Hilarious Website about being a resident

Facing problems in your residency program? See how
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
kewl azz website. The golf game has me captivated and somewhat annoyed.


And when it comes to footwear...im an Intimidator

"Thank you doctor" = "**** you doctor" when uttered by nurses.... LMAO how true
 
hey, this sucks. i want the link.

What's this about no cross-linking, drmom? All kinds of people have personal pages they promote on these forums. You don't close them down.

Judd
 
Every one of this person's posts were to promote their own site. That is not permitted & it is our standard practice to remove the links & ban the user.
 
It kind of sucks that that user didn't use the power of SDN for good, but only for evil.

I did, however, manage to catch the website name before the OP was banned. Surely I wouldn't be banned for giving it to those requesting it by PM; at least, I'd hate to encourage bad posting and get banned, but I did enjoy the OP's website.
 
ban the guy fine...but no reason to take the link away. I could use a good laugh every now and then. Of course I guess the laugh I got from your little power trip will have to do for today.

By the way, DrMom, I noticed that one of your hobbies is spending time with your family. How do you find time to be with your family, and still make you 23+ posts per day on SDN?
 
Thanks for protecting me from someone with a website! I'd hate to click on a link!

What shoe do you prefer?

Censors wear gleaming leather boots to the knee. At least in movies.

Come on, neglect it!
 
Our TOS does not permit someone to promote their webpage/forums (this was both) on our forums. This person registered just to violate our TOS with 2 different screennames (re-registered after they were banned for doing so the first time). I don't see any reason we should permit this.
 
DrMom said:
Our TOS does not permit someone to promote their webpage/forums (this was both) on our forums. This person registered just to violate our TOS with 2 different screennames (re-registered after they were banned for doing so the first time). I don't see any reason we should permit this.
Click to expand...

Although it was a funny website, I have to agree w/ DrMom on this one.
 
ortho2003 said:
ban the guy fine...but no reason to take the link away. I could use a good laugh every now and then. Of course I guess the laugh I got from your little power trip will have to do for today.

By the way, DrMom, I noticed that one of your hobbies is spending time with your family. How do you find time to be with your family, and still make you 23+ posts per day on SDN?
Click to expand...
👍
Didn't you hear? Being a 15K-post troll + an osteopath wannabe = automatic moderator status.

Put the site back up, DrTroll.
 
I agree. The website was funny and harmless and of special interest to visitors of "General Residency Forums". If someone wants to tell people about it who are you to censure it. What is this communism anyway?
 
I visited the website and it was funny. Nevertheless, that's not the point. The fuzzy bird lady is right: you can't use a website to promote your own site. People pay money for advertising and this is essentially what it was. The difference between that and other posted links is intent. This user came here for the sole intent of promoting his website and posted a bajillion links to it in every forum. When other members post links, it's for isolated pictures or videos or stories and is in the context of a discussion that is ongoing. They participate in this site and help make it what it is, not just run around saying "what an awesome site!! Click here!!"

P.S. Communism is an economic philosophy that is unrelated to censorship. I think you meant to say, "what is this, fascism?"

P.P.S. It's not censorship. You don't have the right to put anything you want on someone else's website. People don't comprehend what censorship is these days.
 
kinetic said:
P.S. Communism is an economic philosophy that is unrelated to censorship. I think you meant to say, "what is this, fascism?"

P.P.S. It's not censorship. You don't have the right to put anything you want on someone else's website. People don't comprehend what censorship is these days.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with kinetic on this one.

If you really need the link plenty of people agreed to PM it. I thought the site was funny but pretty thin-really just a pale shadow of everthing already on SDN
 
Censorship:*deleting parts of publications or correspondence considered harmful to the interests of his organization.

Sorry, it's from Websters.

And, while we're nerding out here: I think censorship was part of both modern day Communism and Fascism, which are both political theories and both supressed publications. It's probably equally incorrect to equate fascism and censorship as it is to do so with communism and censorship. However, who cares? I made the analogy for comic effect. Boots, get it?

Anyway, what I don't get was why it's so wrong. Web traffic increased. Oh no. Yeah, the web site was kinda lame. So what? So is Lolita!

I can just see two of Hitler's finest (Or Stalin's) censors sitting there in their nice black boots, justifying their existence. I think they would say something like, "Our leader does not permit someone to promote their religion/anti-gov views (this was both) on our newspapers. This person registered just to violate our system with 2 different pseudonyms (re-registered after they were banned for doing so the first time). I don't see any reason we should permit this. I think we're going to send them somewhere very cold."

Why should we permit this? Perhaps the question ought to be, why should we care?

And, now that I've made this post of no interest, I'll close, calling boots boots.
 
Sorry, but censorship is something only the government can do. If a private entity chooses to allow something or not on its own property (e.g., website), that's it's own choice. To say that you HAVE to let me do something (say, put graphic hardcore child porn on SND) or else you are violating my rights is ludicrous, to say the least. Note, your own examples are of fascist GOVERNMENTS (that of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia) censoring individuals, which is markedly different from what is occurring here. It sounds great to say "you are censoring me and violating my rights!!" unless someone actually stops and thinks about what that means. Calling someone a Nazi just because you don't get your way means a) you're so stupid you don't know what Nazi Germany really was like or b) you are so lazy that you can't think any more deeply than that.

