctors are largely unprepared

to recognize the symptoms.

Some indications of hypothyroid disease (low thyroid levels) include: depression, dry, brittle hair and fingernails, dry skin, constipation, menstrual problems in women, low sex drive, weight gain, bloated face, confusion, memory loss, lack of concentration, slow pulse, low blood pressure, high cholesterol levels, low resistance (frequent colds and infections), a tight feeling in the throat (where the thyroid gland is located), etc. You won't necessarily have all these symptoms, of course. On the other end of the spectrum, insomnia, fatigue, weight loss, heart palpitations, sweating, lack of emotional control, and similar symptoms can be indicative of s hyperthyroid problem (too much thyroid hormone; Graves Disesae, like George and Barbara Bush have).

If you do suspect you have thyroid disease, you must read up on it thoroughly before you see a doctor, or you will be wasting your time and money. You will have to take the lead in getting yourself properly diagnosed and treated, because sadly the medical establishment isn't likely to do it for you.

That concludes my public service announcement. Sorry to be so long, but this information saved my life, and I hope it can do the same for someone else. Mark, if you want to remove this from the feedback board, please be my guest. But I wonder if you would consider creating a board for the "nature of consciousness" (I'm sure there's a better title) and moving my post to that board. I think the issue brings up interesting questions--for example, "Do we have a soul or are our thought processes entirely influenced by chemical reactions?" Stuff like that.

Juli - The Immunity Syndrome (TOS), by any chance?

There was an outbreak of whooping cough in Arkansas recently, amoung high school students. As one is not allowed to attend school in Arkansas unless one's immunizations are up to date, I suspect a new strain of whooping cough is going around.

This morning (well, it's morning in Japan right now) I feel like a character in an AlkaSeltzer commercial.

Blurrrrgh. I can't believe I wrote the whooooole thiiiiing....

Sorry about that everybody. I guess I really needed to "vent."

Juli - The Immunity Syndrome (TOS), by any chance?--Padawan

Yes! **applause** Now, what kind of cookie would you like, young man?

Am I in?

Guess so.

Oh, no, Matt. It's all in your imagination.

(Waving hands around) Wooooooooooooo........It's alllllllll........an illluuuuuuuuuuuuussssion...
Matt....Wooooooooooo.............

No, Matt, you were "in" last year, but now you're "out." Don't feel bad, though. The American public is extremely fickle, and it happens to the best of us....

What about the American private, Juli? Are we fickle too?

I dunno, Machiko. It's so hard to tell, 'cause you guys are always changing your minds.

American private what?

Uh, it's a pun, Jwb... public/private, get it?

ScottN, remember, I don't have much of a normal sense of humor.

Would you like an implant to help correct your sense of humour (see General Discussion)?

Or are you afraid you might insult and offend the humour impaired, and be forever alienated?

(Isn't it obvious that's an issue with me now?)

Now THAT was funny!!

It was?

Yes, it was funny to me. As I told ScottN, I don't have the average sense of humor.

Don't worry, J. Mine takes some getting used to as well, sometimes.

Jwb, you can understand a joke without thinking it's funny.

Juli mentioned the American public. Machiko, as a joke, mentioned the American priavte, since, strictly speaking, `private' and `public' are oppoistes, at least when used as adjectives.

Is that a bit clearer?

Padawan, I understand it now. I might have thought it was funny if I had understood what it was talking about at first.

Hey, I'd like the Add a Message restored to the main board. I don't know why. I found it cool.

The frontpage is only for announcements and thread links. I have no plans at the moment to include the Add A Message function on it. Maybe later.

Okay.