The problem with low veterinary experience hours..

[pp9]

---

Members do not see this ad.

"You're still here?"

 

[WildZoo]

@kcoughli

 

[geldedgoat]

The post starts out with hostility towards applicants that get in with low hours. In that context, bothered does not carry any connotation of sympathy.

Again, the "long story short" idiom removes all context by the very nature of the phrase, and using this as the foundation by which you judge the rest of the post is bound to color your perception, as I can see with the examples you've chosen and the manner in which you've described your interpretation of them.

This is where the elitism comes in. Obviously you can only really be passionate about the field if you've worked in it for years and years.

Hopefully responding only here will be sufficient, since I believe this actually addresses my point the best. The section you quoted for this comment immediately precedes the bit that I keep referencing, that about newly graduated students regretting their decisions. How do you account for one following directly after the other and still maintain that arrogance and not sympathy is driving the complaint?

But there's also the unstated assumption here that the OP knows better than the admissions at these schools.

I've taken this as a separate point because it's a bit unique in its character. I think it's less that jenkxo or anyone else who disagrees with the actions of admissions committees (myself included) are privy to some knowledge that others are not, but rather that some admissions decisions are made for less than altruistic reasons. This isn't something confined to the minds of mad conspiracy theorists, either; there's been more than a little disagreement over the introduction of new, private vet schools and what consequences they bring to students and the profession at large.

 

[dyachei]

Again, the "long story short" idiom removes all context by the very nature of the phrase, and using this as the foundation by which you judge the rest of the post is bound to color your perception, as I can see with the examples you've chosen and the manner in which you've described your interpretation of them.


Hopefully responding only here will be sufficient, since I believe this actually addresses my point the best. The section you quoted for this comment immediately precedes the bit that I keep referencing, that about newly graduated students regretting their decisions. How do you account for one following directly after the other and still maintain that arrogance and not sympathy is driving the complaint?


I've taken this as a separate point because it's a bit unique in its character. I think it's less that jenkxo or anyone else who disagrees with the actions of admissions committees (myself included) are privy to some knowledge that others are not, but rather that some admissions decisions are made for less than altruistic reasons. This isn't something confined to the minds of mad conspiracy theorists, either; there's been more than a little disagreement over the introduction of new, private vet schools and what consequences they bring to students and the profession at large.

No one thinks admissions committees are solely in it for the benefit of the veterinary profession unless they are completely naive. However, they don't want to churn out graduates that gain poor reputations once graduated, either. High attrition rates do them a disservice. As does a low rate of jobs or continued education in the field. To say that Adcoms are solely in it for the money or to look good is entirely too cynical.

Long story short could be removed from her post and still have the same connotation. The rest of her language only supports the negativity she feels towards those admitted students.

 

[DVMDream]

Again, the "long story short" idiom removes all context by the very nature of the phrase,

No, no it does not. The idiom is just to say "I am shortening down what I want to say because it is long", it does not remove context or tone from the story in any way, shape or form.

 

[geldedgoat]

No one thinks admissions committees are solely in it for the benefit of the veterinary profession unless they are completely naive. However, they don't want to churn out graduates that gain poor reputations once graduated, either.

A graduate that abandons the profession or dramatically restricts his or her involvement in it does no damage to the reputation of the school itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have the demographic shift that we've seen in vet schools as a whole.

 

[dyachei]

A graduate that abandons the profession or dramatically restricts his or her involvement in it does no damage to the reputation of the school itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have the demographic shift seen in vet schools as a whole.

Yes, it does to a certain degree. Just as vets that are unprepared hurt the reputation of a school, not having those vets creates a "no press" type situation. If schools don't graduate vets that continue in the field, they get less publicity and applicants. Think about many students who shadowed in the field at all. Their application choices typically include the alma mater of the vets they enjoy working with.

 

[DVMDream]

A graduate that abandons the profession or dramatically restricts his or her involvement in it does no damage to the reputation of the school itself. Otherwise we wouldn't have the demographic shift that we've seen in vet schools as a whole.

So what?

The OP acts as if people are leaving vet med in drones and that is not true.

And what demographic shift are you talking about? And how does that relate to people abandoning/restricting their involvement in the profession?

