homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Hell: Who is the sour mouthed COW who went to Colditz this year? (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Hell: Who is the sour mouthed COW who went to Colditz this year?
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
<snip!>
as a quick biochem lesson for sarky:

Insulin converts glucose in the blood and stores it. Insulin dependant diabetics go hypoglycemic when they accidently OD in insulin. (say, give themselves an injection, then forget to eat).

They get sick and dizzy and irritable, and if they don't down a sugary drink pretty quick they go into a coma.

Saccarine is a sugar substitute, it doesn't make you either hyper or hypo glycemic.

What most people don't know is that some diabetics CAN have HYPERglycemic coma's (ketoacidosis - it's rarer than the normal hypo-coma) This is where the blood sugar level goes to high, and the give away is that the person's breath will smell fruity, something a bit like pear drops. In which case what they need is fluids and insulin. (a combination garunteed to kill someone who is hypoglycemic)

[/tangent]
matt
{Dodgy use of UBB code.}

[boring IR tangent] Um, Matt, I have metabolic syndrome, which you may or may not be familiar with. I myself actually DO get hypoglycemic if I eat too much sugar since I get a "spike" in my insulin from it. My pancreas
pumps out waaayyy too much insulin since my cells are insulin resistant, which makes me at high risk for diabetes
since eventually it will wear out. I had to eat a lot of protein to feel full. I also had nightmares from all the sugar high and lows I had...but now I am on Metformin and Spironolactone which means I HAVE to now eat more carbs (at least 100 grams a day) and I am finally starting to lose weight (along with more aerobic exercise which helps IR).

My point: Sarkycow is actually correct for ME in MY CASE. If you are not asleep yet, I would gladly point you to a plethora of articles on the subject. I also might add saccharine can make me hungry without my meds. [/boring IR tangent]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gremlin
Ship's Cryptanalyst
# 129

 - Posted      Profile for Gremlin         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
To which I say go away and read some social psychology on the definition of a platonic relationship. If someone is of the opposite sexual orientation, the relationship is by strict definition non-platonic)

Okay, would a dictionary definition do for the time being:
quote:
From dictionary.com (Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.)
platonic, a. 1. Of or pertaining to Plato, or his philosophy, school, or opinions.

2. Pure, passionless; nonsexual; philosophical.

Matt, the fact that you appear to have trust issues does not excuse your apparent lack of ability to give suitable references for your presumptuous claptrap!

Gremlin

p.s. (edit) [Overused] sarky!! [Big Grin]

[ 03. November 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: Gremlin ]

--------------------
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
Ahhh...I see the screw-up fairy has visited us again...
Oh I get it... like humour... but different.

Posts: 5221 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Matt does seem to live in a world of extraordinary sexual danger, of enormously fragile relationships, which break apart under the most routine social pressure...
Uh huh. It's called the real world. Statistics on marital fidelity are not the most reliable but estimates range between 30% and 60% of marriages will experience infidelity.

And there's precious little in the way of evidence to suggest that figure is any different for Christians, sadly.

Now, I simply don't buy the idea that 45% of marriages have "fundamental flaws" leading to infidelity. A far proportion of that must be due to people making avoidable mistakes in otherwise good marriages.

quote:
My experience/observation of relationships that run to decades is that either they are immensely resilent, or, if they do fracture, it is from causes deeper than the mere presence of social opportunities (affairs arising from those tend to be symptoms, not causes IMO).
May I venture that if one partner makes an isolated "stupid mistake", they may get away with it without being found out? Or alternatively, if they are found out, if their marriage is otherwise sound, the partner may forgive them, and a one off incidence of infidelity never becomes known to other people. It's hardly the kind of thing you'd go out of your way to make public.

Consequently, the only infidelity you would know about is serial infidelity or infidelity that has a deeper rift behind it, and thus leads to a separation?

Therefore, it doesn't suprise me in the least that you, or anyone else, would report that in their experience, most infidelity had a deeper root cause. There seems to be a clear possibility of "reporting bias" in this.

quote:
You are right. It IS for the individual to carefully consider what is appropriate.

So why do you make out that YOU are right on this and that you clearly have more knowledge of all relationships than anybody who might be IN one??

Well, my own relationships have been quite varied, well outside the evangelical "norm" and fairly educational, but I certainly don't claim to be any kind of expert.

I have a view and I'm defending it. It's the way I see it, and it's my conviction. I appreciate other people have theirs. I should point out this whole conversation (interesting though it is) is a tangent which spun off as a mere throw away line in one post I made.

Anyone reading this thread, like any other on the ship, is welcome to read it, the variety of opinons contained therein, and come to whatever conclusion they like.

quote:
Relationships obviously differ due to the personalities of those involved, but clearly you are the all-seeing euthority? If you are not intending to say this, i suggest you reconsider your tone as it comes across as incredibly judgemental.
If anyone is going to say anything worthwhile about anything, you have to generalise to some extent, i'm putting forward a general principle:

My general principle is simply: "be aware that interactions with those of the opposite sex (or compatiable sexual orientation) are not the same as those of the same sex and have different implications and connotations and it is foolish to not consider that."

Where you choose to draw your own lines, what you think is appropriate in any given situation is your own choice. If you consider the above, and decide actually you see no need for any difference whatsoever, again, it's your own choice.

My plea is merely that you ask the question and answer it for yourself. My worry is when people deny there is a question to be answered.

quote:
My best friend is male. He is engaged, i am in a long term relationship. Both his fiancee and my boyfriend are happy with it.

How on earth can there be anything wrong with close friendships like that?

In a perfect world? Absolutely nothing at all. In the real world, hopefully nothing at all, but it does have potential vulnerablities. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm merely saying it's a situation that requires you to stay alert and sensitive to the feelings of all the people involved, because it could easily become very delicate and if you're not sharp you might miss the signs. That's all i'm saying.


Let me put it to you this way..suppose you were a script writer for a soap opera, and I gave you a character set up, where there were two characters who were both in relationships, but away from their partners, but spent a lot of time together as "good friends". What's the obvious storyline?

Any soap opera fan can tell a mile off what the obvious story line is going to be.

Fortunately, real life is not quite a soap opera, but there is a chap (who, being a raging fundamentalist I actually believe in [Paranoid] ) called Satan, who does his best to play the part of script writer and turn life into one.

