>"John Williamson" <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>> [...]
>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
>My condition is Insulinitis.
In which case it might be possible to cure it by removal of your insulin.
Tonsillitis is ofen cured by a tonsillectomy.
Appendicitis is usually treated by an appendectomy. So it should be possible to cure your insulinitis by an insulinectomy.
"Steve Hayes" <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote...
>>[...] If he's trying to treat inflammation of the insulin,
>>he's attacking the wrong symptom.
I lost my insulin production when I was 5 years
old. See Insulitis, an existing word, for a brief
definition of what happened in March of 1961.
Now, I'm part of the estimated 500,000 to
1.3 million to 3 million Americans who have
been forced to deal with a total or almost
total loss of insulin production. See the links
in my sig for further details. Also, see the
definition of the 'itis' suffix for a full explan-
ation of the inflammation and the non-inflam-
mation involved in that suffix.
Put another way, some are blind or unwilling
to constructively deal with the flaws of the
diabetes/diabetic core words, some are unwil-
ling to accept the poignancy of the Insulinitis
word, some don't know or fail to comprehend
the nature of the Insulitis word and how that
nature corresponds to the nature of the Insul-
initis word, some don't know or pretend to not
know or fail to comprehend the complete defin-
ition of the 'itis' suffix.
Some don't know and don't care and don't have
to deal with the unique nature of each glucose
anomaly that folks with Insulinitis or Cellosis
or Diminosis or HUT (Hypoglycemia Uncaused
by Treatment for a High Glucose Condition) or
Gestational Cellosis or High Glucose caused by
other conditions or Latent Autoimmune Insulinitis
must deal with.
Point in fact, in most countries over 90 percent
don't know or don't have to deal with that, and
while we would hope that most care, well, suf-
fice to say, there's a great deal of evidence that
indicates that many (if not most) have a dispar-
aging or less than welcoming response when
they discover a person has _________ (refer to
the unique and disparate glucose anomalies listed
in the previous sentence, with understanding only
possible when the exact glucose anomaly a per-
son has is known, as well as knowing how, exactly,
the person deals with that condition based on an
understanding of the exact nature/causality/treat-
ment of the particular glucose anomaly a person
has).
In any case, I hope you are one who cares, and
I hope that you, and everyone else reading this
message, can see the value in having a greater
degree of empathy for those who are battling
a glucose anomaly, and can understand the
unique nature of every individual who must
deal with a glucose anomaly. I hope you under-
stand the problematic nature of the diabetes
and diabetic core words, and understand how
that can be eliminated by efforting to come
up with words that distinctly identify each
glucose anomaly (for my ideas, refer to the
links available in my sig).
In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "John Williamson" <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>> [...]
>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
> My condition is Insulinitis.
So, oh wise one, what are you doing posting on misc.health.diabetes,
then? How about you posting on a more suitable newsgroup, such as
alt.support.insulinitis instead?
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:30:46 -0600, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>"John Williamson" <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>>> [...]
>>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
>>My condition is Insulinitis.
>> [see original post for my complete
>> reply, most of which Steve chose
>> to ignore without noting he ignore
>> it]
> In which case it might be possible to cure it by removal of your insulin.
No, see the following for a definition
of the 'itis' suffix, applicable to both
the existing word Insulitis and the
new word Insulinitis:
itis suffix definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/itis a suffix used in pathological terms
that denote inflammation of an organ
( bronchitis; gastritis; neuritis ) and
hence, in extended senses, nouns
denoting abnormal states or conditions,
excesses, tendencies, obsessions, etc.
( telephonitis; baseballitis ).
The first part, equally applicable to
both the existing word Insulitis and
the new word Insulinitis, although
in a minority of cases (such as pan-
creas removal due to a wound or
cancer), inflammation of an organ
is not involved. In all cases of Insulitis
and Insulinitis, the latter part of the
'itis' defintion applies: "... hence, in
extended senses, nouns denoting
abnormal states or conditions,
excesses, tendencies, obsessions,
etc. ( telephonitis; baseballitis ).
Of note, medically speaking, patho-
logically speaking, insulin treatment
(via insulin injections or insulin pump)
is required for life-continuation. Hence,
the pathological appropriateness of
the existing word Insulitis and the
new word Insulinitis.
> Tonsillitis is ofen cured by a tonsillectomy.
> Appendicitis is usually treated by an appendectomy.
> So it should be possible to cure your insulinitis by an insulinectomy.
How do you cure Insulitis and Insulinitis?
You don't, not yet, anyway, unless one
wishes to perceive the rare instances of
having a pancreas transplant + anti-
immunity drugs or islet cell transplant
+ anti-immunity drugs as curative,
despite the fact that they have a large
degree of limited length of success and
have a significant risk of mortality. Put
another way, extremely rare, nowhere
near widely available, very expensive,
and oft-times only used as a last gasp
leap of faith, or available only in conjunc-
tion with some other serious condition
such as kidney failure or extremely-dif-
ficult-to-prevent-hypoglycemia being
involved.
"In any case, I hope you are one who cares, and I hope that you, and everyone else reading this message, can see the value in having a greater degree of empathy for those who are battling a glucose anomaly, and can understand the unique nature of every individual who must deal with a glucose anomaly. I hope you under-"
One who cares sometimes must take a tough love approach.