 

[WildZoo]

Again, the "long story short" idiom removes all context by the very nature of the phrase, and using this as the foundation by which you judge the rest of the post is bound to color your perception, as I can see with the examples you've chosen and the manner in which you've described your interpretation of them.

So are we meant to ignore OP's opening statement? "Long story short" indicates that what follows is a summary of the rest of the "story." OP felt that these statements were the best summary of their point. So hell yes it colors the rest of the post. The examples I chose were sequential. Sentence by sentence. I stopped because I figured it was enough to convey through the first half of the post the answer to your question of what people were seeing that you weren't. But if you've decided that the first few sentences of the post are irrelevant then it's no wonder you're reading it differently.

Hopefully responding only here will be sufficient, since I believe this actually addresses my point the best. The section you quoted for this comment immediately precedes the bit that I keep referencing, that about newly graduated students regretting their decisions. How do you account for one following directly after the other and still maintain that arrogance and not sympathy is driving the complaint?

To me it reads as "I feel sorry for those who didn't bother to get enough experience before school. Look where they are now. I know that could never happen to me, because I have such extensive experience in the field. And anyone who doesn't have what I think is enough experience is destined for that fate." Meanwhile we have no evidence that these people had low experience, or anything other than a couple of anecdotes that the OP used to support their point. And their point, which is clear from the "long story short" portion, is that applicants with "low" (still undefined) hours should not be admitted.

I've taken this as a separate point because it's a bit unique in its character. I think it's less that jenkxo or anyone else who disagrees with the actions of admissions committees (myself included) are privy to some knowledge that others are not, but rather that some admissions decisions are made for less than altruistic reasons. This isn't something confined to the minds of mad conspiracy theorists, either; there's been more than a little disagreement over the introduction of new, private vet schools and what consequences they bring to students and the profession at large.

If you can't see the difference in attitude between those two scenarios than I don't really know what to say. Evaluating individual applicants is a different and separate exercise from opening new schools and adding more seats. Criticizing admissions procedures because people wth low experience are "taking spots" from people who are "really passionate" makes a lot more assumptions and carries a lot more arrogance than criticizing the AVMA for allowing the market to become even more flooded.

 

[ameropean_chelsea]

... This is the song that ne-ver ends 😉

 

[geldedgoat]

So are we meant to ignore OP's opening statement?

No. We're meant to read further to make sense of it.

But if you've decided that the first few sentences of the post are irrelevant then it's no wonder you're reading it differently.

It's not that they're irrelevant, but that they all build to the same point, the thus far elusive why? of the whole post. Responding to the last, then, responds to them all. This person is clearly not the best at constructing an essay (or if he is indeed more proficient, then he's chosen to withhold his talent), but the elements are still there in more or less the same general format. The lines you chose to highlight were all the meat of the complaint. The part I insist on explains the point of the matter, and must be so, otherwise the comments about regret are entirely out of place.

Criticizing admissions procedures because people wth low experience are "taking spots" from people who are "really passionate" makes a lot more assumptions and carries a lot more arrogance than criticizing the AVMA for allowing the market to become even more flooded.

I don't know why you're adding quotations to "taking spots" because that is nowhere to be found in either the OP or my most recent comment. A more accurate and honest reading, though, such as "criticizing admissions procedures for only being concerned with a high graduation rate and NAVLE pass rate, etc," makes the comparison more agreeable.

 

[LetItSnow]

... This is the song that ne-ver ends 😉

It's like a boomerang that just keeps coming back around .....

 

[LetItSnow]

(or if he is indeed more proficient, then he's chosen to withhold his talent)

You really love to hear yourself talk, don't you?

 

[StartingoverVet]

... This is the song that ne-ver ends 😉

and it plays on the radio ALL the time.

At first you liked it, but now you just want to smash the radio every time it comes on.

 

[StartingoverVet]

You really love to hear yourself talk, don't you?

Idk.. i think you are going too far here.... perhaps you needed an emoticon to soften the blow.
As much as I completely disagree with gelde, she is trying to debate the issue. It might annoy, but it isn't personal.