The situation you describe is a situation that Satan WILL try to attack. It's a stratigic target for demonic attack. Again, I stress, that's not saying it's wrong,I'm merely saying it's a situation you have to think about and not take lightly and that is probably what will determine whether he succeeds or not.

I'm not saying the attack is neccessarily going to be a temptation to infidelity. It could be jealousy on the part of the fiancee, or your boyfriend, or interference by the part of someone else stirring trouble, or maybe your best friend could become attracted to you with no feeling on your part.

My question is simply, have you considered those possiblities? How woud you spot them, and what would you do if you were worried about any of those things?


quote:
Also, the idea that there is a danger of being attracted to any person of the opposite sex is crazy...I am no more attracted to my best male friend than i am to some of my female friends. He isn't unattractive but my eyes are no more likely to wander just because he happens to be a bloke!
There may be a fine example of differences between male and female here!

Several times female friends of mine have been flabbergasted when some guy who has been seeing her one on one twice a week for a couple of months declares he fancies her and she says (in all honesty) "I never knew he felt like that! He's just a friend!".

Maybe it happens the other way around too, generally not. I think most straight single guys will not spend a great deal of time developing one to one relationships with a single straight female unless they have at least a vague element of attraction to them.

As I said, this is another example of how, quite apart from infidelity, you can get in hot water by not respecting relationships with people of the opposite sex.

To summarise, because I think, across the course of the thread, words have been put in my mouth.

What I AM saying, is that I believe there are additional considerations to interactions with people of the opposite sex which are not there with those of the same sex. To ignore that is foolhardy, and could potentially lead either to infidelity, jealousy, misunderstanding of intentions, awkwardness, hurt etc...

What I am NOT saying, is what any particular individual should or should not do about any particular situation.

Completely other tangent to duchess....

quote:
Um, Matt, I have metabolic syndrome, which you may or may not be familiar with.
Very vaguely, you've got yourself one heck of a rare condition there, if it's genuine metabolic syndrome.

quote:
I myself actually DO get hypoglycemic if I eat too much sugar since I get a "spike" in my insulin from it. My pancreas
pumps out waaayyy too much insulin since my cells are insulin resistant, which makes me at high risk for diabetes
since eventually it will wear out.

That's tough. [Frown] As you are probably aware, Type II diabetes is has two elements. One is cell resistance to insulin and the other is eventual falure of the insulin producing pancreatic islet cells.

quote:
I had to eat a lot of protein to feel full. I also had nightmares from all the sugar high and lows I had...but now I am on Metformin and Spironolactone
Spironolactone? Do you have hyperaldosteronism as well? is that part of metabolic syndrome too? didn't know that.

quote:
which means I HAVE to now eat more carbs (at least 100 grams a day) and I am finally starting to lose weight (along with more aerobic exercise which helps IR)
As again, may well have been explained to you, weight control is a real headache in diabetes. Losing weight reduces cell resistance to insulin, but if your diabetes is well controlled, you will have a tendancy to put on weight. If you find you are losing weight rapidly, potentially that could be simply a result of losing large numbers of calories a day through glycouria as a result of poorly managed diabetes.

Sympathy and prayers for you duchess. On the positive side, medical management of NIDDM diabetes is improving incredibly rapidly with new drugs, such as Repaglinide appearing almost yearly. You need a heck of a lot of disapline and determination with diabetes to manage it well, but, if you do have that determination, and I'm sure you do, the prognosis is much improved. It's one disease where your outlook makes a huge impact.

matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Matt does seem to live in a world of extraordinary sexual danger, of enormously fragile relationships, which break apart under the most routine social pressure...
Uh huh. It's called the real world. Statistics on marital fidelity are not the most reliable but estimates range between 30% and 60% of marriages will experience infidelity.
Go take a cold shower. Please.

Repeat as necessary, and get on with life.

quote:
Completely other tangent to duchess....

quote:
Um, Matt, I have metabolic syndrome, which you may or may not be familiar with.
Very vaguely, you've got yourself one heck of a rare condition there, if it's genuine metabolic syndrome.
It is real. It's not that rare. I have exactly the same symptoms. I have a second cousin with exactly the same symptoms.

I can't do sucrose or caffiene (spelling?). Try living in the Seattle area with those two hanging over your head.

During a recent hospital stay, they just put me on a diabetic diet (with no caffiene) as the simplest way to get around the sugar. Interestingly enough, one evening I tried sugar-free chocolate pudding for desert, since I was strictly behaving everywhere else. Guess what? Because of the caffiene (spelling?) in the chocolate pudding, I had to have a turkey sandwich snack to get some protein after about 1.5 hours. So much for treating myself while in the hospital.

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bede, this is not as well known in other parts. It was discovered by a doctor in Stanford. I pm'd Matt and gave him the 411 on this.

About the other part, flame me if you want, but I do think Matt is right about da men vs. women when it comes to friendship with each other. It may never be acted on but it seems to be in the back of the mind. One story, I have known this male heathen geek (as opposed to my male Christian geek male friend who charges me for his help...) for YEARS. He NEVER ONCE EVER showed ANY twinge of interest in me. I thought I was SAFE. I invited him over to fix my DVD player. He acted like it was a DATE, even playing romantic music out in his car full blast for a few minutes when he pulled up. Very embarrassing for me and weird (I am used to the one being rejected not doing the rejecting). I guess he thought I wanted something more. Anyway, he got over it...but I don't ask his help for ANYTHING ANYMORE. This is a guy who I actually had a crush on one time in my life but lost total interest and temptation after well...leaving out details but um, finding out a few things besides him totally rejecting Christ.

Don't get me started about ex-girlfriends being collected by most of the men I have dated.

My rule of thumb is this: If a guy has a great friend who is an EX, and they have a mature friendship, then she will not mind making good friends with ME and including ME in things from time to time. The few "my ex is my best friend" situations I have been in have always ended up with the some major drama happening...however I do have some friends that have great friendships with their ex. I noticed though they have NO DRAMA and they reach out to the current flame in friendship.


Oh why did I go there...unhappy memories keep down.

[edited but still left intact]

[ 03. November 2003, 23:20: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
Bede, this is not as well known in other parts. It was discovered by a doctor in Stanford.

Sorry Duchess, you are wrong that info is floating around and is well distributed. I have heard about this from two different sources. One was in Reader's Digest of all things! Not that I am quoting the RD as a reliable medical source, but if it is in RD then the information must be fairly widely available! The second source is from the Atken's Diet Book thingy.

