Posted by alexandra_k2 on December 17, 2005, at 16:26:56
In reply to Re: Thanks, but... » alexandra_k2, posted by zenhussy on December 17, 2005, at 15:04:57
> alexandra_k2>> Ah. There are a few disgruntled peoples who have been blocked for lengthy periods of time...
> why disgruntled?
> why blocked?Fair enough. I suppose it could well be an unblocked poster who isn't disgruntled at all. I posted to pseudoname before I checked wiki again. I was just remembering some of the stuff that I have read from poster/s who were blocked and disgruntled. but you are right of course, it could well be an unblocked poster who isn't disgruntled at all :-)
> could it not be possible that current posters have opinions that differ from yours and other "pro-babblers"?it surely could.
so i'm lumped with the other 'pro-babblers'?
i try and see it from both sides...
> would you call someone who was upset at the harm suffered at the hands of public medicine who was now speaking out to the world about their mistreatment disgruntled?yeah. i consider i'm fairly disgruntled about public medicine myself...
> or would you call that person an advocate?
are the terms mutually exclusive do you think?
> how about victim?
i try and avoid that term...
> people who've suffered at the hands of medical professionals would probably hear the message of that person loud and clear and support that message. people in public health would probably not share that opinion and could instead think of that person as a naysayer, troublemaker, etc.
i didn't say they were a troublemaker...
in case you didn't notice i actually asked about the ethical approval thing over on the admin board...> it all depends on what each person has experienced in their lives.
and you don't think i've suffered?
now who is making assumptions?i was posting to try and help pseudoname feel better.
i hadn't looked at wiki.
but i did (and still do) see that some people who are both blocked and disgruntled might well edit and edit and edit the wiki article.
given some of the posts that blocked and disgruntled posters have posted to the boards
(about alleded links between psychiatry and neo-nazism etc etc...)> many sides to this story from many participants. some people play guessing games with innuendoes that slide periously close to what is allowable ......could it be one of them that is playing both sides? for best role portraying both the devil's advocate and the babble darling......the Oscar® goes to........
zen?
no judgement from me zen...
i think you might be taking this all personal when i was trying to post something supportive and reassuring to pseudoname.
i don't have a problem with the revision...
aside from the point that i don't much like the idea of the article in the first place because people from work might read it to try and find out about this site...
and i asked a question about the accuracy of one aspect of the revision over on admin.
so please don't make assumptions about me or my allegance because i'm not one to align myself to the point of blinkering out all else - okay?> interesting information provided by many sources.......we'd think of wiki like a supermarket version of an encyclopedia......flashy, attention grabbing but not necessarily the best source for in depth information.
yeah.
poster:alexandra_k2
thread:588307
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20051205/msgs/589824.html