Bad news
Jason
results showed that I do have Renal Artery Stenosis which in my case means
that my right renal artery is blocked (approx. 30%) and my left renal
artery is blocked (approx. 80%). That causes renal insufficiency. The
renal insufficiency caused me to believe (for many years) that I had some
sort of kidney disease. I researched almost every kidney disease
(including reading a book related to nephrotic syndrome). The only kidney
disorder that I could NOT rule out was Renal Artery Stenosis and it turned
out I was correct. My regular doctor did not believe me but I finally
convinced him to let me have an MRI.
Renal Artery Stenosis will eventually cause me to develop kidney disease.
The person in this newsgroup that tried to convince me that I did NOT have
kidney problems was 100% wrong.
The best doctor that a person has is themselves. I knew that I had renal
artery stenosis several years BEFORE I had a medical report to prove it.
Jason
mainframetech
Jason,
One of my problems was stenosis of the renal arteries also, along
with high BP. I had a stent put into one of the arteries, but by that
time it was too late. You may be more lucky. Putting in a stent was
an easy thing for the most part. But if you need it, do it soon.
Perhaps a change of diet (not statins) might help with the stenosis.
I know that there is one guy with a proven solution to clogged
arteries and it is Dean Ornish. He has proven his method with studies
and trials. Look up his name. He has written books and has an
institute in California. The diet he recommends is rigorous. Tougher
than the Walser diet, but proven.
Good Luck,
Chris
Jason
<3a8f377d-1546-4c35...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chris,
Thanks for the info. I will google Dean Ornish.
The sad truth is that in this city, the kidney doctors are so busy that
they will only take as patients, people that already have kidney failure
and are about ready for dialysis. In other words, kidney doctors refuse to
take me on as a patient. I am a patient of a specialist related to
vascular surgery. One nurse told me the kidney doctors know where they can
make the MOST money and that is treating only patients that already have
kidney failure and are about ready for dialysis. She told me the big money
is in treating patients that are on dialysis. I doubt if those kidney
doctors encourage patients to read Dr. Walser's book.
Jason
mainframetech
Jason,
I found that many European countries have their nephrologists
recommend the Walser very low protein diet to many kidney patients.
Not in the US of course. Too much money on the line. I had to go
through 5 nephrologists to find one that would even contemplate the
Walser diet. I wonder how many people they have hurt or killed?
Good Luck,
Chris
Jason
<b29e8029-1de5-4e40...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thousands but the upside is that all of the nephrologists in America that
DO NOT recommend Dr. Walser's low protein diet plan have gotten rich.
Lookout
>In article
><3a8f377d-1546-4c35...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 5:26=A0pm, Ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>>
>> Jason,
>> One of my problems was stenosis of the renal arteries also, along
>> with high BP. I had a stent put into one of the arteries, but by that
>> time it was too late. You may be more lucky. Putting in a stent was
>> an easy thing for the most part. But if you need it, do it soon.
>> Perhaps a change of diet (not statins) might help with the stenosis.
>> I know that there is one guy with a proven solution to clogged
>> arteries and it is Dean Ornish. He has proven his method with studies
>> and trials. Look up his name. He has written books and has an
>> institute in California. The diet he recommends is rigorous. Tougher
>> than the Walser diet, but proven.
>>
>> Good Luck,
>> Chris
>
>Chris,
>Thanks for the info. I will google Dean Ornish.
>The sad truth is that in this city, the kidney doctors are so busy that
>they will only take as patients, people that already have kidney failure
>and are about ready for dialysis. In other words, kidney doctors refuse to
>take me on as a patient.
Bullshit. I have no doubt you're lying.
Welcome to my filter.
mainframetech
>Bullshit. I have no doubt you're lying.
>Welcome to my filter.
>
> I am a patient of a specialist related to
Lookout,
Although it appears that you didn't finish your thought, I can
answer what you did write. Here I guess your opinion is as good as
anyone's. Anything I've said here is complete truth as I know it.
You can't tell that from my saying so, but I can't tell much about you
and your little verbal oddities either. I also believe that other
people that have posted in this thread are also telling the truth, and
my belief comes from knowing them for a number of years and seeing
their posts for a good while.
