of SDN and objectivity

[willy]

I am really afraid of loosing sleep over this foursaken issue. Can't we just put this issue to arrest for a little while? That way, we can resume taking for granite the flaws in common English colloquialisms. For gosh sakes, all these posts are like a ramada of incoming pirate chips firing away at a behoofed stranger in a dinghy. I thing I'm going to have another express-o and crahsant so I can stay up and see too it that nobody else bitches and groans about mute points. Geez, cause it's pretty rediculous that people as expectational as you are stuping so low. Geez is Price! nighty.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SMW]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by quake:
•SMW, this is my point exactly. I shall not apologize to Quaileggs.... Even though I DISAGREE with SMW I still think you are an awesome person. You were the first person to welcome me to SDN. Thanks. I also DISAGREE with Brandonite but the guy is still awesome. I love all his Stanford posts. This is what being objective is about. Quaileggs was wrong, she could be a good person but that post was in poor taste. MacGyver told a BAD JOKE, I can't hold that against him. Bush... used some bad language, that is reprehensible.•••••I'm glad we can agree to disagree, quake, and I do thank you for the kind remarks , but I think you should not be so quick to judge and a little quicker to apologize where you've given offense. Whereas Busta was clearly over the line with his language and personal attacks (and MacGuyver generally has been -- I don't know if he's shaping up, but I hope so), Quaileggs was just relaying an aggravating/humorous incident, and in the context of all her other posts, most of us just knew it was a light-hearted complaint meant as a joke, not an attack on all middle-aged mothers who aren't going to med school. I'm sure we've all made fun of certain groups of people. Methinks in this case you're making a mountain out of a molehill! Now if you were up in arms over Busta, I'd be with you!! Using bad language was the least of his sins!!!

 

[SMW]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
•Here are some of the ones I find to be amusing. I usually don't care, cause in real life I'm the last person to pay attention to grammar.

"duck tape" vs duct tape
"baited breath" vs bated breath
"by enlarge" vs by and large
"analyzation" vs analysis
"low and behold" vs lo and behold
"escape goat" vs scapegoat
"new leash on life" new lease on life
"pre-Madonna" vs prima donna
"gorilla warfare" vs guerilla warfare
"neck in neck" vs neck and neck
"windshield factor" vs wind chill factor

Yep, I'm bored. Wait kutastha, am I being elitist by posting this? :wink: •••••And this from a guy who complained about "dyspeptic" :wink: I've gotta admit, you've found some choice ones!

 

[brandonite]

SMW, I think you're the only one who knows what dyspeptic means...

 

[willy]

Think again, Canada.

 

[Papa Smurf]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by brandonite:
•SMW, I think you're the only one who knows what dyspeptic means... •••••I know what dipeptide means, close enough? :wink:

 

[brandonite]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
•I know what dipeptide means, close enough? :wink: •••••Good enough for me, Papa.

 

[SMW]

dys-pep-tic\ 1 : relating to or having dyspepsia (indigestion) 2 : showing a sour disposition

 

[hatcher]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by quaileggs:
•Maybe some people here aren't only defending me because they blindly "like me" but because they didn't think my original thread about the grocery lady was so bad and elite like you obviously did. •••••have you ever heard of the <a href="http://thetalkingdrum.com/tus.html" target="_blank">tuskegee experiment?</a> basically, a group of physicians believed they were justified in withholding treatment from experimental subjects in order to learn the progression of syphilis. were they right in doing so? no. did they think they were wrong? no.

you cannot validate your own opinion based on the opinions of others. just because other people do not find something offensive does not mean it isn't so. i have already gotten into this once before on another thread where people let their group-think, mob mentality get carried away. i never read your thread, but if you said what everyone is saying you said, i believe this reminder of how you may need to think about what you say before you say it is valid. while i can't really even comprehend why you would care what someone who you do not know mistakenly believes, it seems that if it bothered you so much you would have been better off correcting her incorrect assumptions rather than fuming about it and talking about her behind her back.

then again, if other people think you are right and i am wrong, it must be the case.