Best to take control of your type 1 diabetes instead of word magic incantations.
> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
>> "John Williamson" <johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>>> [...]
>>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
>> My condition is Insulinitis.
> So, oh wise one, what are you doing posting on misc.health.diabetes,
> then? How about you posting on a more suitable newsgroup, such as
> alt.support.insulinitis instead?
I'm unaware of how to get a new newsgroup
added to usenet, but if you know how to do
that, or have a website which describes how
to do that, please share and I'll try to get that
done.
Since I've already got a google account, I
might try to use google groups to add a
specific google newsgroup (separate from
usenet) to achieve that, but as I don't often
use google groups, that would be an experi-
ment. I'll let you know if I try that and suc-
ceed, or if I try that, and fail. Usenet, I
doubt I'd have luck with that, but if you
provide a way to do that, I'll give that
a try.
Apologies, in my previous post in this
thread (directly above), I incorrectly
attributed the following comment
to Steve Hayes. The comment actually
was offered by Peter Moylan:
>>[...] If he's trying to treat inflammation of the insulin,
>>he's attacking the wrong symptom.
I lost my insulin production when I was 5 years
old. See Insulitis, an existing word, for a brief
definition of what happened in March of 1961.
Now, I'm part of the estimated 500,000 to
1.3 million to 3 million Americans who have
been forced to deal with a total or almost
total loss of insulin production. See the links
in my sig for further details. Also, see the
definition of the 'itis' suffix for a full explan-
ation of the inflammation and the non-inflam-
mation involved in that suffix.
Put another way, some are blind or unwilling
to constructively deal with the flaws of the
diabetes/diabetic core words, some are unwil-
ling to accept the poignancy of the Insulinitis
word, some don't know or fail to comprehend
the nature of the Insulitis word and how that
nature corresponds the nature of the Insul-
initis word, some don't know or pretend to not
know or fail to comprehend the complete defin-
ition of the 'itis' suffix.
Some don't know and don't care and don't have
to deal with the unique nature of each glucose
anomaly that folks with Insulinitis or Cellosis
or Diminosis or HUT (Hypoglycemia Uncaused
by Treatment for a High Glucose Condition) or
Gestational Cellosis or High Glucose caused by
other conditions or Latent Autoimmune Insulinitis
must deal with.
Point in fact, in most countries over 90 percent
don't know or don't have to deal with that, and
while we would hope that most care, well, suf-
fice to say, there's a great deal of evidence that
indicates that many (if not most) have a dispar-
aging or less than welcoming response when
they discover a person has _________ (refer to
the unique and disparate glucose anomalies listed
in the previous sentence, with understanding only
possible when the exact glucose anomaly a per-
son has is known, as well as knowing how, exactly,
the person deals with that condition based on an
understanding of the exact nature/causality/treat-
ment of the particular glucose anomaly a person
has).
In any case, I hope you are one who cares, and
I hope that you, and everyone else reading this
message, can see the value in having a greater
degree of empathy for those who are battling
a glucose anomaly, and can understand the
unique nature of every individual who must
deal with a glucose anomaly. I hope you under-
stand the problematic nature of the diabetes
and diabetic core words, and understand how
that can be eliminated by efforting to come
up with words that distinctly identify each
glucose anomaly (for my ideas, refer to the
links available in my sig).
>>> The newsgroup posting is at an all-time
>>> low on all newsgroups.
>> This is manifestly false. Take a look at alt.english.usage, the group to
>> which this thread was partially cross posted. They seem to be getting
>> about 200 posts a day there
> Here's what's showing up on my server (recently)
> in alt.english.usage:
I think there is some confusion here. This thread is cross-posted to alt.usage.english, not to alt.english.usage. I haven't done a count, but IMO 200 a day is not far off the mark for AUE.
[...]
> Leslie likes Insulitis, an existing word,
> because it describes inflammation of
> a latin word, the insul part of that
> being interpretable as a latin word
> for island, implying the inflammation
> of the islets of langerhans.
"Liking" has nothing to do with it. The word "insulitis" logically follows the pattern of other words used in the field of medicine for various types of inflammation.
> Insulinitis,
> for some reason Leslie doesn't see
> that insul part of the word being inter-
> pretable in the same way, and doesn't
> understand the manner in which the
> latter part of both word (Insulitis and
> Insulinitis) has the same identical defin-
> ition, not having to do with inflammation
> but instead having to do with condition
> and the manner in which people are
> forced to deal with the condition.
If "insulitis" and "insulinitis" are defined identically, why do you need to invent "insulinitis" at all? As it happens, you are the only person defining "insulinitis" to mean the same thing as "insulitis". The reason "insulinitis" is interpreted differently from "insulitis" is that "insulitis" = insul + itis and "insulinitis" = insulin + itis. The extra syllable is significant. If extra syllables were not generally important, the English language would be a rather sloppy (some might say "even sloppier") system of communication.
English being a living language, there is no authority empowered to stop you or anyone else sticking extra syllables into existing words, or inventing new words from whole cloth. What counts in the final analysis is acceptance or non-acceptance by the population at large. "Insulinitis" has got the thumbs-down. Why not forget it?
I recall from another of your posts (forgive me if I am wrong) that you put forward "tennisitis" and "footballitis" as examples of "-itis" not referring to inflammation. These examples are jocular and "itis" means "obsessed with". By analogy, your "insulinitis" would mean "obsessed with insulin". That may indeed describe your condition, but I don't think that's what you'd like it to mean.