 

[dyachei]

And yes I do question those who have low veterinary experience, because sometimes those students are taking a seat away from someone who maybe knew for there entire life they wanted to be a veterinarian.

For geldedgoat

 

[LetItSnow]

Idk.. i think you are going too far here.... perhaps you needed an emoticon to soften the blow.
As much as I completely disagree with gelde, she is trying to debate the issue. It might annoy, but it isn't personal.

Sure. Here's an emoticon:

 

[geldedgoat]

I already explained why I feel it's inappropriate to include anything past the slew of initial vitriol. You've an entire page of insults to explain before that comment appears.

 

[DVMDream]

Yeah, this is going nowhere...

"How are you guys reading this?"

Multiple people lay it out line for line with explanation...

Well, you are wrong...

This is pointless.

I honestly think gelde is just doing this whole "tell me what you read" for no reason other than to disagree more. Well, no, it needs to be read this way. No, that part doesn't count. No, that isn't true. No, look at this one word in this one sentence that the OP posted, see, even though every other word is of arrogance, disdain and being "bothered" by others not like the OP, this one word... it means he is actually sympathizing with people.

My cat has more sympathy for people than the OP and that is saying a lot because she barely likes me most days.

 

[dyachei]

I already explained why I feel it's inappropriate to include anything past the slew of initial vitriol. You've an entire page of insults to explain before that comment appears.

She's further explaining herself, so no, I don't think we should disregard it just because you say so.

 

[LetItSnow]

She's further explaining herself, so no, I don't think we should disregard it just because you say so.

Especially since she had all the opportunity in the world to just say "Oh wow, no, that's not what I meant AT ALL ............"

Instead, she (apparently) created a TOS-violating second account to pretend to be an admissions director and present fraudulent data that's clearly a professional ethics violation for someone claiming to know more about this field than other lesser-experienced candidates.

So yes, I continue to be comfortable with my antipathy toward the OP.

 

[geldedgoat]

She's further explaining herself, so no, I don't think we should disregard it just because you say so.

It's not simply because I say so. On page 1, before that comment is made, the poster has already succumb due to his own immaturity with handling the internet, and only then does he start responding with his own attacks. There's no defending this, and I certainly have no interest in trying to do so. But using his later agitated mess to justify the previous page is unreasonable.

Especially since she had all the opportunity in the world to just say "Oh wow, no, that's not what I meant AT ALL ............"

You mean like what happened on the previous page, his second post to the thread? Granted he didn't respond to an accusation of complaining about seats being taken away, but he hadn't yet fell apart and made the comment, either.

 

[dyachei]

Many of the original posters weren't vitriolic unless you think disagreement and questioning is vitriolic. Most pre vets would do well to thicken their skin. This forum is one of the most supportive for pre professionals.

 

[DVMDream]

It's not simply because I say so. On page 1, before that comment is made, the poster has already succumb due to his own immaturity with handling the internet, and only then does he start responding with his own attacks. There's no defending this, and I certainly have no interest in trying to do so. But using his later agitated mess to justify the previous page is unreasonable.


You mean like what happened on the previous page, his second post to the thread? Granted he didn't respond to an accusation of complaining about seats being taken away, but he hadn't yet fell apart and made the comment, either.

Yeah, yeah...

We get it all 20+ of us are wrong, you are right...

Let's move on...

Food porn!

 

[KCgophervet]

@kcoughli

As I was going through and typing that up it kept telling me new messages were being added, your point-by-point included, and well done 😛 Makes me wish I hadn't bothered...

It's like a boomerang that just keeps coming back around .....

It's hard for it to come back around before you even get it 😛

 

[LetItSnow]

But using his later agitated mess to justify the previous page is unreasonable.

Ignoring the entirety of what she said in order to justify a little tiny chunk of what she said is irrational.

 

[Lupin21]

I remember those early years when I was so incredibly opinionated it wouldn't matter how many people came along and had a different view. I staunchly refused to budge and just said those other ideas were wrong. It took some life to teach me that others have a wealth of different experiences and it would behoove me to listen and expand my thought process. Of course sometimes I still think I am right, but have learned to call it a draw while still respecting that it is entirely possible I am wrong.