On the other hand I've seen a post of yours saying you have been on
dialysis for a number of months and that you only take Tums and Coreg
and that you feel great. Weell, I'm not sure that I believe that, but
I will take it with a grain of salt and see how things turn out over
the ensuing months and years. That's the way I figure we should all
handle statements by others. A little research doesn't hurt either.
If you were going to say your specialist is related to Dr. Walser
or someone else in the field, I'd be interested to hear what the
specialist has to say.
Good Luck,
Chris
Lookout
I can tell when someone is lying.
That's all I'm on because I watch my fluids and my diet and I work out
daily.
mainframetech
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 04:52:44 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
Lookout,
It seems you're determined to say nasty things about me without
giving one little bit of a clue why you think such things. You
certainly don't know me, so maybe it's the fact that you're recently
on dialysis that makes you so angry. If you want to talk honestly and
say why you think of me as you do, I'm tready to listen.
I sure wish I had such a great bullcrap detector that works on a
few lines of text from so many miles away... :)
Good Luck,
Chris
Lookout
You edited out why you're whining. Why?
Nah..not pissed at all. I knew it could possible happen when I started
taking Prograf 6+ years ago. I learned 2 years ago that I would need
dialysis. And now I'm on home Hemo and I start working next week (I
passed a DOT physical and I run 2 1/2 miles 3 days a week. No doubt
in my mind I'm physically and psychologically better off than you.
Now..if you want to tell me what pissed you off them please do. Next
time don't edit out your complaint. That's not the way to handle this
on Usenet.
mainframetech
Lookout,
OK, let's get you all straightened out about a few things. I have
not edited out anything I have said here. I do delete all the text
that is repeated from prior posts. NOTHING new or old that I say is
edited out. I will continue to delete out repeated text thank you. I
don't take orders from people that call me a liar for what seems to be
no reason. If you simply go back through the posts you will see any
previous conversation because we don't clutter up the board here.
It's relatively easy to find the previous text. Try it, it's easy.
Now we move on to your next mistake. I'm not pissed at all. I'm
trying to find out how you know I'm a liar with a few lines of text
from miles away. You can't even see my eyes to see if they are brown
or green... :)
Next...I'm not whining or complaining except at your lack of
courtesy and board etiquette. I'm 68 years old and had a reasonably
full life. If I croaked tomorrow I wouldn't complain unless a doctor
made a mistake on me. I more feel like you are complaining because
you don't like something I said, which escapes me.
Again I ask, can you tell me what it is that makes you think I'm
lying to the people here?
Good Luck,
Chris
Lookout
I don't like most people, keep previous posts and I delete as I go.
Netiquette dictates that when responding to a specific post that you
post AT THE BOTTOM leaving in the prior post for reference. You
continue to be rude and ignorant of proper netiquette and edit out
what's been said. Please include ALL prior posts in your next post if
you want a response.
If I said you're a liar I stand by that. Now we've determined you are
also rude because you're ignoring basic netiquette.
Anything else?
Luck? No such thing. Grow up.
Jason
<292eed1d-afd7-4118...@j35g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Chris,
I don't think that you have lied about any subject. Keep up the great work
of helping people that have kidney problems or have kidney disease.
Jason
mainframetech
Thanks Jason... :)
Lookout,
You continue to give orders on a public forum. I'm not interested
in your orders. Netiquette is a matter of opinion and mine is that
you are rude and unable to carry on a normal conversation without
dumping on people. You still failed to answer a simple question as to
how in the world you know I'm a liar without ever knowing me from
before and seeing only a bit of text here.
As to if you answer me honestly, fine. If not, why I'll be
devastated, but somehow I'll go on.
When I suggested that you simply follow a thread by going back
through the messages, I meant that when you open a thread you get all
the messages in date/time order and can go back through them without
needing a load of copies within the final post. I'm sure you can
understand that.
Now, you say you 'stand by your saying that I'm a liar' and that's
very upstanding of you, but it's meaningless unless you can say why
you're the only one standing.
As to growing up, weell, I guess we could all use a little of
that. And the existence of 'good luck' is also a matter of opinion
and your opinion on the subject has zero effect on mine.