I wish you well, but now I really have had enough.
>>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist
>>> FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net>
>>> wrote:
> [...]
>>>> The newsgroup posting is at an all-time
>>>> low on all newsgroups.
>>> This is manifestly false. Take a look at alt.english.usage, the group to
>>> which this thread was partially cross posted. They seem to be getting
>>> about 200 posts a day there
>> Here's what's showing up on my server (recently)
>> in alt.english.usage:
> I think there is some confusion here. This thread is cross-posted to
> alt.usage.english, not to alt.english.usage. I haven't done a count, but IMO
> 200 a day is not far off the mark for AUE.
> [...]
>> Leslie likes Insulitis, an existing word,
>> because it describes inflammation of
>> a latin word, the insul part of that
>> being interpretable as a latin word
>> for island, implying the inflammation
>> of the islets of langerhans.
> "Liking" has nothing to do with it. The word "insulitis" logically follows
> the pattern of other words used in the field of medicine for various types
> of inflammation.
And Insulinitis doesn't follow that? Why
not, why interpret insul as acceptable
when used in Insulitis but unacceptable
when used in Insulinitis? Why disparage
the latter but not the former? Why ignore
the itis definition that applies to both?
>> Insulinitis,
>> for some reason Leslie doesn't see
>> that insul part of the word being inter-
>> pretable in the same way, and doesn't
>> understand the manner in which the
>> latter part of both word (Insulitis and
>> Insulinitis) has the same identical defin-
>> ition, not having to do with inflammation
>> but instead having to do with condition
>> and the manner in which people are
>> forced to deal with the condition.
> If "insulitis" and "insulinitis" are defined identically, why do you need to
> invent "insulinitis" at all?
They're not defined identically, what with
Insulitis, the first part of the word, neglecting
to address the insulin-dependent nature of
the latter part of the itis definition, thereby
neglecting the primary nature of dealing
with both the condition of Insulitis and the
condition of Insulinitis, that being treatment
with insulin, and as you may or may not know,
when the diabetes/diabetic core words are
used, the insulin usage is impossible to ascer-
tain which is one reason among many why
the diabetes gaggle of words is in need of
being replaced.
> As it happens, you are the only person defining
> "insulinitis" to mean the same thing as "insulitis".
No, you've misinterpreted the comprehensive
definition of Insulinitis.
> The reason
> "insulinitis" is interpreted differently from "insulitis" is that
> "insulitis" = insul + itis and "insulinitis" = insulin + itis. The extra
> syllable is significant. If extra syllables were not generally important,
> the English language would be a rather sloppy (some might say "even
> sloppier") system of communication.
Hence, the importance of insulin as a key aspect
of the Insulinitis word, and the inclusion of the
inflammation aspect as a part of both the Insulitis
and Insulinitis words, by the very nature of the
insul latin you've accepted in the Insulitis word
but rejected, by arbitrary caprice, in the Insulinitis
word.
> English being a living language, there is no authority empowered to stop you
> or anyone else sticking extra syllables into existing words, or inventing
> new words from whole cloth. What counts in the final analysis is acceptance
> or non-acceptance by the population at large. "Insulinitis" has got the
> thumbs-down. Why not forget it?
> I recall from another of your posts (forgive me if I am wrong) that you put
> forward "tennisitis" and "footballitis" as examples of "-itis" not referring
> to inflammation.
You're imagining something I never offered.
Perhaps you're referring to the latter part of
the "itis" definition in which examples were
proferred but those were not the examples
in that definition.
> These examples are jocular and "itis" means "obsessed
> with".
The part of the "itis" definition which you for
some reason are having difficulty accurately
referencing directly is presented at the follow-
ing reference, and is included in its entirety
and exactly as follows, again:
itis suffix definition
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/itis a suffix used in pathological terms
that denote inflammation of an organ
( bronchitis; gastritis; neuritis ) and
hence, in extended senses, nouns
denoting abnormal states or conditions,
excesses, tendencies, obsessions, etc.
( telephonitis; baseballitis ).
The first part, equally applicable to
both the existing word Insulitis and
the new word Insulinitis, although
in a minority of cases (such as pan-
creas removal due to a wound or
cancer), inflammation of an organ
is not involved. In all cases of Insulitis
and Insulinitis, the latter part of the
'itis' defintion applies: "... hence, in
extended senses, nouns denoting
abnormal states or conditions,
excesses, tendencies, obsessions,
etc. ( telephonitis; baseballitis ).
Of note, medically speaking, patho-
logically speaking, insulin treatment
(via insulin injections or insulin pump)
is required for life-continuation. Hence,
the pathological appropriateness of
the existing word Insulitis and the
new word Insulinitis.
> By analogy, your "insulinitis" would mean "obsessed with insulin".
For the complete itis description, see
above.
> That may indeed describe your condition, but I don't think that's what you'd
> like it to mean.
Obsession is part of the itis description
that does apply, as referenced here and
elsewhere.
> I wish you well, but now I really have had enough.
>>>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist
>>>> FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net>
>>>> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>> The newsgroup posting is at an all-time
>>>>> low on all newsgroups.