 

[SMW]

hatcher, your second paragraph is an absolute non sequitur from your first paragraph.

This really is getting ridiculous!

 

[quake]

You guys are very funny. MacGuyver has about 300 posts, he made two bad posts and fire was rained on him. Quaileggs passed a bad comment, she was exonerated in the light of her previous posts. Besides the double standard I wish to clarify the differnce between MacGyver and Quaileggs.
Macgyver made a bad statement, he later clarifies that statement A was only a joke. In effect, taking it back but others have accused him of simply trying to rehabilitate his image.
Quaileggs makes a bad statement about a GROUP of people, due to the actions of one person in that group. She comes back to say that she found the situation/event humorous as a means of softening the blow of her initial statements.
The two scenarios are NOT the same.
One person has taken back the offensive statement the other person only sees humor in what offended her but stands by her offensive statements. She doesn't REALIZE that others shd not be called BRAINDEAD just because of something a middle aged woman did. Especially, given that the old woman probably couldn't have known any better.
My judgements stands and i am tempted to repost the abominable statements she made.

Yes, this is the internet all we have are the written posts. Hence we can comment on individual posts without passing a judgement on character. I insist that a sum of 300 posts would not shed much light on a person's character. I would never judge a post based on previous posts and my judgemnet would always be of the post and not the person. It is not important for me to know what your husband or kids think about you. If you are going to stereotype a whole group of people to be brain dead and not take it back because you feel the situation is actually funny, I don't care that your hubby thinks you are an opinionated goddess of love. I shall stick to my guns. What you said about the old-lady was horible. What you said about your neighbors was terrible. Your unwillingness to take those words back is shameful. The people defending you need to read your original post again.

SMW, if a person wins my apology, I'll give it to them. Don't be so quick to accuse me of being quick to judge. I found a statement offensive. The poster stands by her post. Meanwhile, the statement continues to offend me (not the person). Where is the need for apology. Why shouldn't she apologize to me. Come on you are the grand member, let your judgements be fair.

 

[otter]

What I think happened here is this: Quake made a very good general point. But he upset people with the examples that he used. In defending himself, quake started to overstate his criticism of quaileggs' post and things are now getting slightly sidetracked.

Quake - Like most others, I don't view quaileggs' post as being all that offensive, certainly not "abominable" as you put it. I wouldn't be so quick as to judge that quailegg was unfairly debasing the entire community based on one woman. Maybe she was speaking also from the experiences that she's had in dealing with many other people from her town in the past.

Also, I personally didn't see her post as being an elitist remark. BUT if you see it that way, then of course you have a right to critique her. I didn't see you as attacking her character or calling her names; you were just voicing your opinion about a very general topic and you just happened to use quaileggs' post as an example. For that reason, I'm not going to say that you NEED to apologize to quaileggs. And, quaileggs, you shouldn't get upset over this. You posted to get reactions, and you got one. But, I might add that it would've been simple enough for quake to just say, "I didn't mean to single out your post, quaileggs," or something like that.

So what I want to say is, while I think quake is blowing quailegg's post out of proportion, I do think that his original main point about need for objectivity without fraternizing was a valid reminder.

 

[quake]

Otter, you seem to be a very sensible person. Your assessment of the situation is very good. I used Quaileggs because hers is the most recent example that jumped to my mind. I have nothing against her. However, many people immediately jumped to her defense, citing her past good posts as the main reason to overlook her offense. i have had to revisit Quaileggs because this proves my point exactly.
While I agree that the word abominable is too strong ( I take that word back). I feel that an anologous conversation to the one that occured in the grocery store is in place. Imagine the following conversation between a mother and her son

Son: Mom, you can't believe what happened in school today. I told John that I scored a 98% on my last Math exam and he said to me that he knows what that feels like, he did a split yesterday and that made him very happy.
Mother: How could he compare a split to a 98% on a math exam.
son: i know mom, most of the people in my school are so braindead. i can't wait to transfer to a private school next semester.
Mother: That's right son. In the private school you'll be surrounded by very intelligent kids.
Son: I can't wait, mom.
Mother: That's my boy ( She rubs his head affectionately, and then hugs him).

Somehow, I don't like this picture at all. Something is very wrong with the above conversation and i hope to goodness I am not the only one who sees something wrong.

All I ask for is objectivity. It is easier to be objective since the mother and son are faceless and nameless. We shd be able to be objective even if the conversation had transpired between people we know. Cheers.

 

[quake]

Oops, my hypothetical conversation is not supposed to be anologous to the grocery store conversation. It is more anologous to a conversation between some SDN senior members and Quaileggs
Remember, guys that we can disagree and still be nice :wink:
Cheers
--Trek (I mean Quake)

 

[dustinspeer]

You guys have sooo much free time on your hands.

Basically, I believe that both of them should be given the benefit of the doubt. Who cares? I'm sure everyone has said things they regret, or gone off in the heat of frustration. If not, I wanna be your friend. Quaileggs and Mac, you're both fine in my book. Bustahimes, however, is a different story. He was very inappropriate in his "keepin' it real."

But about the issue, quaileggs... What do you think of my wife, whose ambition in life has been to be a mother and a housewife?

 

[Papa Smurf]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by quake:
•Oops, my hypothetical conversation is not supposed to be anologous.... •••••Uh, "anologous" isn't a word. It's actually spelled "analogous,"(meaning similar or alike) but we get the point. :wink: :wink: I say we just drop this already. It's getting tiresome. Let people agree to disagree and move on. My $.02

 

[willy]

That's 'anAlogous'. Be careful; flagrant spelling errors can compromise your credibility. Sorry for being so 'anol'.

 

[quaileggs]

Quake--
Apparently you think what happened to me happened in a vaccuum. OK....I have not encountered women in my community who are literally "brain-dead"
However, I have lived the last 10 years of my life in a very affluent small suburb where when I have sought the company of women I have nearly invariably been bored to tears by the range of conversational topics they enjoy: babies, obsession over their kids sporting events, status,redecorating their big house again, comparing where their families are vacationing,tanning, playing tennis. An intellectual woman who is also a loving wife and mother can be an isolated person. Does this mean I hate them? NO Does this mean I am surly and nasty to them? NO Do I try to get along with them and be perfectly pleasant? YES Do I feel I am inherently a superior human being to them? NO But humans get happy when they find themselves around people with whom they have a lot in common. I get happy around people who are educated, who enjoy intelligent and thought-provoking conversations, open-minded,progressive thinkers, not preoccupied with superficial things, inquisitive about the world beyond their suburb. For many years these sorts of people have been in rather short supply for me. Through this journey to medical school, a light has started to shine through for me. I went to school where I met a whole new community of people who valued knowledge and ambition in a woman. On the interview trail, I have been so excited to meet women (and men) who can talk about science and their goals with me, and so many mature, articulate and impressive young people who defied the "slacker" stereotype. This is so exciting. I'm entering a whole new world and discovering my "tribe" finally at 32. I plan on moving to a new community sometime soon where hopefully I "fit in" better, somewhere funkier. In my practice I will welcome all sorts, even suburban moms and their kids (that's a joke). Also I am not nor have I ever been a member of the KKK. For the record, I stand firmly against the Tuskeegee Experiement. (Good God Almighty some of you are around the bend!) Case is rested and I will fight no more. Peace to all.

 

[Papa Smurf]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by willjmarks:
•That's 'anAlogous'. Be careful; flagrant spelling errors can compromise your credibility. Sorry for being so 'anol'.•••••Will bro, I thought I was supposed to be covering the 8-5 SDN spell checking shift? Aren't you supposed to be taking the night shift? :wink:

 

[quake]

Good one guys.
I really meant to type analogous. However, it seems that I always end up typing anologous. There is no way I can convince you guys that I really meant to type analogous
Oh boy, there goes my credibility. I wonder how many times I have written this. OH NOOOOOO I may have written anologous in one of my MCAT essays. Hmmm that explains a lot of things :wink:

Attention SDNers :wink: Quake's anologous = analogous.

 

[dustinspeer]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by quaileggs:
•An intellectual woman who is also a loving wife and mother can be an isolated person.

I get happy around people who are educated, who enjoy intelligent and thought-provoking conversations, open-minded,progressive thinkers, not preoccupied with superficial things, inquisitive about the world beyond their suburb. For many years these sorts of people have been in rather short supply for me. •••••Come on...

I have to object to that and I am not even a woman! You are indirectly saying that these women are unintelligent and uneducated. Just because you want to be something that requires a high level of education does not make you any more intelligent that any of those women. You may say you have more ambition, but that is completely objective. What makes your goal any better than anyone else's?

What about a woman who was 4.0 in high school and college who only wants to be a housewife? Is she a waste of intelligence?

 

[hatcher]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by SMW:
•hatcher, your second paragraph is an absolute non sequitur from your first paragraph.
•••••why, exactly, is that? the physicians in the tuskegee experiment validated their experimental protocols and figured that, since their entire group thought it was ok, then it must be so. however, if viewed from an outside perspective, it could also be seen that it was not, in fact, an ok protocol. the same applies here; quaileggs was defending herself by saying other people on this thread found her post inoffensive. just because they (her "friends") found it inoffensive does not make it so.

 

[quaileggs]

Dustin...this is my experience where I live. I do not need to justify it to anyone. I do not look down on women who want to be housewives. I was one for 7 years. I am merely saying what is wrong with feeling happier around people with whom you have something more in common. Values in common, interests in common. I totally believe in people choosing their own path in life that interests them and brings them happiness. To each his own. I am thrilled that I live in an age where women can pursue their interests no matter how unconventional like I am doing. Not every woman views the suburban housewife experience as the pinnacle of fulfillment.I am not from any sort of "elite".I come from a very working class immigrant family. The men worked in factories or as carpenters. My grandmother and my mother also had intellectual leanings but weren't quite as free as I am to realize them partially due to societal expectations of the proper place of women. My grandmother worked as a medical secretary for a doctor at Rutgers and my mom worked as a legal secretary. If they had their preference and the support, they would have preferred to have been a doctor and a lawyer respectively. My grandmother, in particular remains bitter about her stymied goals. My mom just graduated from college last year at age 54. I am super proud of them and they are proud of me. Nothing is wrong with secretaries or housewives. They help make the world go round. But as a woman, it is extremely exciting for me to see women reaching a high level in the working world, becoming doctors and lawyers and professors etc. Hurray for freedom!

 

[brandonite]

I think this topic has officially been beaten to death. Nobody is going to change their opinions, and people are just going to get more pissed off than they were before.

Does anybody want to call it? Time of death, 12:00 CST.

 

[Papa Smurf]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by brandonite:
•Does anybody want to call it? Time of death, 12:00 CST.•••••Dude, this baby's still alive. I can't let it die! SMW, grab the thoracotomy tray! Brandonite, gimme an amp of epi! Dustin, prep the chest!! I'm going in baby! So, who wants to clamp the aorta? :wink:

 

[Ripley]

Sorry Brando, can't resist reviving this post...

Guys, it's JUDGMENT. Not judgement.

What always gets me is 'their, there, and they're'. Improper use of its and it's annoys me also.

Hehe, I'm ashamed to admit that until I was 28 I spelled definitely "definately". A coworker corrected me and I didn't believe her until I checked a dictionary. I felt like such a dope.

 

[brandonite]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by Papa Smurf:
• •••quote:•••Originally posted by brandonite:
•Does anybody want to call it? Time of death, 12:00 CST.•••••Dude, this baby's still alive. I can't let it die! SMW, grab the thoracotomy tray! Brandonite, gimme an amp of epi! Dustin, prep the chest!! I'm going in baby! So, who wants to clamp the aorta? :wink: •••••I dunno man, I think that this thread should probably die with dignity. No extraordinary measures, you know. I mean, what kind of quality of life will this thread have if we bring it back to life??

And my spell check shows 'judgement' is a word, just like 'judgment'. Maybe it's a Canadian spelling or something. Except we usually tend to add 'u' to words, like colour.

 

[quaileggs]

This thread obviously struck a nerve..thus its improbably long life. Although I didn't enjoy having my personality attacked, I found the issues which were raised to be very interesting and worth discussing.
Dustin...allow me again to pointedly mention to you that I respect your wife's decision to be a stay at home mom. I was a very young mom and through most of my 20s I was quite content to be with my babies all the time. I feel deep inside that babies and very small children (pre K) really do best when they have one parent at home with them. This is usually but does not have to be the mother. In my case since I breastfed them each for 1 yr, it had to be me home with them for certain the first year. They are getting bigger now though and the education bug has bit me. We all are constantly evolving. We can be very different at 30 than we are at 20. And I expect 40, 50 etc. I know some women who are very happy staying at home. I also know some who always planned to be a stay at home mom but now are tearing their hair out. My best friend is in this category. She was raised to be a good traditional conservative Christian mother and life has really thrown her a curve ball. Staying at home can work great if your marriage is a happy one and your husband is financially stable.At 33, she is in a very unhappy marriage and her husband is not dependable-yet she has few marketable skills and is acutely aware of her vulnerability. She is questioning everything she was ever taught to believe in. Life does not always work out picture perfect like you dream it will when you are 20 or so. I hope things work out great for you and your wife and family.

 

[dustinspeer]

•••quote:•••Originally posted by quaileggs:
•Dustin...this is my experience where I live. I do not need to justify it to anyone. I do not look down on women who want to be housewives. I was one for 7 years. I am merely saying what is wrong with feeling happier around people with whom you have something more in common. Values in common, interests in common. I totally believe in people choosing their own path in life that interests them and brings them happiness. To each his own. I am thrilled that I live in an age where women can pursue their interests no matter how unconventional like I am doing. Not every woman views the suburban housewife experience as the pinnacle of fulfillment.

But as a woman, it is extremely exciting for me to see women reaching a high level in the working world, becoming doctors and lawyers and professors etc. Hurray for freedom!•••••Okay, then we are on the same page. I thought you were equating education with intelligence, which is a big mistake. (Read: my wife is much smarter than I and a harder worker, but I am in school and she is not.) Hey, you're okay in my book. I'm definitely for the opressed in the past moving up socioeconomically. (It's my research interest.) You're a-ok in my book. And actually, once my daughter goes to school, I am going to put my wife through school. She does want to finish her degree. God bless strong women!

 

[quake]

Quaileggs, you may have missed your calling. You have so skilfully changed the issue at hand. This thread is not about empowerment of women. And you know that, but you have cunningly changed the topic, Kudos. I salute you.

It serves no purpose for me to beat a dead horse. Obviously, you fail to agree that you were out of line for calling most of your neighbors brain-dead. You stereotyped a group of people and also conferred the title of intelligence on another group of people simply because they are aspiring medical doctors.
As you rightly said, to each his own. I hope this also includes your neighbors. It shd be okay for them to plan parties and talk about "non-intellectual things" without being branded as brain dead. I don't know your neighbors but I am certain that it is not nice at all to call them braindead. Plus I'm sure you don't know enough about them to make that call either.
Res ipsa, I rest my case.