Good Luck and I hope things go better for you,
Chris
Lookout
<mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 17, 5:42�pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Jason... :)
>
>Lookout,
> You continue to give orders on a public forum. I'm not interested
>in your orders. Netiquette is a matter of opinion and mine is that
>you are rude and unable to carry on a normal conversation without
>dumping on people. You still failed to answer a simple question as to
>how in the world you know I'm a liar without ever knowing me from
>before and seeing only a bit of text here.
>
> As to if you answer me honestly, fine. If not, why I'll be
>devastated, but somehow I'll go on.
>
> When I suggested that you simply follow a thread by going back
>through the messages, I meant that when you open a thread you get all
>the messages in date/time order and can go back through them without
>needing a load of copies within the final post. I'm sure you can
>understand that.
One more time...I DELETE old posts. I can't go back and look without
pulling ALL the headers again. And it's COMMON NETIQUETTED to continue
a thread IF YOU ARE GOING TO RESPOND TO IT. YOU are being rude here,
not me.
> Now, you say you 'stand by your saying that I'm a liar' and that's
>very upstanding of you, but it's meaningless unless you can say why
>you're the only one standing.
>
> As to growing up, weell, I guess we could all use a little of
>that. And the existence of 'good luck' is also a matter of opinion
>and your opinion on the subject has zero effect on mine.
>
>Good Luck and I hope things go better for you,
>Chris
I'm not the one whining.
And until you prove otherwise you're a liar.
mainframetech
Lookout,
LOL! Now THAT's humorous! You say 'until you prove otherwise
you're a liar'. Think about that. Since you haven't told me how I'm
a liar, or how you are so wise to know that I'm a liar, how could I
possibly prove anything? :)
My take on your insistence on not giving reasons for why I'm a liar
is that you made a snap comment and now can't figure out why you did
it.
I'm at a loss to figure out how you delete old messages that are
in a public forum in a thread. I know a few cases where I would like
that ability, so why not tell me how you get messages off the board
when they were posted by someone else? This forum has few headers, so
there is no problem looking through the list of topics, picking a
header of interest, opening it up and viewing all the posts in order.
We have few posts in any one thread, so what's the big problem? Or do
we all have to do things to just satisfy you? Sorry, not my style.
All this would have been so much simpler if the first time you
decided to call me a liar you also told me why. That little courtesy
could have saved this whole longwinded business and avoided the need
to whine about people not doing things the way YOU like.
If it will help your memory, I'll be glad to collect all the posts
in this thread and send them to you as one big Thanksgiving present,
so you can see what's been going on and can finally tell me why you
think I'm a liar. If you don't have access to all the messages, that
may be why you can't remember why I'm a liar.
Let me know if you want the posts... :)
Good Luck,
Chris
Lookout
<mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 6:59�pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Lookout,
> LOL! Now THAT's humorous! You say 'until you prove otherwise
>you're a liar'. Think about that. Since you haven't told me how I'm
>a liar, or how you are so wise to know that I'm a liar, how could I
>possibly prove anything? :)
If you had followed proper netiquette then you wouldn't be having this
problem would we?
> My take on your insistence on not giving reasons for why I'm a liar
>is that you made a snap comment and now can't figure out why you did
>it.
My take on it is I called you a liar for good reason. No, I don't
remember. That doesn't change the fact that I've already come to that
conclusion.
> I'm at a loss to figure out how you delete old messages that are
>in a public forum in a thread.
Of course you're at a loss. You're using Googlegroups for Idiots.
> I know a few cases where I would like
>that ability, so why not tell me how you get messages off the board
>when they were posted by someone else? This forum has few headers, so
>there is no problem looking through the list of topics, picking a
>header of interest, opening it up and viewing all the posts in order.
>We have few posts in any one thread, so what's the big problem? Or do
>we all have to do things to just satisfy you? Sorry, not my style.
I uses Agent, not a web based reader. But you're to fucking stupid to
understand that not everybody accesses the newsgroups the same way you
do. Most of us who have been on Usenet for years think Googlegroup
users are idiot...and you make our point for us.
