Offensive blog

Re: Offensive blog

Martin Jones — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:33:40 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Oh, what a disappointment, I thought you were using it in the context of: "an obsolete order of mammals".

[/quote]

Generally we use it to describe the after-effects of chronically irritating yeast infections.

But as BigJ says, we must always tolerate the opposing point of view. His credentials in this respect are below reproach.

Re: Offensive blog

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 13:33:39 GMT

pmsl

Re: Offensive blog

J G Wray — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:51:18 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I thought you were using it in the context of: "an obsolete order of mammals".[/quote]

Nah mate, that's vets in mixed practice.

Trunkie

Re: Offensive blog

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:21:38 GMT

Oh, what a disappointment, I thought you were using it in the context of: "an obsolete order of mammals".

Re: Offensive blog

J G Wray — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:17:26 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I confess, I had to look up pachyderm[/quote]

Well, I'm either referring to a thick skin or a long memory. I think I'll drop the name altogether. Then I'll be just like "fluffygirl" or "i am ed"

JGW

Re: Offensive blog

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 12:04:24 GMT

I confess, I had to look up pachyderm. Blow me over with ... is that a self-effacing use of the word? I find myself warming to you, Mr Wray.

Re: Offensive blog

J G Wray — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 10:41:46 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]Not sure who your suggestions are directed at. Me? The members of this site?[/quote]

Who knows?

JGW

Re: Offensive blog

Alex Gough — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:41:58 GMT

Thanks Wynne. Nice supportive community we have built here.

And lol Martin. I think you are right, maybe I am a sucker for punishment. I am thinking twice now about a long-planned novel about animal rights extremism though!

Alex

Re: Offensive blog

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:34:37 GMT

Don't let it get to you.You wrote what was true, they are badly behaved, so their opinions are automatically worthless

Wynne

Re: Offensive blog

Martin Jones — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:30:45 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]

I am just trying to extricate myself from a vitriolic argument on VIN

[/quote]

So, just to be clear: you're actually paying to get your @rse kicked on other sites, when we can do it for you for free on here? I only know of one other business model which works along the same lines ........

Re: Offensive blog

Alex Gough — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 09:15:42 GMT

Thank you to the anonymous poster on the blog whoever you were! I really didn't fancy getting involved on there myself! I am just trying to extricate myself from a vitriolic argument on VIN, where I tried to defend Dr Narda Robinson, an acupuncturist who lobbies for a scientific approach to alternative medicine, from ad hominem attacks on their Altmed folder, and I don't have the energy for another argument quite yet!

Alex

Re: Offensive blog

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:49:17 GMT

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"] This site is public and leaky, by some means, ethereal or other, now by your admission.[/quote]

Here we go again. This old chestnut.

JGW - I have ALWAYS said that this forum, like ALL online forums, has the potential to be accessed by non-members. I myself have been able to access a number of other veterinary forums of which I am not a member, just by borrowing usernames / passwords from friends. This is not some blinding revelation which I have hitherto kept quiet. You make it sound like it is.

I take umbrage at your description of VetSurgeon as public and leaky, because you seem to be using those terms as a criticism, and I think they are misleading without being put in context. The context is that we have set up the registration process to deter those who are not entitled. New registrations are also monitored and checked for signs of anything fishy.

It's not infallible, but what is? However, I think it is incorrect to use the adjective 'public'. It is not. It may be possible for a member of the public to access it. There is a distinction.

[quote user="Jonathan Wray"] Anon postings haven't come off v well either[/quote]

Not quite sure which ones you are referring to. But in any event, I'm the moderator. Not you.

Not sure who your suggestions are directed at. Me? The members of this site?

Re: Offensive blog

J G Wray — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 07:23:17 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]That doesn't mean he has been able to login to this site and view the content of the thread (though he might have, if he has a friend who is a vet, who has lent him their login details, or he has slipped through our membership vetting).[/quote]

You knew this was coming.

This site is public and leaky, by some means, ethereal or other, now by your admission.

Anon postings haven't come off v well either

Offensive is one thing but calling people, particularly the public "stupid", is pretty offensive as well. Two wrongs don't make a right.

My suggestions:

Grow a thicker skin.
Be discrete
Truly take responsibility for your actions, even if there are unforeseen consequences, because you are grown up and a professional
Consider another point of view, even if it is apparently anathema or unfashionable
Tolerate others views

Or don't do any of these things, as you wish - that's the perversity of tolerance

JGW

Re: Offensive blog

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:15:13 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"][quote]

Dick Puddlecote said...

Ahem, you guys at VetSurgeon.org are allowed to comment here too, you know. We'd love to know why this is termed an 'Offensive blog' over at your place. ;)[/quote]

Might be time to change the ol' anonymous login?[/quote]

As far as I can tell, the owner of the Dick Puddlecote blog has been able to see from his site statistics software that there is a link from (and traffic is arriving at his site from) a forum page on VetSurgeon.org called 'Offensive Blog'. That doesn't mean he has been able to login to this site and view the content of the thread (though he might have, if he has a friend who is a vet, who has lent him their login details, or he has slipped through our membership vetting).

Something like this once happened on www.vetnurse.co.uk, when an RMB-infested website picked up on stats indicating they were being discussed on the site. Let's just say it wasn't pretty.

The moral of the story is that if you want to discuss another website or forum which is characterised by profanity and / or extreme views, it is best NOT to create an active link from this site to the other site. By all means reproduce the url so that VetSurgeon members can take a look. But if they visit by typing the website address into the address bar of their browser, the owner of the other website will not know where they came from.

Alex, this isn't a dig at you, BTW. In fact, it was me that converted the link you published to an active one to the other site! I shall now convert it back.

Re: Offensive blog

Stephen Courtney — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:35:15 GMT

Reading on-line comments posted by members of the public is extremely unhealthy, and will make you (more) cynical and miserable. Don't do it, just like you should never send a chain letter onwards!

Re: Offensive blog

Anthony Todd — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:59:19 GMT

[quote user="Richard Fox"]stupidity - you can't give people intelligence[/quote]

as someone once said:

"You know how stupid the average member of the public is.

Just realise that 50% of the public are more stupid than that!"

Re: Offensive blog

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:30:15 GMT

[quote]

Dick Puddlecote said...

Ahem, you guys at VetSurgeon.org are allowed to comment here too, you know. We'd love to know why this is termed an 'Offensive blog' over at your place. ;)[/quote]

Might be time to change the ol' anonymous login?

Re: Offensive blog

Richard Fox — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 20:00:59 GMT

Some people just don't liked being told they are doing something very wrong and are in denial that their smoking WILL likely kill them but go out of their way to buy organic food as" it has less chemicals in it" innit!

Re: Offensive blog

Martin Jones — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:47:52 GMT

[quote user="alex gough"]

which has been picked up by the Daily Express in a column............... the personal hatred is quite stunning.

[/quote]

Shome mishtake shorely?

Actually, I thought the first anon poster (c********r etc) was a hoot. A masterfully understated dissection of your shortcomings.

Can I suggest you go after people who feed their dogs on B****s next?

Re: Offensive blog

James Laidlaw — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:28:30 GMT

Amusing lack of understanding of statistics and scientific research vs. internet waffle...

I want to write explaining stats to them, as much as I want to correct spelling mistakes in public. But it's not worth the effort.

Don't know if you saw the documentary regarding relationship between smoking and glue ear in kids, and even people with children having problems and told not to smoke around them, it still didn't change their attitudes. Even with a near deaf under 10 year old.

So I don't think it'll change their attitude to pet ownership.

Still upsets me when patients come in stinking of smoke though.

Re: Offensive blog

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 17:44:48 GMT

"The net" is a wonderful opportunity for people like that. It saves them having to buy purple ink and lined paper, not to mention postage, and with a keyboard they don't have to sit with their tongues out laboriously writing capitals.

The joke is, there are probably just as many anti-smoking nutters who do the same sort of thing, and if they are animal-rights nutters.....................

Re: Offensive blog

Dagmar Steele — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:16:37 GMT

i think it says it all: The most offensive posts come from anon posters. They don`t even have the guts to write down their names. I had to give up halfway though, made me sick...

Re: Offensive blog

J G Wray — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 16:05:26 GMT

Sticks and stones.

JGW