>>>> This is manifestly false. Take a look at alt.english.usage, the group to
>>>> which this thread was partially cross posted. They seem to be getting
>>>> about 200 posts a day there
>>> Here's what's showing up on my server (recently)
>>> in alt.english.usage:
>> I think there is some confusion here. This thread is cross-posted to
>> alt.usage.english, not to alt.english.usage. I haven't done a count, but IMO
>> 200 a day is not far off the mark for AUE.
>> [...]
>>> Leslie likes Insulitis, an existing word,
>>> because it describes inflammation of
>>> a latin word, the insul part of that
>>> being interpretable as a latin word
>>> for island, implying the inflammation
>>> of the islets of langerhans.
>> "Liking" has nothing to do with it. The word "insulitis" logically follows
>> the pattern of other words used in the field of medicine for various types
>> of inflammation.
>And Insulinitis doesn't follow that? Why
>not, why interpret insul as acceptable
>when used in Insulitis but unacceptable
>when used in Insulinitis? Why disparage
>the latter but not the former? Why ignore
>the itis definition that applies to both?
The next new word to be thrust upon us may be "insulinectomy." This
might describe a condition when one's insulin had to be removed
because of extreme insulinitis.
>>> Insulinitis,
>>> for some reason Leslie doesn't see
>>> that insul part of the word being inter-
>>> pretable in the same way, and doesn't
>>> understand the manner in which the
>>> latter part of both word (Insulitis and
>>> Insulinitis) has the same identical defin-
>>> ition, not having to do with inflammation
>>> but instead having to do with condition
>>> and the manner in which people are
>>> forced to deal with the condition.
>> If "insulitis" and "insulinitis" are defined identically, why do you need to
>> invent "insulinitis" at all?
>They're not defined identically, what with
>Insulitis, the first part of the word, neglecting
>to address the insulin-dependent nature of
>the latter part of the itis definition, thereby
>neglecting the primary nature of dealing
>with both the condition of Insulitis and the
>condition of Insulinitis, that being treatment
>with insulin, and as you may or may not know,
>when the diabetes/diabetic core words are
>used, the insulin usage is impossible to ascer-
>tain which is one reason among many why
>the diabetes gaggle of words is in need of
>being replaced.
>> As it happens, you are the only person defining
>> "insulinitis" to mean the same thing as "insulitis".
>No, you've misinterpreted the comprehensive
>definition of Insulinitis.
>> The reason
>> "insulinitis" is interpreted differently from "insulitis" is that
>> "insulitis" = insul + itis and "insulinitis" = insulin + itis. The extra
>> syllable is significant. If extra syllables were not generally important,
>> the English language would be a rather sloppy (some might say "even
>> sloppier") system of communication.
>Hence, the importance of insulin as a key aspect
>of the Insulinitis word, and the inclusion of the
>inflammation aspect as a part of both the Insulitis
>and Insulinitis words, by the very nature of the
>insul latin you've accepted in the Insulitis word
>but rejected, by arbitrary caprice, in the Insulinitis
>word.
>> English being a living language, there is no authority empowered to stop you
>> or anyone else sticking extra syllables into existing words, or inventing
>> new words from whole cloth. What counts in the final analysis is acceptance
>> or non-acceptance by the population at large. "Insulinitis" has got the
>> thumbs-down. Why not forget it?
>> I recall from another of your posts (forgive me if I am wrong) that you put
>> forward "tennisitis" and "footballitis" as examples of "-itis" not referring
>> to inflammation.
>You're imagining something I never offered.
>Perhaps you're referring to the latter part of
>the "itis" definition in which examples were
>proferred but those were not the examples
>in that definition.
>> These examples are jocular and "itis" means "obsessed
>> with".
>The part of the "itis" definition which you for
>some reason are having difficulty accurately
>referencing directly is presented at the follow-
>ing reference, and is included in its entirety
>and exactly as follows, again:
>itis suffix definition
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/itis >a suffix used in pathological terms
>that denote inflammation of an organ
>( bronchitis; gastritis; neuritis ) and
>hence, in extended senses, nouns
>denoting abnormal states or conditions,
>excesses, tendencies, obsessions, etc.
>( telephonitis; baseballitis ).
>The first part, equally applicable to
>both the existing word Insulitis and
>the new word Insulinitis, although
>in a minority of cases (such as pan-
>creas removal due to a wound or
>cancer), inflammation of an organ
>is not involved. In all cases of Insulitis
>and Insulinitis, the latter part of the
>'itis' defintion applies: "... hence, in
>extended senses, nouns denoting
>abnormal states or conditions,
>excesses, tendencies, obsessions,
>etc. ( telephonitis; baseballitis ).
>Of note, medically speaking, patho-
>logically speaking, insulin treatment
>(via insulin injections or insulin pump)
>is required for life-continuation. Hence,
>the pathological appropriateness of
>the existing word Insulitis and the
>new word Insulinitis.
>> By analogy, your "insulinitis" would mean "obsessed with insulin".
>For the complete itis description, see
>above.
>> That may indeed describe your condition, but I don't think that's what you'd
>> like it to mean.
>Obsession is part of the itis description
>that does apply, as referenced here and
>elsewhere.
>> I wish you well, but now I really have had enough.
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist
>> FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net>
>> wrote:
[ .... ]
>> I will use whatever words are needed to communicate clearly with whom I'm
>> talking or writing to. Your "words" generate more confusion than the
>> ones you'd like to supersede.