@geldedgoat , I think you are imposing your own thoughts here as opposed to what the OP posted. You asked for people to show where they thought the OP's post was offending after 3.5 pages had already been spent dealing with exactly that. Then WZ and kcoughli were kind enough to go back through the entire thread and show the errors in the poster's approach to the topic. You keep insisting that it is coming from a place of sympathy when the poster herself did not state that and even made that clear with her return replies to the original backlash felt.

As kcoughli so rightly stated, the last lines looking for a debate in the first post, as indicated by the animal fighting actions, in no way indicate sympathy as the intended emotion. I am not sure why you are holding so steadfast to debating the innocence of the OP. It is actually coming off as close-minded at this point as you have not even once, or at least in my attempts to swim in these posts, conceded that you may be wrong but want to believe in the OP because it makes the world a little bit better.

 

[WildZoo]

No. We're meant to read further to make sense of it.

It's not that they're irrelevant, but that they all build to the same point, the thus far elusive why? of the whole post. Responding to the last, then, responds to them all. This person is clearly not the best at constructing an essay (or if he is indeed more proficient, then he's chosen to withhold his talent), but the elements are still there in more or less the same general format. The lines you chose to highlight were all the meat of the complaint. The part I insist on explains the point of the matter, and must be so, otherwise the comments about regret are entirely out of place.

You choose to take that one comment of what you interpret as sympathy and use it to explain away the negative tone of the rest of the post. In reality, if that post is an essay, the first part is the thesis, and the rest of the post was intended to prove that thesis. So yes, the OP expressed some sorrow for those graduates that regret their decisions. But those examples were used to support their overall argument that people only regret their decision if they didn't have enough experience in the first place. Which, not only is not supported by any actual facts, but is offensive to those who do have a passion for the field but maybe didn't have the opportunity to get thousands of hours of experience.

I don't know why you're adding quotations to "taking spots" because that is nowhere to be found in either the OP or my most recent comment. A more accurate and honest reading, though, such as "criticizing admissions procedures for only being concerned with a high graduation rate and NAVLE pass rate, etc," makes the comparison more agreeable

If this statement were true, the average GPA would be a 4.0 and people would regularly get in with no veterinary experience, which simply isn't the case. You wouldn't see the schools that do weigh GPA heavily rejecting people with very high GPA's, which does happen (look at the stats for previous application cycles for NCSU). Would those applicants have graduated and passed the NAVLE? Probably. Would they have made good vets? That's a different question and one that admissions is very much concerned with. Of course they are concerned with graduation and NAVLE pass rates. I'm not sure why anything else should be expected. But the fact that most schools suggest 500 hours of experience or more and that the average GPA across the country is a 3.6 should be enough to show tht it isn't the only thing they consider. So sure. Say that OP was criticizing the schools for only being concerned with graduation and NAVLE pass rates. It doesn't make their criticism any more valid. And it doesn't negate the explicit criticism of applicants with "low" hours in the post.

I already explained why I feel it's inappropriate to include anything past the slew of initial vitriol. You've an entire page of insults to explain before that comment appears.

I'm sorry, but if we were all interpreting the OP wrong, why did the poster double down instead of saying "Woah you guys are interpreting this wrong"?

 

[LetItSnow]

It's hard for it to come back around before you even get it 😛

I am super bothered by you right now.

 

[dyachei]

I am super bothered by you right now.

You regret her?

 

[LetItSnow]

You regret her?

Woah. That has a totally different context.

 

[KCgophervet]

I am super bothered by you right now.

You regret her?

He clearly feels sympathy for me. But don't my good man, for you see, I have a boomerang 😉

 

[DVMDream]

He clearly feels sympathy for me. But don't my good man, for you see, I have a boomerang 😉

@ameropean_chelsea you have some explaining to do..... sending LIS' boomerang to kcoughli.... tisk tisk.

You are really ruining your chances of starting vet school...

 

[WildZoo]

You mean like what happened on the previous page, his second post to the thread? Granted he didn't respond to an accusation of complaining about seats being taken away, but he hadn't yet fell apart and made the comment, either.