But for more reliable sources how do you feel about the British Dietetic website, or the American Diabetic place?

Matt honey, you need to talk to your teachers and do a bit of study.

But anyway, back to our scheduled tangent
quote:
My plea is merely that you ask the question and answer it for yourself. My worry is when people deny there is a question to be answered.
Matt, Matt, Matt. We have asked the question. We have answered the question. The answer is that you are talking a load of bollox.

best wishes and big hugs,

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah babybear but LO! you learned about this from not ONE but TWO YANKEE sources: The Reader's Digest and from Dr. Atkins (may he RIP +). I love it that I got to correct your spelling of ATKINS this morning. [Devil]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re: the Syndrome X thingy. Apologies for the "rare" comment. I believe we are a people devided by a common language on this one.

Syndrome X, (as far as I can gather from the less than one paragraph which it gets in Kumar and Clark, is not in Britian formalised as a "syndrome".

My book says this:

quote:
"Type 2 diabetes tends to cluster with other cardiovascular risk factors such as hypertension, central obesity and lipid abnormalities. This is sometimes called Syndrome X."
I am thus a little puzzled (from what this text implies) as to how an individual can be "syndrome X" if they are not diabetic.

The definition of Diabetes mellitus here is "Syndrome characterized by chronic hyperglycemia, insulin deficiency, or insulin resistance.

I suspect the difference is one of nomenclature. America's Syndrome X is Britian'"NIDDM with hypertension"

Matt.

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I suspect the difference is one of nomenclature. America's Syndrome X is Britian'"NIDDM with hypertension"

Matt.

Matt, I don't have hypertension. Not even close. I had a physical exam recently, and the only thing my family doctor could say was the standard, "you could lose 10 lbs." (Not 20 or 30, only 10.) My blood tests showed normal to great numbers. I am physically active, and everything is under control--except for the minor issue of the soft tissue fibrous sarcoma that I can now say was on my lower left leg.

The issue is my blood sugar goes too low if I eat sucrose (table sugar) or caffiene. Actually, what happens is it spikes upwards, then crashes. When this happens I become performance art.

I do not take insulin. The last thing I need is to drive my blood sugar even lower!

I do not take blood pressure medicine. Doctors are not telling me to remove salt from my diet. (Actually, with the recent cancer diagnosis, I have an oncologist that has even told me to forget about losing 10 lbs. Right now they are more worried about other things.)

I do not take drugs to control blood sugar. Some other people do need to take medication. My case is "mild" enough for me to control with diet.

You are trying too hard to understand this.

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by duchess:
About the other part, flame me if you want, but I do think Matt is right about da men vs. women when it comes to friendship with each other. It may never be acted on but it seems to be in the back of the mind.

Well, here is a deep, dark secret about me available to anyone that has gone to my personal website. I ride a motorcycle. Not only that, I have been caught riding with the Border Riders. (I am up for membership at this point.)

The Border Riders is a group of motorcycling enthusiasts from British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon. There are activities planned all year, but the most important ones are the monthly runs from May (starting with Victoria Day weekend) through September/October. One other thing, the membership is all gay.

I wrote the above paragraph the way I did intentionally. The reason why the Border Riders has been in existence over 33 years is that the reason for the club is motorcycles, not sexual orientation. There have been other clubs that had the priorities different, and have not been as long lived.

Even so, when you get 10-30 gay men in a group camping situation, there are jokes and comments. Plenty of jokes and comments. Some of it is self-deprecating humor about what isn't happening in a personal life. (You get the idea.)

I am not so naive as to think that there isn't some "extra curricular" activities happening in some tents some of the time. Actually, the "extra curricular" activities are pretty much only between the committed couples.

Again, I'm not that naive. I have been propositioned--and refused--because I have a partner at home. I am not looked upon as strange because I do.

Riding motorcycles and friendship is pretty much what it is all about on the runs. This type of arrangement won't work for all people. There have been guests (other than me) that only go on a run one time, because it is "not what they expected" (if you get my drift).

I guess you need to know your own limits. And, when to take cold showers.

As a side comment I will add that I have seen more Christian Love and Acceptance™ practiced by this group of "godless heathen fags" than some some church groups. There was a bigger smile on my face and a deeper feeling of peace riding home from my first run than I had after my Cursillo weekend--and my Cursillo wasn't bad. Maybe God lets me do these "retreats" instead of things like Colditz.

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Matt the Mad Medic said:
Uh huh. It's called the real world. Statistics on marital fidelity are not the most reliable but estimates range between 30% and 60% of marriages will experience infidelity.

And there's precious little in the way of evidence to suggest that figure is any different for Christians, sadly.

I've got to agree with Matt here. I hate to pull age on some of you guys (actually, I don't, pulling age is one of the rare consolations of middle age [Razz] ) but I have seen too many marriages bite the dust.

By far the most spectacular marital break-up I have witnessed involved adultery between two church musicians. This destroyed two marriages and the homes of four children. At that point it ceases to be a laughing matter, not that it ever was. [Mad]

Matt is dead right to be cautious. Doctors regularly get into trouble in this area, so do clergy. It is career wrecking stuff - I know of several cases of clergy adultery which have destroyed ministries as well as congregational families.

It's all too easy to become a statistic, even as a Christian.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Bede's successor, you missed the "tends to cluster" - Matt wasn't implying that these things always all go together. Just that they often do. That's what "syndrome" means. You don't expect everyone to have all the symptoms.

And yes it could be called adult-onset diabetes, which is not an on-off thing like the better-known insulin-dependent forms but is somethign you can have a little bit of. And the spiking is in some ways is an extreme form of a normal reaction to sugar (after-lunch tiredness and all that).

(My pet theory (which is not respectable at all) is that it is getting more common because of things like diet soft drinks which provoke the hormonal reaction to the expectation of sugar but provide no sugar, so training the body to react inappropriately to food intake. But I'm just a biologist, not a doctor, so pay me no heed)

Calling something a stupis name like "syndrome X" stikes me as a marketing ploy to scare people into buying more drugs or vitamins or whatever. Associating it with the lying fraud Atkins who made millions by duping gullible fools into seriously endangering their health with seriously inadequate diets just makes me more suspicious of it. But thge whole healthscare industry is riddled with lying and duplicity. Thank God we do have the NHS.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Bede's American Successor

Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042

 - Posted      Profile for The Bede's American Successor   Author's homepage   Email The Bede's American Successor   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Bede's successor, you missed the "tends to cluster" - Matt wasn't implying that these things always all go together. Just that they often do. That's what "syndrome" means. You don't expect everyone to have all the symptoms.

