Sigh,
Todd, I am trying to help you state your case in a less antagonistic way so
that more undecided people will listen to you. However you seem to be
impervious to suggestions to tone down your rhetoric so that you can reach
a larger audience and have more impact on the thinking of birthing women,
which, I would hope is your goal.
If you continue to attack all people who are sometimes right and sometimes
wrong as if they were 100% wrong, you will alienate not only them, but also
all the undecideds who are listening to the conversation. You seem not to
be
able to comprehend this either.
This is exactly what you are doing on your personal attack on Sarah. If you
would simply pick each point on which you disagree with her and say "Why
do you think that? Here is some information to show the other side, and
simply
provide some cites, I would bet that she would listen. Calling her a bully
for
supporting the "other side" when you haven't tried to gently and
informatively
convince her of the "correctness" of you view is bullying in itself.
'Nough said, this is my final post on the subject, particularly if you
insist
on pursuing the issue with personal attacks.
Larry
"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
nk.net...
A SINGLE DETAIL?
"[Y]ou [are] taking issue with a single detail in a post that otherwise
supports your position."
--Larry to Todd
Larry,
1. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of other medical doctors as
infants scream and writhe and bleed and sometimes die or lose their
penises,
it is not a trivial point. (Fortunately, death and loss of penis are
rare -
but most infants scream and writhe and bleed through the American medical
religion's most frequent surgical behavior toward males.)
2. When a medical doctor ignores obvious lies of medical doctors who are
closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals closed when babies
get stuck, that isn't a trivial point either.
Medical doctor Sarah is doing this - and worse - and you people are saying
she agrees with me.
YES, there are points of agreement - but medical doctor Sarah publicly
indicated (in her "no **** Sherlock" post) that even if the OB lies about
birth position were exposed - it "wouldn't make a difference to
anyone's birth position." (!)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...69babf01124baa
If you support her in this Larry, so be it; but Sarah and I are NOT in
agreement on the most important points.
Women need to know about the MD lies when making decisions - say - about
whether they want their birth canal closed the "extra" up to 30%.
Most women aren't even being TOLD about the "extra" up to 30% - and as I
just indicated in my "Well said?" response to Lucy and Christine...
Women who ARE told (by me for example) are having to ASK for the "extra"
up
to 30% - with some women being DENIED their request!
Lucy writes: "I have no intention of asking; this will be my Demand. The
doctors
ignore my request at their peril."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1ba84ccfd9cede
Arrgghhh!! Most women don't even *know* to ask (or demand)!!
Sarah is a medical doctor. She should be interested in this simple
preventive measure - especially since her employer "spends" on prevention.
Medical doctor Sarah and her employer are bizarrely ignoring some SIMPLE
prevention.
If pregnant women in Britain DO routinely book with GPs - I'm really
wondering now about Sarah's claim that she can't do anything because she
is
a GP...
Sarah's employer, Tendring Primary Care Trust, should not wait for an
email
from her...
See Dr. Sarah's 30% letter to Tendring (also: the obstetric 'chill
pill' -
bitter poison for some babies)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3108
Thanks for writing, Larry.
Todd
SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...
"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a
Larry, Sarah and I say we are both "vehemently" opposed to routine infant
circumcision - but I question her "vehemence" when she ignores the history
of MD lies in discussing the issue.
I don't think it can be said that Sarah is really opposed to her fellow
medical doctors closing birth canals up to 30% and keeping birth canals
closed when babies get stuck.
I do get kind of vehement when I am "no **** Sherlocked" by a medical
doctor
who is ignoring her fellow medical doctors' lies - babies be damned -
sometimes fatally so.
A MASSIVE spinal manipulation crime is taking place - and it is being
committed by Sarah's fellow medical doctors.
SARAH PLEASE NOTE: The NHS Net website quotes Sidaway...
"...the disclosure of a particular risk of serious adverse consequences
might be so obviously necessary for the patient to make an informed choice
that no reasonably prudent doctor would fail to disclose it.'"
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...086d4450c6065a
I don't think Sarah is being a reasonably prudent medical doctor.
An email to Tendring Primary Care Trust saying "Dr. Gastaldo is right" is
NOT too much to ask of medical doctor Sarah.
I hope Sarah copies me - and misc.kids.pregnancy.
It could be the start of something big - esp. if Sarah recruits other GPs
to
help stop OBs from closing birth canals, etc.
DO women in Britain commonly book with GPs when they get pregnant?
What did Sarah mean when she initially protested there was nothing she
could
do because she is a GP?
Again, thanks for writing Larry.
Sarah, here (again) is the email for Tendring Primary Care Trust:
Thanks for reading everyone.
Sincerely - with a bit of vehemence : )
Todd ("Sherlock")
"Your goodness must have some edge to it, else it is none."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Larry McMahan" wrote in message
...
Todd,
You know that as much as I support many of the same positions that you
do, that I have to agree with anyone4tea that you are doing yourself a
disservice by mounting what appears to be a vehement attack on someone
who, in general, agrees with you by taking issue with a single detail in
a post that otherwise supports your position.
If it wasn't an vehement attack, you need to proofread your post to see
HOW they will be perceived. If you correctly assessed the situation
that
she had agreed with you 90% and you wanted to take issue with the 10%
where she did not, you need to revisit both your strategy and tactics.
It
is better to get a 100 people from 10% agreement to 60% agreement that
to **** off someone who is already at 90% if you want to change the
world for the better.
What you said was unnecessarily hostile, ignored her points of agreement
with you, was easily perceived as a personal ad-holmium attack, and
risked losing whatever good will you had with her. This is not the
style
of
communication that will win the hearts and minds of others, especially
their
hearts. :-)
These words are written in kindness in an attempt to help you
communicate
your important message more effectively.
Do with them what you will.
Larry
"anyone4tea" wrote in message
ups.com...
That's fine, Todd, I don't mind disagreements... when they are about
trivial things.
Online communication is a blessing... but a curse when communication is
misconstrued.
Todd, you have some excellent opinions and many of us applaud your
efforts to raise awareness of the issues with which you are concerned.
Sarah agrees with you. If you have agreement with others, you may not
wish to turn them off supporting your cause, or you, by going after
them after miscommunication.
Take a chill pill 