Posted by Lou Pilder on January 9, 2013, at 21:13:02
In reply to Lord, the entitlement! » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on January 8, 2013, at 21:19:16
> > normally when a person becomes deceased the family submitts an obituirary to a newspaper or other.
>
> Which they did. That doesn't mean that it must be posted here, where she used a pseudonym to protect her identity.
>
> > Since It was stated she left this world quite a while ago how come we didn't know til now?
>
> You are not entitled to know everything about everyone instantly. Get used to disappointment.
>
> > In other words where did the info come from. How do we know it is true?
>
> It's up to you to decide what you want to believe. It would be pretty f*ck*ng cruel of Dr. Bob to post random, non-credible information of this magnitude. And given he so seldom posts, it would be even more ridiculous to think that he'd go out of his way to post gossip or lies when he doesn't even keep up with the normal demands of this site. But believe in the ridiculous if that's what you wish.
>
> We all grieve in our own way, but frankly, the way that involves gossip, conspiracy theories, and/or a demand and/or expectation to know personal, private information when it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS kind of pisses me off.
>
> gggg,
You wrote,
[...that doesn't mean that it has to be posted here (the obituary)...]
Friends, Phillipa in her post only asked how the death was known, she did not ask for the obituary to be posted here, if there was one that came to Mr Hsiung's attention.
Friends, be not deceived. Phillpa is not to be vilified for asking how the death came to Mr. Hsiung's attention. Someone could have emailed him with that informtion. He could have emailed her and was informed of her death by a survivor and other possibilities. It is not a crime to ask. It is not a crime to be concerned. And if asking is an offense, then it is a greater offense to ridicule one for asking what they think is something important to them, regardless of what spin could be put on the request.
My friends, I ask you to use some critical thinking here. Gardenergirl states here that Phillipa is not entitled to know. But she could ask, for there is the possibility that Mr Hsiung could reply to Phillipa with something like,[...I was sent the obituary and verified it...]. Phillipa did not ask for it to be posted.
The world of psychology calls what gardenergirl posted to Pillipa, [a transparent attempt to elevate one's self-esteem by demeaning what another wrote, when there was nothing that the other wrote to justify such].
I see right through what gardenergirl wrote to Phillipa and what gardenergirl wrote demeans Phillipa by attempting to cast Philipa in a false light. But you may not be of the knowledge to see what is plainly visible to me here in gardenergirl's post about Phillip. There is the self-rightious statement by gardenergirl to Phillipa accusing Phillipa of wanting to know "private information". Phillipa did not want or ask for private information for Mr Hsiung opened the door concerning the death of the member and all Phillipa did was walk in. And the gardengirl states that {it} is none of Phillipa's business. And that gardenergirl is POed. Really? Now gardenergirl is using Phillipa as a scapegoat for her real or imagined state of being POed. Oh, the awfullness of the defamation here toward one that just asks. Woe to those that use others as an outlet for their real or imagined state.
Lou
poster:Lou Pilder
thread:1035005
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130109/msgs/1035126.html