And yes it could be called adult-onset diabetes,...

What you missed is that I don't have diabetes (hyperglycemia). I have hypoglycemia. Period. My normal fasting blood sugar levels run average to acceptably low. And, my brief spike (very brief spike) from sucrose or caffiene is followed by a low that can cause severe mood swings, severe shaking, and gastro-intestinal problems. It is not fun, and it is not the normal "tiredness" someone has after a meal; I know the difference. (Some people actually pass out from producing too much insulin. Thankfully, I'm not in that class.)

I know that I am at a higher risk to have diabetes one day, but that day has yet to come.

By the way, while I am not an Atkins devotee, there has been peer-reviewed studies that show that if you really follow the true program (remembering to buy supplements, limiting time, and so forth), it is not dangerous and it does work for some people. I'm not going to bother with it because (1) ten pounds is no big thing, and (2) I'm not sure how it would affect my moods, since I have hypoglycemia.

For the first time in my life I'm happy the US doesn't have a NHS [Yipee] (alhtough I would be happier with a Canadian-style single payer insurance system [Votive] ).

--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.

—Ezekiel 16.49

Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Refine carbs are bad [sugar/rice/white flour products etc] since they tend to be rapidly absorbed into the blood stream resulting in spikes of blood sugar which then drop down low. This happens cuz the pancreas shoots out lots and lots of insulin, much more than the normal amount, since the cells do not register the insulin. This means the sugar is totally going down fast which makes a very bitchy/happy/depressed duchess. I had nightmares too. I did not have much energy either and I felt like I was STARVING all the time.

My grandmother (God rest her soul) lost a leg to diabetes. My dad now has it. It is not the silent killer for nothing. Syndrome X may sound stupid but according to my endo at the San Jose Medical Group, there has been more than one name tossed around and debated since doctors can not make up their minds what to call it...blanket...across.

Dang, what a tangent. I hope I did not like bore any hellhost starting this tangent. [Devil]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I feel an arbitary thread-closing coming on...
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Praise God! YES, it was RooK today - THANK YOU JESUS.
[Yipee]

[just adding, I will control myself now. Blame Bede if this boring medical debate continues. It's more interesting than your lame ass cars. Thx.]

[ 04. November 2003, 21:25: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But please, RooK, not before I can forcibly extract a promise from Matt that he'll never ever ever examine a female patient or deal with a female colleague. I can see it now....

Matt’s Female Colleague: Come in to my office to discuss a patient. And please close the door so we can protect his confidentiality.

Matt: No can do, Doc. People might talk.

Oh, and Matt Sugar (Sucrose?) about this little gem:
quote:
Men and women are different, God made them different, and there are areas of life where that mean's God is saying different things to them.
Unless God has been desperately trying to communicate to me the rather obvious fact that He wants me to use the ladies’ room rather than the men’s (a biblical concept I've grasped, by the way), can you cite one single concrete example of where God’s message to me is different because of my sex?
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Matt’s Female Colleague: Come in to my office to discuss a patient. And please close the door so we can protect his confidentiality.

Matt: No can do, Doc. People might talk.

What you are trying to humourously suggest is that I am being legalistic.

I had no intention of being legalistic. I'm not talking about a "rule".."thou shalt not be alone with someone of the opposite sex" which is to be blindly followed. I'm talking about a "principle". The difference is that common sense and circumstance can have sway over a principle, whereas they can't over a rule.

matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh, and Re: syndrome X.

Sorry, but it does sound like the kind of thing a drug company would come up with so they can make a drug to manage it.

The problem is that the world "Syndrome" simply means a group of symptoms that commonly go together. It's not a "disease" (which means a set of symptoms with a specific known cause). Hence, any doctor can describe a new "syndrome", stick his name on it and write a book about it.


Medicine very often shades of grey, and particularly with these fairly amorphous "syndromes" (of which there are many) it's not as simply as to say "You have this" or "you don't have this". There are shades of grey. Where "syndrome X" becomes "non-insulin dependant Diabetes mellitus" is, as far as I can tell is not clear cut.

Just to really confuse you, most NIDDM patients don't inject insulin, but some NIDDM patients sometimes DO take insulin injections, in which case they are called IRNIDDMs (Insulin replacing non-insulin dependant diabetes mellitus). Confused yet? I am. [Yipee]

Oh, and just for more confusion, there is another condition called diabetes (diabetes inspidus) which has absolutely nothing to do with sugar levels whatsoever.

When things are so vague in medicine, it's sometimes because we don't know, and sometimes because it's useful to be vague. In the world of american medical insurance, there is probably some milage in avoiding having the tag "Diabetic" for the sake of premiums. eg. "No no..I'm not diabetic, I have syndrome X..."

It's all shades of grey...

matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Call it a rule. Call it a principle. I call it a very conveeeeeenient way to discriminate against women in the workplace.

Years ago I worked for one of these "above reproach" types. The result of his policy was that he would travel overnight only with male employees -- meaning that women got less face time with the boss and less exposure to important clients -- because he thought it might "invite gossip" for a man and a woman to check into a hotel together. He conducted one-on-one closed door meetings -- the kind where the decisions really get made -- only with male employees, not female, because he thought it would "look bad" for a man and a woman to be in a room alone together. He regularly invited male subordinates, not female, to sporting events at night or on weekends because it would "appear inappropriate" for him to socialize in public with someone not his wife.

The day we got his sorry ass fired was among the happiest of my life and the fact that he hasn't been able to find an equivalent position since then makes me positively gleeful. And were I to find out that a doctor or attorney or trash collector at any institution with which I had an affiliation followed the same "principle," I'd do everything in my power to get his -- or her -- sorry ass fired, too.

[ 04. November 2003, 23:01: Message edited by: Presleyterian ]

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
RooK

1 of 6
# 1852

 - Posted      Profile for RooK   Author's homepage   Email RooK   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Presleyterian, based on the sheer beauty and fantastic form of that last scorcher, I'll gladly hold open ANY thread in Hell that you wish to add to.

Your humble servant, and willing sex toy,
-RooK

Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Never Conforming

Aspiring to Something
# 4054

 - Posted      Profile for Never Conforming   Author's homepage   Email Never Conforming   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pres, Well said.