> All this would have been so much simpler if the first time you
>decided to call me a liar you also told me why. That little courtesy
>could have saved this whole longwinded business and avoided the need
>to whine about people not doing things the way YOU like.
>
> If it will help your memory, I'll be glad to collect all the posts
>in this thread and send them to you as one big Thanksgiving present,
>so you can see what's been going on and can finally tell me why you
>think I'm a liar. If you don't have access to all the messages, that
>may be why you can't remember why I'm a liar.
>
> Let me know if you want the posts... :)
>
>Good Luck,
>Chris
I don't need any further proof you're a liar or an idiot.
And as a rule I filter out Googlegroup idiots. Welcome to my filter.
Dennis R
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
I had to look at his headers to try to figure out why
the clown did not understand the most basic concept of
deleting or killing threads. Of course! He does not even
know what a newsreader is. Even Outlook Express was
better than reading USENET in a browser. Ever since XP's
interface was designed make it easy for the PlayStation
and Xbox crowd to get used to real computers, the
internet has gone downhill. At least they allowed us to
swithch back to the Classic UI (until I understand,
Windows 7).
Actually, that is not quite fair. USENET went downhill
when AOL users joined in. At least GoogleGroup users
have some idea what USENET actually is.
I see Jason is still here pushing his Dr. Walser. I am
sad that he finally has an actual diagnosis. The saying
in the diabetes groups is: "Welcome to the club no one
wants to join". In Chronic / End Stage Renal Disease,
the saying should be: "What he said, x 3".
If he ends up on dialysis, he can give us first hand
notes on whether wasting on a low protein diet prior to
dialysis helps or worsens his time on dialysis.
Dennis (Kidney Transplant 1995)
Lookout
Dennis R
> >I had to look at his headers to try to figure out why
> >the clown did not understand the most basic concept of
> >deleting or killing threads. Of course! He does not even
> >know what a newsreader is. Even Outlook Express was
> >better than reading USENET in a browser. Ever since XP's
> >interface was designed make it easy for the PlayStation
> >and Xbox crowd to get used to real computers, the
> >internet has gone downhill. At least they allowed us to
> >swithch back to the Classic UI (until I understand,
> >Windows 7).
> >
> >Actually, that is not quite fair. USENET went downhill
> >when AOL users joined in.
>
> Bingo! You nailed it.
>
My news service changed from motsarella.org to eternal-
september.org. It seems fitting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
Ironically, that is also when my kidney failure began to
enter the end stage, and at the same time my glaucoma
was diagnosed after a retinal bleed. It was a shitty
month all around.
Dennis (Kidney Transplant 1995)
Lookout
mainframetech
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:27:05 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
>
Lookout,
Finally! Some courteous, useful information. Since I find the
Google Group format very organized and easy to use, I had NO idea that
you were on some other form of access. Now that I know your access is
limited vs. what I get when I come on the board, I'll try to leave all
the junk material copied in for those with your limitation. There's
nothing like being open and honest about a problem.
Now if you want some reminders of what I've said since you have
been calling me names, I'll be glad to remind you. My main comments
were that I've been using the Walser Very Low Protein Diet (VLPD) for
over 3 years and find it successful in my case. I've lost nothing
physically and avoid most drugs except BP lowering. I got the
information for the diet from a book "Coping With Kidney Disease" by
Mackenzie Walser. He was a kidney researcher for Johns Hopkins for 45
years before writing the book. I have also commented about the
statistics on dialysis being that 1 in 4 die in the first year on
dialysis. Both my doctors agree with that, though one of them said
'maybe it was closer to 1 in 5. If you go on the internet and look
for kidney disease and mortality statistics, you'll get the same
result as I did. I have also commented that beginning in about 2000 a
number of European nephrologists have begun recommending the VLPD to
avoid or delay dialysis.
Now, does any of that strike you as being a lie? Or anything
misleading? Or that I'm running a scam? Or just anything? Let me
know and I'll try to deal with it in a normal fashion and not call you
any names and refuse to discuss the details.