Wow so much hatred..
The reason I posted this is to get everyone's points of view, which to those who have done so without taking jabs at me personally your awesome.
And to the comment that all my hours were from one clinic, I never said that, I've worked at several different hospitals due to moving, personal reasons, ect.
Also, to the comment about me saying I would be the student in school stating that 'at my clinic we do this'.. no, I'm not like that at all, far from it. Don't feel the need to defend myself on that, but thought that was a complete childish comment.

However, I see how if someone goes into vet research that makes sense and you would have vet experience, I agree with that statement. But that was not my point and I am sorry if I didn't make my argument 100% clear.

Those applicants that go into vet school with no research and no vet experience I feel are doing themselves a disfavor. Anyone can type into the search bar here, type low experience, and see that there are people that apply with the low amount of hours, I still think they are doing themselves a huge disservice.

You mean this post? Which amounts to: "Thanks to those who responded, but my actual point was about this specific scenario" a scenario which to anyone's knowledge does not actually exist. The argument went from being about low hours, to being about no hours. Since nobody gets into vet school with no hours, this post doesn't really address any of the points that were brough up, but instead moves the target to an argument that nobody would disagree with, but that clearly wasn't what the poster was originally talking about.

 

[geldedgoat]

You asked for people to show where they thought the OP's post was offending after 3.5 pages had already been spent dealing with exactly that. Then WZ and kcoughli were kind enough to go back through the entire thread and show the errors in the poster's approach to the topic.

You act as if I didn't address their responses. Granted, I didn't respond to them individually, but they were both similar enough that it would have been spam to do so.

I am not sure why you are holding so steadfast to debating the innocence of the OP.

You're misinterpreting my comments then. I have no way of knowing what exactly jenkxo really felt in that OP. For all I know he could have from the very beginning been holding to the belief that the less experienced were indeed taking others' seats without putting in their due. However, because of the negativity found in a great deal of the posts on the first page, we can't really know. Hell, I even tried to abandon this point once I realized how emotionally invested so many have been in their derision and instead discuss the meat of the original topic, that of whether or not experience should be weighted more heavily. But even that has been all but impossible for some bizarre appetite for argument: "Yeah, well where's your PROOF that blah blah blah?" As if it makes any sense to shut down a discussion about conjecture in such a manner.

And that is why I've continued on here, because, like dyachei and myself stated, this forum at least should be a productive venue for conversation about the profession and how to made headway into it. I don't believe I've said as such yet, but the manner in which kcoughli, the first to post after the OP, responded is precisely how the rest should have been constructed. She disagreed with some things, explained why, and didn't needlessly assume any ill intent. That's what I mean to defend, not that jenkxo must certainly be a sweetheart that didn't mean nobody no wrong, but that discussion here needn't be so childish.

 

[Lupin21]

You act as if I didn't address their responses. Granted, I didn't respond to them individually, but they were both similar enough that it would have been spam to do so.


You're misinterpreting my comments then. I have no way of knowing what exactly jenkxo really felt in that OP. For all I know he could have from the very beginning been holding to the belief that the less experienced were indeed taking others' seats without putting in their due. However, because of the negativity found in a great deal of the posts on the first page, we can't really know. Hell, I even tried to abandon this point once I realized how emotionally invested so many have been in their derision and instead discuss the meat of the original topic, that of whether or not experience should be weighted more heavily. But even that has been all but impossible for some bizarre appetite for argument: "Yeah, well where's your PROOF that blah blah blah?" As if it makes any sense to shut down a discussion about conjecture in such a manner.

And that is why I've continued on here, because, like dyachei and myself stated, this forum at least should be a productive venue for conversation about the profession and how to made headway into it. I don't believe I've said as such yet, but the manner in which kcoughli, the first to post after the OP, responded is precisely how the rest should have been constructed. She disagreed with some things, explained why, and didn't needlessly assume any ill intent. That's what I mean to defend, not that jenkxo must certainly be a sweetheart that didn't mean nobody no wrong, but that discussion here needn't be so childish.