>> In short, you are in no position to ask others here to "play nice", since
>> you're not prepared to budge even slightly from what offends others here
>> so much.
> You cling to the diabetes nomenclature
> like you take any other word as a personal
> affront to you. I think you're over-reacting,
> to put it mildly. Would you write to Riva
> how her word betasin (or any other word
> folks choose to use that doesn't have dia-
> betes in it) is "like being spat at in the face" ?
The main topic here is not your words, but your behaviour. What you have
been doing has caused great offence on this newsgroup. Yet you are not
prepared to accept that, you are not prepared to make any concession
whatsoever to these offended people (including me). You intend to carry
on regardless. Yes, words CAN cause offence - if you don't believe this,
try uttering a four letter word in a church.
You may think I am "overreacting" as much as you like. You seem to think
that everybody else but you is overreacting and being unreasonable. Try
looking in a mirror sometime.
As for the offence, it didn't start when you introduced your proposals
into the group. It has gradually increased with your continued pounding.
And no, "betasin" won't do. It's the name of an existing drug. But an
etymologically neutral word _might_ do the trick. I'm not going to be
using any alternative until my doctor's using it to. Changes can happen,
as in the change from "juvenile" to "type 1". Why don't you call it
"sugar disease", the exact translation of the German "Zuckerkrankheit"?
>> Think about it, misc.health.diabetes is nearly dead. Do you want it to
>> die completely?
> Whether one posts to any newsgroup (the
> obvious record of one being involved) or
> merely reads without posting (something
> that is untrackable/unknowable), whether
> one personally attacks or uses logic and
> reason, whether one well-supports his/her
> position or simply flippantly dismisses views
> he or she disagrees with, all a matter of
> personal choice.
Yes, indeed. If a newgroup becomes unpleasant, decent posters will stop
posting there. You have made misc.health.diabetes unpleasant, but
without intending to. The use of logic, regardless of how well founded,
can make a group unpleasant. Decent posters are, in the main, not posting
here any longer. It's a bit like a neighbourhood. If it's well looked
after, populated with respectful people, it will thrive. If it becomes
strewn with graffiti, lots of broken windows, violence, then anybody who
can will leave, and this neighbourhood will decline irreversably.
A newsgroup like misc.health.diabetes isn't just a bulletin board. It is
a community, a place of solidarity. You have broken both of these.
>>> I will use whatever words are needed to communicate clearly with whom I'm
>>> talking or writing to. Your "words" generate more confusion than the
>>> ones you'd like to supersede.
>>> In short, you are in no position to ask others here to "play nice", since
>>> you're not prepared to budge even slightly from what offends others here
>>> so much.
>> You cling to the diabetes nomenclature
>> like you take any other word as a personal
>> affront to you. I think you're over-reacting,
>> to put it mildly. Would you write to Riva
>> how her word betasin (or any other word
>> folks choose to use that doesn't have dia-
>> betes in it) is "like being spat at in the face" ?
> The main topic here is not your words, but your behaviour.
You don't like the words, and therefore
you attack based on your dislike for the
words.
> What you have
> been doing has caused great offence on this newsgroup.
You're speaking for yourself, and as for
your love of the diabetes nomenclature,
I don't have any.
> Yet you are not
> prepared to accept that, you are not prepared to make any concession
> whatsoever to these offended people (including me). You intend to carry
> on regardless. Yes, words CAN cause offence - if you don't believe this,
> try uttering a four letter word in a church.
Your attempt to compare spitting in the
face and uttering a 4-letter word in a
church to my attempt to fix/correct the
misleading and confusion which transpires
with the diabetes / diabetic core words,
inappropriate / misleading / overstated
and wrong.
> You may think I am "overreacting" as much as you like. You seem to think
> that everybody else but you is overreacting and being unreasonable. Try
> looking in a mirror sometime.
I'm proud of my effort to initiate change.
You should be ashamed of your efforts
to deprecate same.
> As for the offence, it didn't start when you introduced your proposals
> into the group. It has gradually increased with your continued pounding.
My efforts are estimable. Your efforts are
shameful.
> And no, "betasin" won't do. It's the name of an existing drug. But an
> etymologically neutral word _might_ do the trick. I'm not going to be
> using any alternative until my doctor's using it to. Changes can happen,
> as in the change from "juvenile" to "type 1". Why don't you call it
> "sugar disease", the exact translation of the German "Zuckerkrankheit"?
Etymologically neutral? Hold on while
I try to figure out what that means:
Something to do with the source of
a word being neutral. Please explain
or provide an example, as I'm really
unclear what would result in that,
and no, anything with the word
disease in it is unacceptable, and
as for your "sugar disease" idea,
the condition of Insulinitis has to ...
... do with insulin, as in the lack of
production of it, which causes every-
one with it to have to inject or pump
it to survive. Cellosis, caused by cells
resistance to insulin, sugar disease
is a misnomer. Diminosis, caused by
diminished production of insulin due
to a genetic condition, sugar disease
is far from descriptive regarding the
causality of that condition. Your initial
effort to come up with a new name
for specific glucose anomalies, weak
and far inferior to my efforts.