I worked for a company which took me on as a token female person because they were all equal ops and stuff. I mean, all the admin staff were female, the salesmen were, er, men (well, boys really) and the mechanics were all men. So much for equal ops that they fired me as the first (and last) female salesperson due to my gender. I hate it when people are trying to be so 'correct' that they SO entirely miss the point it's beyond belief.

I do have to say that I'm in a matriarchal family, but that's not due to inequality, but equality!!! There are 3 women in my house, and even in the extended family there is still only one bloke (poor grandad) so things generally work on a more female wavelength. We DO NOT give him four votes in democratic discussions, cos that would be discrimination again.

Matt, final point. You have spouted complete and utter drivel throughout this thread, whether it was about Colditz or gender specific preconceptions, it's still complete and utter bollocks.

I'll make sure I only go off and spend time with more women, and I must remember not to shag any of them while I'm there.

Oh yeah, that wouldn't be a problem because they aren't blokes. Sorry.

Jo
[Mad]

--------------------
I used to poison Student Minds™ and am proud to have done so
Never Conforming in the Surreal World

Posts: 1419 | From: Oop Norf | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matt, my doctor dx'd me with it. Call it Yankee Syndrome if you will.

To some of yous: how about wanting a nurse to be in the room with a female patient, for the love of pete, what is so jacked up about that? I fail to see how requesting a nurse to be present is tantamount to the higher up good ol' boy's club excluding females? How did we get there so fast from breeders of the opposite sex can not hang together alone too much for fear of igniting sparks of passion for the love of pete?

I personally LIKE a nurse in there when a male doctor has to do some...er...fun tests on me [omitted descriptions]. There is something comforting about her being there for me. If she ain't there though, it is ok with me. Am I not getting a distinction here?

[dang it I will never be an English teacher ever]

[ 05. November 2003, 01:25: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robert Armin

All licens'd fool
# 182

 - Posted      Profile for Robert Armin     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Duchess, without wanting to be disrespectful, or show any lack of feeling to your family's medical problems, this did conjure up an interesting picture for me:
quote:
My grandmother (God rest her soul) lost a leg to diabetes. My dad now has it.


--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin

Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pyx_e

Quixotic Tilter
# 57

 - Posted      Profile for Pyx_e     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One day, when I am on the edge of a nervous breakdown, twitching and dribbling slightly someone is actually going to say to me in a funeral visit" And we lost Gran last year" and I AM going to say "My God, have you not found her yet?" I know I will not be able to stop myself.

P

--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.

Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Call it a rule. Call it a principle. I call it a very conveeeeeenient way to discriminate against women in the workplace.
Anyone can manipulate any rule or principle as a convienent excuse for anything if they are creative enough. There's nothing wrong with the principle, there was something wrong with your boss.

Never conforming, methinks you contradict yourself:

I quote:

quote:
things generally work on a more female wavelength.
But I thought everything I said about Men and women being different (ie. being on different wavelengths at times) was "utter drivel"?

Presumably you believe men and women are on the same wavelength, and consequently, that comment of yours doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


quote:
Matt, final point. You have spouted complete and utter drivel throughout this thread
Oh, don't...stop it! I'm blushing!! [Hot and Hormonal] [Big Grin]

quote:
whether it was about Colditz or gender specific preconceptions, it's still complete and utter bollocks.
I'm sorry, that's just me being a typical male..oh wait...there's no such thing, because men and women are exactly the same.

Sorry...guess I'm just not on your "female wavelength"

matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Matt the Mad Medic wrote: When people of opposite sex (or compatible sexual orientations to be accurate) spend considerable time alone together, stuff happens.
You bet stuff happens, Sweetie. Cases get tried. Sick people get healed. Buildings get designed. Software gets developed. Oh, yeah, and the Gospel gets proclaimed. But obviously while the rest of us are getting our work done alone together with members of the opposite sex, something else is going through your febrile little brain stem. Pathetic.

quote:
Matt the Mad Medic wrote: Anyone can manipulate any rule or principle as a convenient excuse for anything if they are creative enough. There's nothing wrong with the principle, there was something wrong with your boss.
And how is your “principle” that it may be “not appropriate” for married people to interact with friends or colleagues of the opposite sex without their spouse present any different from his attitudes? If you’re that much of a sex-crazed, prone-to-temptation monster that you can’t be trusted to behave yourself over lunch with a married female friend or at a medical convention with a female colleague, stick to pathology, Sugar, ‘cause you have no business examining the gall bladder of a real live woman.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ronja
Shipmate
# 4693

 - Posted      Profile for Ronja   Email Ronja   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
If you’re that much of a sex-crazed, prone-to-temptation monster that you can’t be trusted to behave yourself over lunch with a married female friend or at a medical convention with a female colleague, stick to pathology, Sugar, ‘cause you have no business examining the gall bladder of a real live woman.

She shoots... She scores! Go Presleyterian!
Posts: 742 | From: Up North | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged
ChrisT

One of the Good Guys™
# 62

 - Posted      Profile for ChrisT   Author's homepage   Email ChrisT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
We've had the opinion of several couples on this thread, all of whom say they don't have a major problem with each other seeing members of the opposite sex. I would guess that's something that has been sorted out between them, probably over a lengthy period of time. And that's how it should be - working together to forge a common, loving outlook.

The more I read of this, and the more I know about people, the more I realise that men and women are both so complex as to be far beyond any kind of generalisations based on their sex, or for that matter age, location, upbringing etc. For instance, would people say that it's normally women that want children more than men, that it's normally men that like to watch more sport than women? No, because it isn't possible to make those statements taking into account the huge diversity of people in the world.

And while some people may think that you need to take reasonable precautions to keep appearances such that no untoward signals are given out, to do that simply because the person you are interacting with is a member of the opposite sex is at best pretty silly. I'll warrant that there are people in organisations across the world where appearances are being kept spotless, but the couple concerned are at it like rabbits.

So what does it boil down to? Self-control and respect, I think. Although, of course, it's men that have a much harder time than women in keeping their raging hormones under control. Or am I being sexist with that comment?

And to illustrate the point that has been made by other much greater than I on this thread, take a look at this website: http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com

--------------------
Firmly on dry land

Posts: 6489 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moth

Shipmate
# 2589

 - Posted      Profile for Moth     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Can I, as an extremely conservative, evangelical, dull-as-ditchwater, married Christian woman weigh in here to agree with Presleyterian?

Matt the Medic is spouting a load of old tosh.