And by the way, communism is an economic philosophy, so it doesn't have anything to do with censorship, like I said.
 
com?mu?nism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The Marxist-Leninist version of Communist doctrine that advocates the overthrow of capitalism by the revolution of the proletariat.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French communisme, from commun, common, from Old French, from Latin commnis. See commune2.]

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
 
Also a technicality, but I'll point out that your definition specifically states that communist governments are governments only insofar as they control things in order to institute an economic policy. But, like you said, who cares?
 
I'd like to see the funny page.

Oh, and check out wwiionline.com
 
OK, a private website doesn't have to allow any content that it doesn't want to. The real problem here, as in much of society, is a total lack of concern for the intent of the sacred TOS. Instead, we are just enforcing the crap out of the letter of the law. When pressed, the best the enforcers can do is sputter about slippery slopes, which is about as weak of an argument as any I can think of.

There are obvious reasons to limit links. Blatant commercialism and irrelevance are as good as any. There are also great reasons to allow links that are directly relevant to the topic, supplement SDN rather than compete with it, and have no commercial ties. Instead we leap to use our power and ban sites, like a traffic cop who will stand by your meter for 5 minutes waiting for the time to run out.

I myself submitted a link to the Neurology forum a couple of months ago about a site that I maintain. It is a site about obtaining a neurology residency, contained absolutely no financial interest for me, and linked back to SDN. I will not post the link again in this forum, but view my profile if you would like to learn a little about neurology residency. I challenge anyone to explain to me how it is detrimental to the SDN.
 
I remember when that happened. The consensus was that without a formal agreement or permission from Lee to link to your site, that the posting of your site would be viewed as advertising, irregardless of the non-profit nature of your site.

I certainly don't see a detriment to SDN by you posting your link, but you stand to benefit greatly by being allowed to do so. Not in monetary terms, for sure, but in terms of exposure and website hits. I think we can agree that that has value.

I also recall that you were PM'd and told to ask Lee about a formal 'okay'. Did you not receive such a PM?
 
I received no PM on the issue. I sent one to imtiaz right after in happened, but never got a reply.

My plan was (is) just to promote the heck out of the site through other groups that I am affiliated with. Then, eventually, someone else will post the link and it will be untouchable. 😀

I think the term consensus is being used a little loosely. It usually takes a minimum of two people to form a consensus. In this case my post was removed by a consensus of one, then my PM of protest was ignored.

***
Sorry people, I'm really not trying to hijack this thread and make it about me, but I think this next part is relevant to anyone posting a web link
***

I totally agree that expose and web hits have "value". I enjoy sharing my site with others who will find it useful. However, even if I suddenly started getting as many hits as Google, why would it matter? Web traffic is only extrinsically valuable if you sell ads. I fail to see why the SDN is so concerned about preventing me from getting the warm fuzzies from some positive feedback.

I guess I am just going back to my earlier post. The rules were made so people don't start websites like www.nakedmedicalstudents.com and try to solicit business on SDN. They are being over-applied because it is faster and easier to ban everything than do a little homework and separate the good from the bad.
 
GopherBrain said:
I received no PM on the issue. I sent one to imtiaz right after in happened, but never got a reply.

My plan was (is) just to promote the heck out of the site through other groups that I am affiliated with. Then, eventually, someone else will post the link and it will be untouchable. 😀

I think the term consensus is being used a little loosely. It usually takes a minimum of two people to form a consensus. In this case my post was removed by a consensus of one, then my PM of protest was ignored.

***
Sorry people, I'm really not trying to hijack this thread and make it about me, but I think this next part is relevant to anyone posting a web link
***

I totally agree that expose and web hits have "value". I enjoy sharing my site with others who will find it useful. However, even if I suddenly started getting as many hits as Google, why would it matter? Web traffic is only extrinsically valuable if you sell ads. I fail to see why the SDN is so concerned about preventing me from getting the warm fuzzies from some positive feedback.

I guess I am just going back to my earlier post. The rules were made so people don't start websites like www.nakedmedicalstudents.com and try to solicit business on SDN. They are being over-applied because it is faster and easier to ban everything than do a little homework and separate the good from the bad.
Click to expand...

Alternatively, perhaps it would have been more expedient to simply contact the owner of the website to formally ask for some type of linking agreement, in order to get a definitive answer, instead of leaving it to the discretion of the moderators.

If you think that your website should not be considered 'advertising' and should be displayed, your best bet would be to contact the owner of the site and ask him.

Good luck.
 
OK, I'm inspired. Everyone PM me a naked picture of yourself, and I will buy the URL tomorrow and make us all some money. 😀

As an additional bonus for me, they may make good blackmail material when you are all department chairs in 25 years and I need a job...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
SDN Article: Ten years ago, academics in the NEJM disagreed about a looming shortage of residency positions. After 10 years of data, we now have the a
Replies
1
Views
454
dozitgetchahi
D
L
Worried about coming out to my co-residents; anyone have any experience with this?
Replies
13
Views
2K
comp1
C
T
Is it possible to start a residency in a private practice?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Smurfette
Smurfette
F
Reapplying to residencies within the same field because I dislike my program—a long shot?
Replies
13
Views
1K
abc123412
A
whatsthepoint
How does one go about switching from a categorical position?
Replies
15
Views
3K
whatsthepoint
whatsthepoint
Top