Good Luck,
Chris
mainframetech
> In article <t5dtg5left72ijev2js0i35rthhcc1b...@4ax.com>,
> mrLook...@yahoo.com says...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dennis R,
Glad to see you stopped by and added some text to the forum for a
change. Nothing like a difference of opinion ot get them out of the
bushes. Yes, I'm not a regular Usenet user and I like the Google
Groups format. I don't think that makes me a clown, I just don't have
a high degree of knowledge about such things and the Google format
serves me very well. I'm sure that's why they put it up. Of course,
there are things I've learned in my life that many others wouldn't
have a clue about, so I could become a rude, snobby type and call
others names too, but I'd rather not.
As a note, I'm on the 'Walser' Very Low Protein Diet (VLPD) also and
have been for over 3 years. I've lost nothing from it, and I've
gained those 3 years and more not having to sit and be dialysed 3
times a week and take a bunch of drugs that will probably screw up my
system and push me closer to the end more quickly. Ditto
transplant.
As I also noted to another poster, nephrologists in Sweden, Italy
and a few other European countries have been recommending the VLPD
since about 2000. Obviously the nephrologists don't recommend it in
the US because there is so much money to be made by having more
patients in dialysis or after transplant than before. The drug
companies just love to have more and more people on drugs 'for the
rest of their lives'.
A number of people and doctors too, have been misled by a study
done a while back called the 'MDRD'. There are now also a number of
researchers that have complained about the study and its limits and
failings. The original study was funded by Big Pharma and it
basically said that the VLPD, and even the LPD did absolutely nothing
for the patients and may have even hastened death. Total bull.
I can speak for at least my case, in that I watched my numbers
closely from when it was discovered that I had CKD. The numbers went
very quickly down (eGFR) and I got scared. 4 different nephrologists
failed to mention that I had any options except watch the numbers fall
and go to dialysis. At the rate the numbers were descending, I figure
I would get to time for dialysis in about 4-6 months. I did some
internet research and discovered the Walser book and read it. I
immediately got on the VLPD diet with Essential Amino Acid supplements
(EAA). I made lifestyle changes as the book recommended and here I am
with plenty more delay to go in having to go on dialysis.
I know from personal experience that the MDRD is baloney put out for
the purpose of letting more people go into dialysis sooner to boost
the dialysis and transplant business. For many patients the VLPD
works if they hold to it.
There may be some that didn't know the VLPD works so well because
a physician didn't happen to mention it. Many of them don't know
themselves that it can work well. My current nephrologist was
negative about the VLPD doing anything, and now after 3 years he
speaks highly of it. I'm sorry for those that might not have gotten
the word sooner. If I can help with any information on the VLPD,
please just let me know.
Good Luck,
Chris the Clown :)
Dennis R
1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, mainfr...@yahoo.com
says...
>
<snip>
That is taking a very USA centric view. I am in Canada,
and the government runs all dialysis units except for a
few private ones that people use mostly when travelling
outside of their home site. The nephrologists, like all
doctors, are re-imbursed by the government, and their
annual billings are capped. Our socialized medicine pays
better and faster than USA Medicare does. There are no
incentives to get people on dialysis, and every
incentive to keep them healthy.
The MDRD(Modification of Diet in Renal Disease)study was
in the early 1990's. The newer long-term follow-up of
some of the same patients to 2000 was just released in
2009:
http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386%2808%2901749-
6/fulltext
The long-term results were the same.
There is still no clinical evidence that VLPD does what
you think. That it may help in the very short term or in
individuals is not what is at issue.
The fact that you call it bull and say it is a
conspiracy of big pharma and money grubbing doctors is
meaningless, and disregards socialized medicine in all
of the rest of the world who think VLPD and Dr. Walser
are not the saviours of kidney disease patients
everywhere. There are no studies anywhere backing up
your point view, and the the substantial ones that do
exist, although somewhat flawed, point directly in the
opposite direction.
The only one that might be in your favour was a 2007 1
year study of 56 patients over 70 years old WITHOUT
diabetes.
http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386%2807%2900557-
4/abstract
Dennis (Kidney Transplant 1995)
Dennis R
33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, mainfr...@yahoo.com
says...
>
> On Nov 26, 12:07 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:27:05 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
> >
> > <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Nov 23, 6:59 pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm at a loss to figure out how you delete old messages that are
> > >in a public forum in a thread.
> >
> >
> > > I know a few cases where I would like
> > >that ability, so why not tell me how you get messages off the board
> > >when they were posted by someone else? This forum has few headers, so
> > >there is no problem looking through the list of topics, picking a
> > >header of interest, opening it up and viewing all the posts in order.
> > >We have few posts in any one thread, so what's the big problem? Or do
> > >we all have to do things to just satisfy you? Sorry, not my style.
Lookout
> > I uses Agent, not a web based reader. But you're to fucking stupid to
> > understand that not everybody accesses the newsgroups the same way you
> > do. Most of us who have been on Usenet for years think Googlegroup
> > users are idiot...and you make our point for us.
> >
<snip>
mainframetech:
> Lookout,
> Finally! Some courteous, useful information. Since I find the
> Google Group format very organized and easy to use, I had NO idea that
> you were on some other form of access. Now that I know your access is
> limited vs. what I get when I come on the board, I'll try to leave all
> the junk material copied in for those with your limitation. There's
> nothing like being open and honest about a problem.
>
<smip>
Chris:
It is really messy and confusing for everybody to have
wade through verbatim re-postings. That is why it has
been considered good manners (netiquette in this case)
to snip, cut and paste. There are settings even in
Google to do that, you just have to look for them.
Your last paragraphs point out two glaring mistaken
belifs on your part. You are reading a USENET newsgroup
called "alt.support.kidney-disease" that is hosted on
news servers from different ISPs around the world.
USENET existed years before Google itself did. USENET
newsgroups are not "boards" hosted on a web page. Many
USENET newsgroups are mirrored on web pages like Google
Groups, or for example "Diabetes" web pages without
acknowledging their source. "Boards" are typically only
available on web pages, and therefore you HAVE to use a
web browser to read them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
Secondly, and most importantly, Google Groups is only an
archive of USENET postings. When you do a search on
Google, you notice in the search results the web address
of the page, and secondly, a link called "cached". That
is a snapshot taken of a web page that no longer exists.
Google Groups is only a snapshot of USENET postings that
actually no longer exist that you can access and
clumsily interact with.
The vast majority of USENET is unmoderated by any
central authority or owner of the "group". It is the
rough and tumble, wild and wooly, Wild Wild West of the
internet. In Google Groups you cannot filter out the
tons of postings by kooks and trolls like you can with
killfiles, bozo bins, etc. in dedicated newsreaders.
Google threading of posts is primitive compared to
dedicated newsreaders. The utter mess that is called
"Conversations" in Gmail is a prime example of the
limited nature of Google.
USENET postings are not retained by most ISP news feeds
for long. One can mark articles and threads for deletion
or retention in a dedicated newsreader so that one can
comfortably get to what you need, and keep what you deem
to be noteworthy. The largest amount of daily posts to
the dozen newsgroups I subscribe to is about 150 a day,
with most being around ten to twenty. This group is at
most 10 a day. Popular newsgroups can easily have 500
posts a day. Without filters and the ability to
disregard threads and posters, it becomes tedious.
Google Groups is like a lumbering elephant compared to
the cheetah-like leaness of a newsreader, of which Agent
is probably the best.
Since ISPs don't like to tie up resources to retain
months and years of postings, the only real use of
Google Groups is to search for old posts. Until many
ISPs started cutting USENET service to customers, and
Microsoft deleted the ability to subscribe to news
servers in their newest versions of mail programs,
USENET users would never think of using Google Groups as
a daily go to for the job.
Contary to what you think, you are like the lumbering
elephant to the newsreader cheetahs. Your method of
accressing these groups (they are not boards) just
stomps on everything.
That is why your methods are considered rude and
ignorant to those of us who have been around for more
than a decade. It is like the jerk kids, teens, and
young adults who think it is perfectly acceptable to
wear their hats when seated at a table in a restaurant;
who think nothing of carrying on conversations on cell
phones at any time and any where and at the top of their
lungs; who answer their phone or text while supposedly
carrying on a conversation with you; and in general
don't know that they don't know, and even if they did
know, still don't want to know.
Dennis (Kidney Transplant 1995)
Lookout
wrote:
>In article <a53487d4-5bfa-4e82-beea-4da275df5bbd@
It is NOT limited. This is the type program that has been used for 20+
years on Usenet. I choose not to keep old posts. You are the one
limited in that you can't repost all but I can easily. I choose not to
as this conversation is nothing more than you whining.
He will continue to whine. That's what googlegroupers do.
Jason
Dennis R <ds_r...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> In article <a53487d4-5bfa-4e82-beea-4da275df5bbd@
> 33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, mainfr...@yahoo.com=20
> says...
> >=20
> > On Nov 26, 12:07=A0pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:27:05 -0800 (PST), mainframetech
> > >
> > > <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >On Nov 23, 6:59=A0pm, Lookout <mrLook...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > >
> > > > =A0 =A0I'm at a loss to figure out how you delete old messages that a=
> re
> > > >in a public forum in a thread.
> > >
> <snip>
> > >
> > > > I know a few cases where I would like
> > > >that ability, so why not tell me how you get messages off the board
> > > >when they were posted by someone else? =A0This forum has few headers, =
> so
> > > >there is no problem looking through the list of topics, picking a
> > > >header of interest, opening it up and viewing all the posts in order.
> > > >We have few posts in any one thread, so what's the big problem? =A0Or =
> do
> > > >we all have to do things to just satisfy you? =A0Sorry, not my style.
>
> Lookout
> > > I uses Agent, not a web based reader. But you're to fucking stupid to
> > > understand that not everybody accesses the newsgroups the same way you
> > > do. Most of us who have been on Usenet for years think Googlegroup
> > > users are idiot...and you make our point for us.
> > >
> <snip>
> mainframetech:=20
> > Lookout,
> > Finally! Some courteous, useful information. Since I find the
> > Google Group format very organized and easy to use, I had NO idea that
> > you were on some other form of access. Now that I know your access is
> > limited vs. what I get when I come on the board, I'll try to leave all
> > the junk material copied in for those with your limitation. There's
> > nothing like being open and honest about a problem.
> >=20
> <smip>
>
> Chris:
>
> It is really messy and confusing for everybody to have=20
> wade through verbatim re-postings. That is why it has=20
> been considered good manners (netiquette in this case)=20
> to snip, cut and paste. There are settings even in=20
> Google to do that, you just have to look for them.
>
> Your last paragraphs point out two glaring mistaken=20
> belifs on your part. You are reading a USENET newsgroup=20
> called "alt.support.kidney-disease" that is hosted on=20
> news servers from different ISPs around the world.=20
> USENET existed years before Google itself did. USENET=20
> newsgroups are not "boards" hosted on a web page. Many=20
> USENET newsgroups are mirrored on web pages like Google=20
> Groups, or for example "Diabetes" web pages without=20
> acknowledging their source. "Boards" are typically only=20
> available on web pages, and therefore you HAVE to use a=20
> web browser to read them.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet
>
> Secondly, and most importantly, Google Groups is only an=20
> archive of USENET postings. When you do a search on=20
> Google, you notice in the search results the web address=20
> of the page, and secondly, a link called "cached". That=20
> is a snapshot taken of a web page that no longer exists.
> Google Groups is only a snapshot of USENET postings that=20
> actually no longer exist that you can access and=20
> clumsily interact with.
>
> The vast majority of USENET is unmoderated by any=20
> central authority or owner of the "group". It is the=20
> rough and tumble, wild and wooly, Wild Wild West of the=20
> internet. In Google Groups you cannot filter out the=20
> tons of postings by kooks and trolls like you can with=20
> killfiles, bozo bins, etc. in dedicated newsreaders.=20
> Google threading of posts is primitive compared to=20
> dedicated newsreaders. The utter mess that is called=20
> "Conversations" in Gmail is a prime example of the=20
> limited nature of Google.=20
>
> USENET postings are not retained by most ISP news feeds=20
> for long. One can mark articles and threads for deletion=20
> or retention in a dedicated newsreader so that one can=20
> comfortably get to what you need, and keep what you deem=20
> to be noteworthy. The largest amount of daily posts to=20
> the dozen newsgroups I subscribe to is about 150 a day,=20
> with most being around ten to twenty. This group is at=20
> most 10 a day. Popular newsgroups can easily have 500=20
> posts a day. Without filters and the ability to=20
> disregard threads and posters, it becomes tedious.=20
> Google Groups is like a lumbering elephant compared to=20
> the cheetah-like leaness of a newsreader, of which Agent=20
> is probably the best.