I go to lunch with whomever I wish. So does ShadoK. The day we start having to worry whether one of us might run off with a colleague we dallied too long over lunch with is the day hell freezes over. I would have thought better of a good bible-believing Christian, really I would. I'm married Matt, so I won't be starting an affair with anyone. It's really very, very simple. I'm not free, so I'll keep myself for my husband.

And even if I weren't married, I'd be able to distinguish between friendship, business and romance. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.

Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gremlin
Ship's Cryptanalyst
# 129

 - Posted      Profile for Gremlin         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisT:
So what does it boil down to? Self-control and respect, I think. Although, of course, it's men that have a much harder time than women in keeping their raging hormones under control. Or am I being sexist with that comment?

This would be a nice excuse if it were true, but I'm sure we all know of women who suffer wild hormonal fluctuations on a monthly basis!

The difference is that our secular society seems to accept male lack of control more than female. [Ultra confused]

So, yes, I think you're being sexist with that comment. [Biased]

Gremlin

--------------------
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
Ahhh...I see the screw-up fairy has visited us again...
Oh I get it... like humour... but different.

Posts: 5221 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ChrisT

One of the Good Guys™
# 62

 - Posted      Profile for ChrisT   Author's homepage   Email ChrisT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gremlin:
The difference is that our secular society seems to accept male lack of control more than female. [Ultra confused]

Spot on, brother. And to clarify, you may insert a [Biased] anywhere at the end of my last post if you wish [Smile]

--------------------
Firmly on dry land

Posts: 6489 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Nomine*

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine*   Email Sine Nomine*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
Can I, as an extremely conservative, evangelical, dull-as-ditchwater, married Christian woman weigh in here to agree with Presleyterian?

Is Presleyterian not a Christian woman? There is a rather unpleasant implied comparison in that sentence. You girls sure know how to get your little digs in. Impressive.
Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Laura
General nuisance
# 10

 - Posted      Profile for Laura   Email Laura   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sine,

Moth didn't aim the "Christian" at Presley, but at Matt.

And I, too, think what he spouted is a load of twaddle. Two of my best friends are male, one a former boyfriend, and I have lunch with whomever I please, and my marriage is very strong in the Spirit.

--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm

Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Wanderer:
Duchess, without wanting to be disrespectful, or show any lack of feeling to your family's medical problems, this did conjure up an interesting picture for me:
quote:
My grandmother (God rest her soul) lost a leg to diabetes. My dad now has it.

[tender tangent]No worries, Mister. My Grandma was fed up with getting her leg chopped off at the knee and was in danger of losing her other leg...so she went off one night to my Rev. Grandpa, "If they take away my other leg, I am going to kick the bucket!" to which the reply her husband gave was "No you won't! Because if they take away your other leg, you won't have any legs to kick the bucket with!"

My family is not one to mollycoddle. ;%ìŠHèD

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
duchess

Ship's Blue Blooded Lady
# 2764

 - Posted      Profile for duchess   Email duchess   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
that last word was me cussing at you The Wanderer

[j/k! Actually I was trying to edit but browser timed out...dang it what the heck]

[ 06. November 2003, 04:02: Message edited by: duchess ]

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posts: 11197 | From: Do you know the way? | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
May I just say, that compared to Joshua Harris (He of "I kissed dating goodbye" ) I am positively liberal on this issue.

quote:
You bet stuff happens, Sweetie. Cases get tried. Sick people get healed. Buildings get designed. Software gets developed. Oh, yeah, and the Gospel gets proclaimed. But obviously while the rest of us are getting our work done alone together with members of the opposite sex, something else is going through your febrile little brain stem. Pathetic.
First, if you've read anything of what I've written, you'll have realised my position has little to do with the idea that two people of the opposite sex together might spontaneously lose control of themselves and start shagging on the carpet.

All the things listed above needn't happen in single, private 1 to 1 male/female interactions.

let me put it like this. Suppose company boss tells married man and single woman who work for him to go off on a business trip together, where does that married man, (or his wife) get a choice in that? And if the man or his wife do object, is that not going to hurt his career?

Someone said they felt their career was held back because of people enforcing these values, likewise, is it not just as possible that if the boss enforces the opposite value they will affect the career of someone who objects to that? It cuts both ways.

quote:
And how is your “principle” that it may be “not appropriate” for married people to interact with friends or colleagues of the opposite sex without their spouse present any different from his attitudes?
Ok, let me demonstrate by analogy. In medicine, we have a strong principle of confidentiality. It's a good principle. However, I could easily abuse that principle to suit my own ends, cover my own mistakes

As I understood it, the boss used the principle to avoid women getting to do any important stuff. If he wanted women to succeed and be important in the company, AND stick to his principle, he could have easily done so. For example, the boss could *shock horror* send TWO women away on the business trip together.

quote:
If you’re that much of a sex-crazed, prone-to-temptation monster that you can’t be trusted to behave yourself over lunch with a married female friend or at a medical convention with a female colleague, stick to pathology, Sugar, ‘cause you have no business examining the gall bladder of a real live woman.
Again, this was not my issue. You've taken what I've said, reduced it to a rather rediculous straw man of "Matt says if a man and woman are alone they will automatically end up shagging!" and consequently knocked it down. That's not what I was saying.

quote:
We've had the opinion of several couples on this thread, all of whom say they don't have a major problem with each other seeing members of the opposite sex.
If I may indulge in a little playact? [Smile]

*Scenario A*

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "err..well, actually, I'm not sure"

Partner 1: "Why not, don't you trust me?!?!"

Partner 2: "it does make me a little uncomfortable..."

Partner 1: "You DON'T trust me!!!"

partner 2: "I...I...just said..."

Partner 1: "Well, fine!!! If you don't trust me, this relationship is over. you can't have a relationship without trust"


*Scenario B*

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "yes dear, that's fine"

Partner 1: "Good"

*************

The point I'm making is this: Trust is a tool of manipulation. ANY time you place before a partner something which requires their trust of you, they must respond in the affirmative, or else they are affectively saying they don't trust you...and from that point the relationship is basically over

Of course in real life this isn't vocalised quite as bluntly as in my little dialogue.

When you say to a partner, with respect to some proposed act or behaviour, "trust me" (and even when you don't actually say it, but do something which implies an assumption of trust) you are engaging in a kind of bet, in which you are saying "I this relationship is worth too much to you to stop me doing this...".