I'd share what happened to me last
night, but as that causes many to
attack/judge/condemn/criticize, I'll
refrain from doing so. Suffice to say,
an example of when the insulin guess
did not go well [insert myths that are
a typical response urging/judging/con-
demning folks whose bodies are no-
where near the state of perfection
which over 90 percent of the popula-
tion has with no effort or no thought
given to it whatsoever, all the time,
day and night, perfect / magnificent,
something everyone with Insulinitis
is nowhere near achieving no matter
how many bloodpricks / attached de-
vices / insulin injections / insulin
pumps / continuous glucose monitors
or how much obsession we devote
to dealing with it.
"Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote in message news:jatcdl$1mgd$1@colin.muc.de...
> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> Think about it, misc.health.diabetes is nearly dead. Do you want it to
>>> die completely?
>> Whether one posts to any newsgroup (the
>> obvious record of one being involved) or
>> merely reads without posting (something
>> that is untrackable/unknowable), whether
>> one personally attacks or uses logic and
>> reason, whether one well-supports his/her
>> position or simply flippantly dismisses views
>> he or she disagrees with, all a matter of
>> personal choice.
> Yes, indeed. If a newgroup becomes unpleasant,
> decent posters will stop posting there.
The posting to any newsgroup, when you
look at the posts, you rarely see the degree
of thought / support / well-thought out
logic and reason which is presented in most
of my posts. As for negative-speak, oft-
times present. As for the degree of free-
thought and well-meaning non-conformity,
that's rare.
>You have made misc.health.diabetes unpleasant, but
> without intending to.
Your use of negative-speak, that's certainly
unwelcome, but whatever, if you think that's
going to promote posting, I seriously doubt
it will.
> The use of logic, regardless of how well founded,
> can make a group unpleasant.
Damn that logic.
> Decent posters are, in the main, not posting
> here any longer.
You're here, and as for decency,
I'm here, so there you go, our
opinions differing widely.
> It's a bit like a neighbourhood. If it's well looked
> after, populated with respectful people, it will thrive.
The thriving you seek, good luck
with that. I seriously doubt that
love of diabetes nomenclature is
required for thriving, and I seriously
doubt that hatred of name changes
will lead to that, but whatever, if
thriving is what you seek, I suggest
promoting and supporting name
changes would in no small way
contribute to that. I doubt you have
it in you to do so.
> If it becomes
> strewn with graffiti, lots of broken windows, violence, then anybody who
> can will leave, and this neighbourhood will decline irreversably.
> A newsgroup like misc.health.diabetes isn't just a bulletin board. It is
> a community, a place of solidarity. You have broken both of these.
Your angle is delusory on your part.
As for solidarity, sounds like a throw-
back to Russian/Chinese ideaology.
That didn't work out so well. In
America, we value freedom and free
expression. At least many of us do.
In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
> "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote in message news:jatcdl$1mgd$1@colin.muc.de...
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
>> If a newgroup becomes unpleasant, decent posters will stop posting
>> there.
> The posting to any newsgroup, when you
> look at the posts, you rarely see the degree
> of thought / support / well-thought out
> logic and reason which is presented in most
> of my posts. As for negative-speak, oft-
> times present. As for the degree of free-
> thought and well-meaning non-conformity,
> that's rare.
You've either missed the point, or you're being evasive. I'm not talking
about logic/reason/well-thought outness, or anything like that. I'm
talking about UNPLEASANTNESS. Something can be both logical, etc., and
unpleasant at the same time. Do you agree with that sentence?
[ .... ]
> In America, we value freedom and free
> expression. At least many of us do.
Free expression? With freedom comes responsibility. In what you've been
saying here, where do you think your responsibility lies, and to whom?
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>> <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> Please don't try and debate this with me,
> Debate requires inclusion of the entirety
> of someone's reply, something you (in
> this particular post) did not do (and you
> left off most of my reply without any
> indication you had done so).
[snip]
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
So your idea of a verbal debate is that each
person must first repeat everything that the
other one said before adding anything new,
and the first person who can't do this
repeating properly loses? So that the first
person to add a lot (reasonable or not) is
likely to win?
If so, your ideas look much like those of
people advertising diabetes cures; nearly all
of them are better at forgetting to mention
that they are using their own definition of
cure than they are at finding anything that
fits the definition that most other people
use.
It looks like you're using your own definition
of debate, not the one that most of the rest
of us use.
> "John Williamson"<johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>> [...]
>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
> My condition is Insulinitis.
> Your wrong reference, it would be accurate
> to characterize that as much-improved,
> eliminating the confusion / misinformation
> which transpires when the diabetes/diabetic
> core words are used without clarifiers, a
> persistent widespread problem that trans-
> pires frequently due to the endemic influ-
> ences people have been influenced by from
> birth, in the cultures/languages we are
> deeply embedded within.
[snip]
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
So you haven't invented a word for diabetes, type
not yet known, yet?
I've read elsewhere that there are likely to be
at least 600 varieties of diabetes (probably not
counting having two or more of them at once).
Get busy inventing new words, but don't tell us
about them until all 600 are accepted by
researchers.
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER<prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> "John Williamson"<johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>>>> [...]
>>>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>>>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
>>> My condition is Insulinitis.
>> So, oh wise one, what are you doing posting on misc.health.diabetes,
>> then? How about you posting on a more suitable newsgroup, such as
>> alt.support.insulinitis instead?
> I'm unaware of how to get a new newsgroup
> added to usenet, but if you know how to do
> that, or have a website which describes how
> to do that, please share and I'll try to get that
> done.
[snip]
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
For the alt.* hierarchy, the rules are much looser than for
the misc.* hierarchy. Some newsgroups servers allow doing
it by simply crossposting to that newsgroup name - but that
does little to persuade the various newsgroups servers around
the world to actually carry that newsgroup.
Google Groups allows adding it as a Google Group, but that's
generally ignored by the rest of Usenet.
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER<prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>> "John Williamson"<johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>>>> [...]
>>>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>>>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
>>> My condition is Insulinitis.
>> So, oh wise one, what are you doing posting on misc.health.diabetes,
>> then? How about you posting on a more suitable newsgroup, such as
>> alt.support.insulinitis instead?
> I'm unaware of how to get a new newsgroup
> added to usenet, but if you know how to do
> that, or have a website which describes how
> to do that, please share and I'll try to get that
> done.
[snip]
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
To add it as a Google Group, start by clicking on New group here:
To add it as an alt.* newsgroup properly, you'll need to find the
alt.* newsgroup for discussing such additions first. The
following look like candidates for that newsgroup, but aren't
very active if they're the right one:
Robert Miles wrote:
> On 11/26/2011 2:44 PM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>> "Alan Mackenzie"<a...@muc.de> wrote
>>> So, oh wise one, what are you doing posting on misc.health.diabetes,
>>> then? How about you posting on a more suitable newsgroup, such as
>>> alt.support.insulinitis instead?
>> I'm unaware of how to get a new newsgroup
>> added to usenet, but if you know how to do
>> that, or have a website which describes how
>> to do that, please share and I'll try to get that
>> done.
> [snip]
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> For the alt.* hierarchy, the rules are much looser than for
> the misc.* hierarchy. Some newsgroups servers allow doing
> it by simply crossposting to that newsgroup name - but that
> does little to persuade the various newsgroups servers around
> the world to actually carry that newsgroup.
That used to be the case, but it led to the creation of numerous
zero-traffic groups. (Exception: it appears that alt.english.usage was
created when people thought they were posting to alt.usage.english and
got it back to front, and that spurious newsgroup continues to have a
moderate amount of traffic. I imagine that there are a few other
"back-to-front" newsgroups that were created in the same way.) I believe
that today's news servers are a bit smarter, and won't accept new groups
unless they are created in the "official" way.
I have no strong opinion on the appropriate group for people suffering
from inflammation of the insulin.
> Google Groups allows adding it as a Google Group, but that's
> generally ignored by the rest of Usenet.
Google Groups is best ignored, full stop.
-- Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page.
> On 11/23/2011 9:02 AM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>> "Alan Mackenzie"<a...@muc.de> wrote ...
>>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>>> <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
> [snip]
>>> Please don't try and debate this with me,
>> Debate requires inclusion of the entirety
>> of someone's reply, something you (in
>> this particular post) did not do (and you
>> left off most of my reply without any
>> indication you had done so).
> [snip]
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> So your idea of a verbal debate is that each
> person must first repeat everything that the
> other one said before adding anything new,
> and the first person who can't do this
> repeating properly loses? So that the first
> person to add a lot (reasonable or not) is
> likely to win?
> If so, your ideas look much like those of
> people advertising diabetes cures; nearly all
> of them are better at forgetting to mention
> that they are using their own definition of
> cure than they are at finding anything that
> fits the definition that most other people
> use.
> It looks like you're using your own definition
> of debate, not the one that most of the rest
> of us use.
As to why they were so angry, whether
it was because of the confusing and
misleading nature of the diabetes
word, or whether it was because so
many rats are forced to endure one of
the High Glucose Conditions (Insulinitis,
Cellosis, or Diminosis) in an effort to
find a human cure or find a much better
treatment for one or more of the 3 most
widespread High Glucose Conditions, a
recent interview with the angriest rat,
pictured just right of center in the photo
above, may help to determine that:
Q: So, diabetes, how do you feel about
that?
Angriest Rat answer: I wish you humans
would stop causing us rats to get any of
those High Glucose Conditions.
Q: How do you feel about the number of
research articles that call the disease
diabetes, rather than using the new,
accurate, and non-misleading words
to describe the actual type of condition
being tested (Insulinitis, or Cellosis, or
Diminosis)?
Angriest Rat answer: Hey, a lot of us
rats are dying out here, at the very least
you humans could stop using the confusing
and misleading and anachronistic ancient
word diabetes when talking about what
we're dying of. And isn't it about time that
y'all found a cure or a much-improved treat-
ment for humans, 'cause after all, in us rats,
y'all seem able to cure or find a much-
improved treatment for each of the High
Glucose Conditions over and over again,
so what the *&*(^&# is taking so long to
do so in humans?
> On 11/26/2011 9:30 AM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>> "John Williamson"<johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>>> [...]
>>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
>> My condition is Insulinitis.
>> Your wrong reference, it would be accurate
>> to characterize that as much-improved,
>> eliminating the confusion / misinformation
>> which transpires when the diabetes/diabetic
>> core words are used without clarifiers, a
>> persistent widespread problem that trans-
>> pires frequently due to the endemic influ-
>> ences people have been influenced by from
>> birth, in the cultures/languages we are
>> deeply embedded within.
> [snip]
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> So you haven't invented a word for diabetes, type
> not yet known, yet?
High Glucose Conditions (for diabetes),
Other High Glucose Conditions (if not
within the Insulinitis, Cellosis, and
Diminosis areas), with the type of
glucose anomaly that doesn't involve
high glucose called Insipidus, and the
type of glucose anomaly that only
involves low glucose called Hypogly-
cemia Uncaused by Treatment for a
High Glucose Condition (aka, HUT).
Handy chart for translating the gaggle
of old terminology to the new terms:
1. The Power of Optional Exactitude for any
High Glucose (and one normal glucose) Con-
dition - you can iterate the nature of the
condition, exactly, by simply using clarifying
words (long list), and don't worry if the long
words are misleading or not well understood,
that would simply lend itself to the ideas
expressed in point '2' which follows:
Type 1 Diabetes
Juvenile Diabetes
Insulin Dependent Diabetes
Prediabetes
Type 2 Diabetes
Adult Diabetes
Non-insulin dependent Diabetes
Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young
Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults
Gestational Diabetes
Neonatal Diabetes
One of the types of MODY Diabetes
Other Diabetes Mellitus
Diabetes Insipidus
2. The Power of Fuzzing Out / Confusing /
Misleading
...
- - - end excerpt - - -
> counting having two or more of them at once).
> Get busy inventing new words, but don't tell us
> about them until all 600 are accepted by
> researchers.
Type 111 (just kidding, kinda sorta), Insulinitis
which causes an individual, in addition to all else
(see my sig for details) to rebel against all diabetes
and diabetic and 'control' words and phrases and
guilt-trips and demonization and confusion and
misleading and mischaracterization and (I could
continue, but I think you get the picture) with the
new words/characterizations fully described in the
links available via the Insulinitis and Cellosis and
Diminosis links and the Control link at my website.
> "Robert Miles" <mile...@Usenet-News.net> wrote ...
>> On 11/26/2011 9:30 AM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>> "John Williamson"<johnwilliam...@btinternet.com> wrote ...
>>>> [...]
>>>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong
>>>> terminology hasn't helped him control his diabetes.
>>> My condition is Insulinitis.
>>> Your wrong reference, it would be accurate
>>> to characterize that as much-improved,
>>> eliminating the confusion / misinformation
>>> which transpires when the diabetes/diabetic
>>> core words are used without clarifiers, a
>>> persistent widespread problem that trans-
>>> pires frequently due to the endemic influ-
>>> ences people have been influenced by from
>>> birth, in the cultures/languages we are
>>> deeply embedded within.
>> [snip]
>>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>> So you haven't invented a word for diabetes, type
>> not yet known, yet?
> High Glucose Conditions (for diabetes),
> Other High Glucose Conditions (if not
> within the Insulinitis, Cellosis, and
> Diminosis areas), with the type of
> glucose anomaly that doesn't involve
> high glucose called Insipidus, and the
I should've said the type of condition
called diabetes insipidus, which also
can, by definition of diabetes, be called
diabetes, a condition that doesn't involve
any glucose anomaly, called by the new
term Insipidus, and the
>> I've read elsewhere that there are likely to be
>> at least 600 varieties of diabetes (probably not
> At least 600 varieties, yet researchers
> toss the diabetes word into every one
> they find (some of the ones I'm familiar
> with, identified below):
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diabetes.kids/msg/92cbe940...
> Excerpt:
> ...
> 1. The Power of Optional Exactitude for any
> High Glucose (and one normal glucose) Con-
> dition - you can iterate the nature of the
> condition, exactly, by simply using clarifying
> words (long list), and don't worry if the long
> words are misleading or not well understood,
> that would simply lend itself to the ideas
> expressed in point '2' which follows:
> Type 1 Diabetes
> Juvenile Diabetes
> Insulin Dependent Diabetes
> Prediabetes
> Type 2 Diabetes
> Adult Diabetes
> Non-insulin dependent Diabetes
> Maturity Onset Diabetes of the Young
> Latent Autoimmune Diabetes in Adults
> Gestational Diabetes
> Neonatal Diabetes
> One of the types of MODY Diabetes
> Other Diabetes Mellitus
> Diabetes Insipidus
> 2. The Power of Fuzzing Out / Confusing /
> Misleading
> ...
> - - - end excerpt - - -
>> counting having two or more of them at once).
>> Get busy inventing new words, but don't tell us
>> about them until all 600 are accepted by
>> researchers.
> Type 111 (just kidding, kinda sorta), Insulinitis
> which causes an individual, in addition to all else
> (see my sig for details) to rebel against all diabetes
> and diabetic and 'control' words and phrases and
> guilt-trips and demonization and confusion and
> misleading and mischaracterization and (I could
> continue, but I think you get the picture) with the
> new words/characterizations fully described in the
> links available via the Insulinitis and Cellosis and
> Diminosis links and the Control link at my website.
> Robert Miles wrote:
>> On 11/26/2011 2:44 PM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>>> "Alan Mackenzie"<a...@muc.de> wrote
[snip]
>> Google Groups allows adding it as a Google Group, but that's
>> generally ignored by the rest of Usenet.
> Google Groups is best ignored, full stop.
I've found it the only place to report most newsgroups spam
that does much good. Not enough, of course.