I think you got lost in this thread too! 🙂
Yesterday when you were actually discussing the topic, the discussions were back and forth in a manner of exchanging thoughts and experiences. It was today's post where you came in with definitions of "bother" that once again we turned the dial back to outrage. No one here has a problem discussing the actual worth of experience and yes, I believe it is very useful for all to think about the dynamics that play out going from eager prevet to Veterinarian. However, you spent most of this evening trying to discuss the OP's intent, which is/was not a good investment. I hope you can look back and see what I am trying to say here.

 

[DVMDream]

meat of the original topic, that of whether or not experience should be weighted more heavily. .

That isn't the "meat" of the original topic.

The "meat" of the original topic was how annoyed the OP is that people with "low" hours are getting accepted without regard to any other statistics what-so-ever.

And vet schools already do weight experience a decent amount. Minimums of 250-500 hours at most schools, go browse the med school forums to see how we are expected to have way more experience than they are. For a professional program, we are required to obtain a heck of a lot of experience before applying compared to other professional programs.

And even then, the OP in their second post changed her stance and said.. "well I didn't mean low hours, I meant zero". If you are going to make a statement like that then, yes, the burden of proof that does happen is on you. If you told me aliens are responsible for global warming... I need your proof before I go looking for aliens. So the OP needs to show that people are getting into vet school with literally zero hours of experience.

The whole premise of the OP was that people with zero hours prior to vet school are regretting their decision once graduated. It was not one of "should schools put more emphasis on experience". Sorry, but I don't see the point in discussing something that, as of now, is not an issue in the profession. People aren't leaving this profession after graduation in significant numbers and those who are leaving the OP has no clue if that was due to low experience hours prior to vet school and to even state that is the main reason is bogus at best. All one needs to do is look over to the UK across the pond. Their students go into vet school directly out of high school, many of them with only a handful of hours and when I say handful I mean handful.. 20-50 hours and some have zero hours. There is not a problem over there with vets leaving the field in massive numbers and they don't have the debt problems we have here as much because they get school covered by the government so it isn't like they are trapped in the profession due to high debt loads needing to be paid off, they can easily leave without that concern if they wanted.

I bet if you printed off that OP and gave it to someone to read and write down their thoughts on it without saying anything or giving context, most people would have the words "arrogant" on there and most would not come out with the purpose or "meat" of the post as wanting to discuss if schools should weigh experience more. If that was what the OP wanted to discuss they missed the ball... on more than one occasion.

 

[Minnerbelle]

One thing I can say from reading this thread is that geldedgoat would make one awesome politician. Very persistent and unwavering in explaining away any and all arguments to continue pushing one line of thought.

 

[ameropean_chelsea]

... It goes on annnd on my friends...

 

[Cephal0pod]

That isn't the "meat" of the original topic.

Maybe it's actually the potatoes of the original topic?

 

[WildZoo]

That isn't the "meat" of the original topic.

The "meat" of the original topic was how annoyed the OP is that people with "low" hours are getting accepted without regard to any other statistics what-so-ever.

And vet schools already do weight experience a decent amount. Minimums of 250-500 hours at most schools, go browse the med school forums to see how we are expected to have way more experience than they are. For a professional program, we are required to obtain a heck of a lot of experience before applying compared to other professional programs.

And even then, the OP in their second post changed her stance and said.. "well I didn't mean low hours, I meant zero". If you are going to make a statement like that then, yes, the burden of proof that does happen is on you. If you told me aliens are responsible for global warming... I need your proof before I go looking for aliens. So the OP needs to show that people are getting into vet school with literally zero hours of experience.

The whole premise of the OP was that people with zero hours prior to vet school are regretting their decision once graduated. It was not one of "should schools put more emphasis on experience". Sorry, but I don't see the point in discussing something that, as of now, is not an issue in the profession. People aren't leaving this profession after graduation in significant numbers and those who are leaving the OP has no clue if that was due to low experience hours prior to vet school and to even state that is the main reason is bogus at best. All one needs to do is look over to the UK across the pond. Their students go into vet school directly out of high school, many of them with only a handful of hours and when I say handful I mean handful.. 20-50 hours and some have zero hours. There is not a problem over there with vets leaving the field in massive numbers and they don't have the debt problems we have here as much because they get school covered by the government so it isn't like they are trapped in the profession due to high debt loads needing to be paid off, they can easily leave without that concern if they wanted.

I bet if you printed off that OP and gave it to someone to read and write down their thoughts on it without saying anything or giving context, most people would have the words "arrogant" on there and most would not come out with the purpose or "meat" of the post as wanting to discuss if schools should weigh experience more. If that was what the OP wanted to discuss they missed the ball... on more than one occasion.

I gave the post to my mom to read, gave her no intro to it at all, and she had the same reaction that many people here had. That the post was arrogant and elitist at best, and at worst bitter about people with less experience getting into vet school. Which, she said, really shouldn't matter to the OP in the first place. So n=1 but there's a reaction from someone outside of the forum entirely and with no emotional investment in the discussion.

 

[geldedgoat]

It was today's post where you came in with definitions of "bother" that once again we turned the dial back to outrage.

That's not a very fair appraisal of what occurred. LetItSnow was the first to claim an issue with the phrase "super bothered by", and I responded. Then, well after I thought it laid to rest, CalliopeDVM brought it up yet again. I only resorted to the dictionary when it became apparent that the same mistake - and there should be no doubt now that their claims were indeed mistaken - was being repeated. I don't see why you would then lay anything regarding that at my feet, much less any blame for the outbursts that followed. I mean, if they're claiming offense at a word they believe to only have a single negative connotation and I disagree and feel that that may have inappropriately impacted their interpretations of everything that followed, is it not reasonable to try and address the error? It seems to be more than a trivial discrepancy, at least to me. It's been exhausting enough without squabbling over insignificant details.

 

[Lupin21]

Nope, nope, nope, nope. Done. I think this would have been appropriate in that other discussion in the hunting thread as well.

 

[DVMDream]

I only resorted to the dictionary when it became apparent that the same mistake - and there should be no doubt now that their claims were indeed mistaken - was being repeated.

😆

Wow. So everyone disagreeing with you= them making a mistake. Damn. Arrogant much?

 

[DVMDream]

Synonyms of bothered:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bothered: From this source: 1. harass, vex, irritate; molest, disturb. Bother, annoy, plague, teaseimply persistent interference with one's comfort or peace of mind. Bothersuggests causing trouble or weariness or repeatedly interrupting in themidst of pressing duties. To annoy is to vex or irritate by bothering. Plagueis a strong word, connoting unremitting annoyance and harassment.

http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/bothered From this source: agitated, distressed, disturbed, troubled, bugged, disconcerted, harassed, harried, irked, upset, vexed, anxious.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/bothered: From this source: Synonymsaggravated, bothered, exasperated, galled, irked, irritated, narked [British], peeved, put out, scunnered [chiefly Scottish], teed off, vexed


That is only three and I am yet to find sympathy.... seriously.

You MIGHT be able to stretch it out to say the OP was concerned with those that have low hours, but that is an extreme stretch. A really extreme stretch. Sympathy is way off and doesn't even come close to equal bothered.

 

[geldedgoat]

😆

Wow. So everyone disagreeing with you= them making a mistake. Damn. Arrogant much?

No, them arguing against what the dictionary plainly states makes them mistaken. If pointing that out makes me arrogant, then I suppose I'm arrogant.

And yes, by this point it's clear nothing will be resolved, so I'll retire. Enjoy the remainder of the thread. Do remember, though, the last one to finish has to eat all the crackers, spunk and all.

 

[WildZoo]

Because I have no life, I just reread every post on the first page of the thread before the OP responded complaining about all the hate. Unless a couple instances of people pointing out the arrogance in the post can be considered vitriol, I think the people who responded actually did a pretty good job of responding to and refuting the points in the post. The OP asked for discussion and that's what they got. Just because no one agreed with them, that doesn't mean people were hating. So I'm not even sure what you're asking us to defend @geldedgoat. You had a problem with the way people responded, but what exactly about the responses was problematic?

 

[Trilt]

 

[DVMDream]

Time for daily reading comprehension lessons? Or at least basic definition lessons:

Rule #1: You can't claim a word means something by stating that it is related to another word and that word has x, y, z meaning so original word also has that meaning.

We will continue on with rule #2 tomorrow, maybe. Maybe I should start with a quiz over the first rule.

 

[WildZoo]