I mean this as a general principle, in a wider context than just sexual fidelity. It might equally apply to decisions about finances for example.

Of course, a partner in a relationship has a right to expect trust, but, I think you could almost define "Love" in some contexts, as the sacrifical laying down of rights.

Being loving very often means not exercising your rights to the fullest, in order to be charitable to your partner.

It means pre-emptively thinking around situations so that you don't create a potentially manipulative "do you trust me?" scenario.

Matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915

 - Posted      Profile for Presleyterian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
May I just say, that compared to Joshua Harris (He of "I kissed dating goodbye" ) I am positively liberal on this issue.
Yeah, but so what? Compared to Marie Antoinette, I’m a warm, nurturing earth mother. I hardly hold Joshua Harris up as the comparative figure. And his latest book Not Even a Hint: Guiding Your Heart Against Lust, suggests that his strategy of “kissing dating good-bye” left him with a major “lust problem” (his description) that’s taken a toll on his marriage.

quote:
Suppose company boss tells married man and single woman who work for him to go off on a business trip together, where does that married man, (or his wife) get a choice in that? And if the man or his wife do object, is that not going to hurt his career?
Well, I sure as hell hope it’ll hurt his career. And if he doesn’t like it, he’s perfectly free to go get a job elsewhere. If you’re a pacifist, don’t enlist in the Army. If you’re against animal testing, don’t go to work for a drug company. And unless his wife in on the payroll, she’s got no standing to make a fuss about this. And pssstt, Matt. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, an employer isn’t in the business of keeping its employees’ spouses happy.

quote:
As I understood it, the boss used the principle to avoid women getting to do any important stuff. If he wanted women to succeed and be important in the company, AND stick to his principle, he could have easily done so. For example, the boss could *shock horror* send TWO women away on the business trip together.

Well then, Matt, for not the first time, you understood it wrong. The boss was supportive of his female employees in every other way, but he was a church-going guy who through groups such as Promise Keepers developed these notions about private contact with female employees. And if the two best people for the job are a man and a woman, then *shock horror* why should a company be required to sent a less well-suited woman because of a boss’ twisted views of sexual politics?

quote:
Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "err..well, actually, I'm not sure"

* * * *

Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "yes dear, that's fine"


Matt Sweetie, in what parallel universe are you living where conversations like this actually take place and can you bring me back a t-short next time you go? Do you and Your Significant Other actually talk like this? And will she be willing to file an affidavit to that effect?

quote:
The point I'm making is this: Trust is a tool of manipulation.


No, Dear. It’s an essential component of successful relationships among grown-ups.

Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gremlin
Ship's Cryptanalyst
# 129

 - Posted      Profile for Gremlin         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Partner 1: "I'm going out for lunch with a friend of the opposite sex. Do you mind?"

Partner 2 responds: "err..well, actually, I'm not sure"

Your follow-on to that is specious rubbish!

Partner 2's response could just as easily indicate a lack of trust in the 'friend of the opposite sex'.

And the only way such a conversation is going to lead to the conclusion you gave is if the relationship is already well & truly doomed.

Earth calling MtMM! Come in MtMM?

Gremlin

--------------------
Too many freaks, not enough circuses.
Ahhh...I see the screw-up fairy has visited us again...
Oh I get it... like humour... but different.

Posts: 5221 | From: Isle of Man | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Nomine*

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine*   Email Sine Nomine*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Compared to Marie Antoinette, I’m a warm, nurturing earth mother.

Tangent in passing...

Actually, Marie Antoinette was an excellent mother, and adored her children.

Carry on.


[The late Queen Mary would have been a better example.]

[ 07. November 2003, 22:11: Message edited by: Sine Nomine ]

Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Yeah, but so what? Compared to Marie Antoinette, I’m a warm, nurturing earth mother. I hardly hold Joshua Harris up as the comparative figure. And his latest book Not Even a Hint: Guiding Your Heart Against Lust, suggests that his strategy of “kissing dating good-bye” left him with a major “lust problem” (his description) that’s taken a toll on his marriage.
lol. Well, exactly, all I'm saying is to give a little perspective..there are circles in which I'm considered a dangerous liberal ya know [Razz] [Yipee] I rather like it. Just like I rather like being known as a redneck fundamentalist on the ship [Two face]

quote:
Well, I sure as hell hope it’ll hurt his career. And if he doesn’t like it, he’s perfectly free to go get a job elsewhere.
True, but couldn't I say exactly the same of the person who was complaining of the opposite problem?

quote:
Matt Sweetie, in what parallel universe are you living where conversations like this actually take place and can you bring me back a t-short next time you go? Do you and Your Significant Other actually talk like this? And will she be willing to file an affidavit to that effect?
As I said later on in the post, of course conversations like this don't take place. My fictional conversation was providing a dialogue of the subtext to relationship interactions. Imagine it like one of those cartoons where people talk in thought bubbles.


quote:
The point I'm making is this: Trust is a tool of manipulation.
quote:
No, Dear. It’s an essential component of successful relationships among grown-ups.


Of course its an essential component of successful relationships but that doesn't mean you go out of your way to draw it into play.

An Army is an essential component of national security, but you use it sparingly and with careful consideration. It's influence is passively there all the time, even when you are not actively using it in battle.

Likewise, trust is passively continuously at work (and necessary) in a relationship 24/7, but times when you create situations which call trust actively into play should be well considered and used sparingly.

Why? Because human beings screw up and break each others trust all the time. Even married people who love each other. Even Christian married people who love each other. If you foolishly believe you have an unbreakable relationship of infinite trust and put yourself repeatedly in situations which demand trust, sooner or later it will blow up in your face.

A bit like if you keep throwing an "unbeatable army" into unneccessary battles it will eventually backfire on you. (Something Mr. Bush might need to consider.)

matt

[ 07. November 2003, 22:14: Message edited by: Matt the Mad Medic ]

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Matt, what makes you think that saying the same thing over and over again is going to make it any more believable or true?

You are talking crap. I don't care if it is 'liberal crap' or 'fundamentalist crap'. It is still crap.

Most people who have been married (or been with their partner) for a while know that the relationship is something that need regular maintenace and attention. To have a good relationship you need to spend time with the person and communicate your hopes, desires, fears and concerns.

Trust might well be used by manipulators, but just because some people misuse it in this way does not negate its importance in relationships.