>
> Since ISPs don't like to tie up resources to retain=20
> months and years of postings, the only real use of=20
> Google Groups is to search for old posts. Until many=20
> ISPs started cutting USENET service to customers, and=20
> Microsoft deleted the ability to subscribe to news=20
> servers in their newest versions of mail programs,=20
> USENET users would never think of using Google Groups as=20
> a daily go to for the job.
>
> Contary to what you think, you are like the lumbering=20
> elephant to the newsreader cheetahs. Your method of=20
> accressing these groups (they are not boards) just=20
> stomps on everything.
>
> That is why your methods are considered rude and=20
> ignorant to those of us who have been around for more=20
> than a decade. It is like the jerk kids, teens, and=20
> young adults who think it is perfectly acceptable to=20
> wear their hats when seated at a table in a restaurant;=20
> who think nothing of carrying on conversations on cell=20
> phones at any time and any where and at the top of their=20
> lungs; who answer their phone or text while supposedly=20
> carrying on a conversation with you; and in general=20
> don't know that they don't know, and even if they did=20
> know, still don't want to know.
>
> Dennis (Kidney Transplant 1995)
Dennis,
ad hominem--marked by an attack on a opponent's caracter rather than by an
anwer by the contentions [in an argument or a debate]. (Webster's
dictionary]
In an official debate, ad hominen attacks are now allowed. However, in
newsgroups--ad hominen attacks happen on a daily basis. My advice is to
not respond to adhominen attacks. I try to follow that policy but it is
not always easy to do since it's natural to respond when attacked.
jason
Dennis R
31.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Ja...@nospam.com says...
>
>
> Dennis,
> ad hominem--marked by an attack on a opponent's caracter rather than by an
> anwer by the contentions [in an argument or a debate]. (Webster's
> dictionary]
>
> In an official debate, ad hominen attacks are now allowed. However, in
> newsgroups--ad hominen attacks happen on a daily basis. My advice is to
> not respond to adhominen attacks. I try to follow that policy but it is
> not always easy to do since it's natural to respond when attacked.
>
> jason
Chris stated very sarcastically that newsreaders were
very limited compared to the only method he had
previously been aware of, and used, GoogleGroups.
Lookout and I refuted that argument at numerous points.
I did employee hyperbole in explaining why his methods
of posting were considered rude and ignorant, but at
that point, I thought that comparing his methods of
rudeness to everday examples of rudeness (eg. hats in
restaurants, cell phones, etc.) would illustrate the
point.
Those were concrete examples of the errors in his
methods, not name calling.
Would you care to debate those direct points, or not?
Dennis (Kidney Transplant 1995)
Jason
Dennis R <ds_r...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
My choice is to get back to helping people that have kidney disease or
other types of kidney problems.
Dennis R
61.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>, Ja...@nospam.com says...
>
>
> My choice is to get back to helping people that have kidney disease or
> other types of kidney problems.
Jason, fair enough. Please remember to try to stay up to
date when offering advice. We all have to.
Dennis (Kidney Transplant 1995)
Jason
Dennis R <ds_r...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
I'll try. I just finished a book related to heart disease. My sister died
at the age of 62 of a stroke and I am now 59 years old. In fact, I have
Renal Artery Stenosis which is caused by a disease called
ARTERIOSCLEROSIS. In other words, I have heart disease. I learned from
that book that most people that have arteriosclerosis have sticky and
thick blood. One solution is to take natural blood thinners such as fish
oil, nattokinase and lumbrokinase. That helps the blood to flow past
plaque in my arteries. My kidneys have been working better since I have
been taking the above mentioned supplements. This is the name of the book
that I read:
REVERSE HEART DISEASE NOW by Stephen T. Sinatra, M.D. and James C. Roberts, M.D.
Both of the authors are preventive cardiologists which is a fairly new
field of medicine.