Mark, when I read your posts here, the image I get of you is that you are a little child striving to make sense of this mad, strange world. It seems that you are making up rules and sticking tenaciously to them, and pay little attention to whether the experimental evidence actually agrees with your 'rules'.

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305

 - Posted      Profile for Faithful Sheepdog   Email Faithful Sheepdog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Matt the Mad Medic said:
Likewise, trust is passively continuously at work (and necessary) in a relationship 24/7, but times when you create situations which call trust actively into play should be well considered and used sparingly.

Why? Because human beings screw up and break each others trust all the time. Even married people who love each other. Even Christian married people who love each other. If you foolishly believe you have an unbreakable relationship of infinite trust and put yourself repeatedly in situations which demand trust, sooner or later it will blow up in your face.

Once again I have to agree with Matt. I get the impression a lot of people on this thread have never witnessed a marital situation between Christians in which trust has been grossly abused, leading to the break-up of the marriage. Believe me, it's not pretty. [Mad]

St Paul says something about "those who stand, take heed lest they fall". That applies to us all.

Here's a link to a secular relationship website (run by a counsellor who has apparently just died from cancer [Votive] ). Much of what she has to say seems eminently sensible to me. She has a specific section on safe friendships and secure marriages.

Neil

--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe

Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Another question for Matt based on a quote of his from the previous page (sorry I've only just caught up with this thread)
quote:
Moreover, I would be curious as to why someone who is married (or for that matter in a life long lesbian or homosexual relationship) would insist on defining themselves as bisexual when presumably they have settled on one partner. The "bi" part can only refer to some counterfactual reality in which they are not with their current partner.

I'm intrigued by the words 'would insist on defining themselves'. To me, defining one's orientation is not something one chooses ('insist on') based on one's current relationship, but it an honest assesment of which gender(s) one may find oneself attracted to.

I think it was the 'insist' bit that annoyed me, as if people are just saying they are bisexual for the hell of it.

[ 08. November 2003, 10:14: Message edited by: Gracious rebel ]

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
I'm intrigued by the words 'would insist on defining themselves'. To me, defining one's orientation is not something one chooses ('insist on') based on one's current relationship, but it an honest assesment of which gender(s) one may find oneself attracted to.
To be honest, I do believe that if you are in a heterosexual marriage, you WOULD have to "insist" on mantaining a "bisexual" tag on yourself if you were still known as that after many years of marriage.

If you have been married for 15 years, but people around you still identify you as "bisexual" this says to me you must have gone somewhat out of your way to maintain that label on yourself, else it would have fallen into disuse.

I actually know someone like this. Married for many years, but she insists she is "bisexual"...to the point of being actively involved in lesbigay organisations and conferences etc.

If you've found your life partner, then, it would seem to me that the question of what "Sexuality" you are has fallen into irrelevance. Your sexuality is defined within, and should be fully satisfied within, that relationship.

quote:
I think it was the 'insist' bit that annoyed me, as if people are just saying they are bisexual for the hell of it.
If you're married, but somehow still manage to mantain a public persona of being known asbisexual then frankly...yes, I think you must have gone out of your way to hang on to it.

matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But Matt I wasn't meaning a public persona. Maybe thats where the confusion is. I was talking about how you think of your sexual orientation yourself - not what others think of you, or know you as. I would expect many (most?) bisexuals not to be 'out' anyway, but that is just my wild guess!!
Also remember that very few people are 100% straight or gay, but most have degrees of bisexuality.

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
John Donne

Renaissance Man
# 220

 - Posted      Profile for John Donne     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Presleyterian, based on the sheer beauty and fantastic form of that last scorcher, I'll gladly hold open ANY thread in Hell that you wish to add to.

Your humble servant, and willing sex toy,
-RooK

You are such a slut, Rook. Ms Presleyterian has many qualified suitors, so you'd best Get In Line.

(And do you want to know what happens to them? Read Keats' La Belle Dame Sans Merci. Go on. See if I care. Run headlong into her elfin grot.)

Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34

 - Posted      Profile for babybear   Email babybear   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I actually know someone like this. Married for many years, but she insists she is "bisexual"...to the point of being actively involved in lesbigay organisations and conferences etc.

Matt honey, you are talking crap again. You really don't seem to be able to help yourself, do you?

Take Person X. Person X has been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years. Does this mean that because Person X is straight that they should take no part in conferences for straight people?

Take Person Y. Person Y has been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years. Does this mean that because Person Y is gay that they should take no part in conferences for gay people?

The conferences above are not just about sex. They can be about anything from child rearing to helping your partner through difficult times, to fighting prejudice.

How about Person Z? They have been in a monogamous relationship for 10 years. Does this mean that because Person Z if bi that they should take no part in conferences for gay/bi people?

Be bisexual means that you are capable of forming a loving, supportive, sexual relationship with either a man or a woman. Well, more likely, you are capable of forming a loving, supposrtive sexual relationship with the specific person that you fall in love with, regardless of their sex. Bisexuals are just as capable of monogamous relationships as straights and gays.

bb

Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675

 - Posted      Profile for 3M Matt   Email 3M Matt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
But Matt I wasn't meaning a public persona. Maybe thats where the confusion is. I was talking about how you think of your sexual orientation yourself - not what others think of you, or know you as.
Probably where the confusion lies, because that's what my original comment was referring to.


quote:
Also remember that very few people are 100% straight or gay, but most have degrees of bisexuality.
I'm not that sure about this. It's one of those things that has become part of pop. psychology in the last 20 years or so, and is ofen quoted, but I'm not sure what' it's quantifiably based on.

If it is true, it can only be true on a subconcious level. (since the majority of straight men will give a slight shudder at the idea of themselves kissing/having sex with another man even if they don't object to other people doing it).

So you really have to be coming to psychology from a fairly freudian school of thought which believes in subconcious motivations and inhibitions to entertain the idea that "Most of us have homosexual tendancies"

matt

--------------------
3M Matt.

Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sine Nomine*

Ship's backstabbing bastard
# 3631

 - Posted      Profile for Sine Nomine*   Email Sine Nomine*       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
So you really have to be coming to psychology from a fairly freudian school of thought which believes in subconcious motivations and inhibitions to entertain the idea that "Most of us have homosexual tendancies"

Matt, hate to tell ya, buddy, but I can't count the number of men I ran up against (if you'll pardon the expression) in my wilder days in the siesta room of the local YMCA who wanted some action before they went home to their wife and kids.

It's not that subconscious. Sorry.

Posts: 10696 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools