Re: Support to stop using the 'ic' word

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:00:42 -0600, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>... A person with type 1 diabetes is not
>"a diabetic." He or she is a person with
>diabetes. ...

Oh crap.

>Of course, the preferred way to ex-
>press the above would be "a person
>with Insulinitis". The article did a

Preferred by whom?

I don't see anyone using it but you.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Harrison Hill]

On Nov 16, 4:13 pm, Steve Hayes <hayes...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:00:42 -0600, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
>

> <prohu...@cableone.net> wrote:
> >... A person with type 1 diabetes is not
> >"a diabetic." He or she is a person with
> >diabetes. ...
>
> Oh crap.
>
> >Of course, the preferred way to ex-
> >press the above would be "a person
> >with Insulinitis". The article did a
>
> Preferred by whom?
>
> I don't see anyone using it but you.

"Insulinitics" sound as though they ought to be locked up.

[Derek Turner]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:13:42 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

>>Of course, the preferred way to ex-
>>press the above would be "a person
>>with Insulinitis". The article did a

Cretin. -itis means inflamed. If I'm not producing any then how the fsck
can it be inflamed.

[Alan Mackenzie]

In misc.health.diabetes Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:00:42 -0600, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>>... A person with type 1 diabetes is not
>>"a diabetic." He or she is a person with
>>diabetes. ...

> Oh crap.

>>Of course, the preferred way to ex-
>>press the above would be "a person
>>with Insulinitis". The article did a

> Preferred by whom?

> I don't see anyone using it but you.

For visitors to mhd from aue, please be aware that the OP has been trying
to foist his "words" onto us for, perhaps, two years, now[*]. This despite
a full discussion of the issue at the beginning, which resulted in a firm
thumbs down, followed by several polite requests to desist, arguments, and
occasional expletives.

[*] Feel free to criticize my use of commas here. :-)

The same request as always: Please don't feed the troll.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[John Dunlop]

Derek Turner:

> Cretin. [...]

I don't know if that's allowed, talking about cretins.

--
John

[musika]

No, Steve Hayes did not write that. He quoted it.
--
Ray
UK

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

Note to misc.health.diabetes, Steve added
the alt.usage.english newsgroup to the dis-
cussion, and I've left it in just in case someone
there has something helpful to offer regarding
efforts to replace problematic words with new
modern clearly defined replacements:

"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote ...

> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:00:42 -0600, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>>

>> - - -
>> November 16, 2011
>> http://www.montereyherald.com/food/ci_19346725
>> - - -
>>
>> Excerpt:

>>
>> ... A person with type 1 diabetes is not
>> "a diabetic." He or she is a person with
>> diabetes. ...

> Oh crap.

>> - - - end excerpt - - -
>>
>> Comments:

>>
>> Of course, the preferred way to ex-
>> press the above would be "a person

>> with Insulinitis". The article did a [...]

> Preferred by whom?
>
> I don't see anyone using it but you.
>
>
> --
> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa

Support from individuals other than yours truly:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Created By
Steve Summerford
Seattle, WA
at www.change.org:

http://tinyurl.com/proposednamechange-insulinitis

Excerpt:

...

One such proposed name revision gaining wide
acceptance for its clear descriptive nature and
reflective medical terminology is: "Insulinitis"
However, the final name would be subject to
further discussion.

...

- - - end excerpt - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Via Facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=280698979764&topic=19423

Excerpts:

...

Peter Thomas

HAve only looked at 2 pages so far but have to
say wow! just what we have been waiting for...
can't believe you have also been recieving the
heckling I have also faced fron others ojecting
to changing the names! Will read on and add
more later. Thanks

...

Jude Ewing

Hi Dan,

I'm working my way through this but so far I am
deeply impressed! Well done!!! The need to
differentiate between the different conditions,
especially Type 1 and Type 2 is something that
I feel very strongly about - it is causing so much
confusion and misunderstanding!!!

We need to get your work to the attention of the
BMA and other medical associations! What do you
think Peter et al???

Best wishes,

Jude

...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the name change idea, in general, here is
some support for that particular idea:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Via Web MD:

http://forums.webmd.com/3/diabetes-exchange/forum/932/17?@960.7Jq2aBz5kCy@!skip=15

We need a name change!

DonnaOT posted:

I am so sick and tired of being lumped in to the
"diabetes" category!! So many people don't know
the difference between T1 and T2 and it makes
me crazy! An article in today's Denver Post talks
about the increase in the number of obese and
sedentary people in this country and how it
ultimately leads to diabetes.

No where in the article did it say it leads to
TYPE 2 diabetes! I have type 1 and I am neither
obese nor sedentary! We need to band together
and fight to change the name of this disease!
Maybe then the general population will not just
assume that we have this disease because of a
lifestyle choice we made!!

Sorry for the frustration and anger! This is hard!
If you are with me let's come up with a new
name and get this done!

...

feelinghigh responded:

Cora, I was also disappointed and angry at Dr Oz
for not mentioning Type I!!!

You can count me in for the name change!!! I'm
curious, how would we go about doing this? Who
do we contact? There are so many of us type I's
that want this name to change but, do you hon-
estly think they would change the name?

...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Scott's Opinion

by Scott King - September 26th, 2010

at solvingdiabetes.org
http://tinyurl.com/type1diabetes-newnamesolicited
- - -

Excerpt:

I sometimes think those of us advocating for
type 1 (juvenile) diabetics would be better off
if our disease had a different name.

...

- - - end excerpt - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the following article, Riva Greenberg sug-
gests "betasin" or "mellitus".

"Betasin", catchy, has the advantage of having
few syllables, and clearly distinguishable from
other High Glucose Conditions. As compared
to Insulinitis, "betasin" has fewer syllables, but
has less widespread recognition because far
fewer are aware of beta cells than are aware
of insulin. Also, its use of the word sin, what
with its religious connotations, in the modern
day and age, perhaps a better choice of a
single syllable indicator would be well-advised.
Changing the diabetes implied message of
dying to the betasin implied message of sin-
ning, I think we can do better.

"Mellitus", latin for honey-sweet, I'd prefer that
over diabetes, but that really would be a replace-
ment for all diabetes, aka High Glucose Condi-
tions, and would not be distinguished from other
High Glucose Conditions, so it really would simply
replace diabetes with mellitus, and the adjunctive
descriptors currently added to diabetes/diabetic
would simply be added to mellitus. Not the clear
break from the old terminology that's needed,
in my opinion.

I must say, though, it's a pleasure to see that
others are at least trying to come up with a new
name for type 1 diabetes, although in my opinion,
the solution of new names for all High Glucose
Conditions (which I've been promoting since
March of 2010, see my sig below) is the ideal
nomenclature group to address all of the name
problems with the diabetes/diabetic core words
and the adjunctive words added to those core
words.

- - -
Diabetes' civil war

People with Type 1 diabetes, outnumbered and
overshadowed by Type 2, fight for recognition,
resources - and a new name for their disorder
http://www.latimes.com/health/ct-met-diabetes-rift-20101122,0,6297121.story?page=2
- - -

[this article focuses on some contentious issues,
most of which I disagree with regarding the com-
ments of several which invoke a degree of opposi-
tion among folks with different types of High Glu-
cose Conditions that doesn't actually exist in the
real world, in my opinion, with all due notice of
the renaming aspects of the post, many of which
I agree with]

Excerpt:

...

Greenberg, based in Brooklyn, N.Y., thinks a name
change is worth fighting for, especially since Type 1
diabetes often comes on in childhood and "when
children hear 'die-abetes,' all they think is that
they're going to die," she said.

She proposes "betasin" - as in, "isn't it a sin my
beta cells (in the pancreas) gave up?" - or "mellitus,"
the second half of the full name of the disease, which
is "diabetes mellitus."

...

- - - end excerpt - - -


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
C.ure I.nsulinitis A.ssociation
http://prohuman.net/cureinsulinitisassociation.htm
- - -

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:45:11 +0000, John Dunlop <dunlo...@ymail.com>
wrote:

>Derek Turner:
>
>> Cretin. [...]
>
>I don't know if that's allowed, talking about cretins.

Derek was suffering from cretinitis - he was inflamed by a cretin.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[pi...@popper.com]

There is no support, end of story.

Those who are the experts in fact would oppose it.

It is far better for you to take control of your type 1 diabetes then to
play word magic to no good effect.

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Derek Turner" <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote in message news:9iib46...@mid.individual.net...

> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:13:42 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
>
>>>Of course, the preferred way to ex-
>>>press the above would be "a person
>>>with Insulinitis". The article did a
>

> [...] -itis means inflamed. If I'm not producing any then how the fsck
> can it be inflamed.

Your "itis" description is short of the
mark", and misses the point that in an
existing word, Insulitis, it's not the "Insul"
that's inflamed (see below), but rather,
in the overwhelming majority of Insulinitis
cases, the cause of the condition is
Insulitis (an existing word):
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insulitis
invasion of the pancreatic islets of Langerhans
by lymphocytes that produces an inflammatory
or autoimmune response and results in destruc-
tion of the beta cells of the pancreas

So, yes, inflammation is a part of the over-
whelming majority of Insulinitis cases and
is endemic to all Insulitis cases. However,
in Insulinitis, *all* instances of almost total
or total loss of production of insulin are
included, regardless of cause, directly
supported by the latter part of the "itis"
suffix description below:

The 'itis' suffix conveys the following:
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).

Insulinitis is an abnormal state or condition
and does include excessive focus on insulin
injections or pumped in insulin and does include
the requirement to tend to and obsess on insulin
on a 24 by 7 by 365 (366 every leap year)
basis, all included in the "itis" suffix descrip-
tion. So, Insulinitis, the ideal replacement
for type 1 diabetes, based on the fact that
both parts of the word fully describe the
nature of the condition, both the overwhelm-
ing cause (Insulitis) in almost all cases, and
the insulin injections (or pumped in insulin)
required in all cases.

Also, Insulinitis is fully independent of Cellosis
and Diminosis, fully identifying Insulinitis as
a unique condition with many disparate charac-
teristics when compared to Cellosis and Dimin-
osis, in causality, in treatment, in short-term
risks, and in degree of attention required to
prevent the most adverse short-term conse-
quence, that being death.

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

<pi...@popper.com> wrote ...

> There is no support, end of story.

The previous post defies that misrepresentation.

> Those who are the experts in fact would oppose it.

See the following post for a clue about the
challenges in addressing the human nature
to resist or oppose change, as that's a formid-
able roadblock, one I'm still working on:

Reasons to keep things the way they
are (i.e., to support the current milieu
of diabetes / diabetic core words and
all the associated lingo attached to
those words -- requires being logged
into google):
http://tinyurl.com/usingdiabetesword-words

> [...]

[W. Baker]

In misc.health.diabetes Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:

How aboaut wateritis, water set on fire when gasoline is floated on top
and ignited?

Wendy

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote ...

> In misc.health.diabetes Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:

> [...] -itis means inflamed. If I'm not producing any then how the fsck

> : can it be inflamed.
>
> How aboaut wateritis, water set on fire when gasoline is floated on top
> and ignited?
>
> Wendy

How about Insulitis, an existing word,
what about that word do you think
would inflame the anti-Insulinitis crowd?
Put another way, do you think that
group is as opposed to the Insulitis
word as they are to the Insulinitis
word? If not, why not? If so, why so,
just in ire over anything that doesn't
have the urine-steeped (and it would
seem, by some, considered almost
downright 'holy') diabetes word in it?

[John Dunlop]

Peter Duncanson (BrE):

> [John Dunlop:]

>
>> I don't know if that's allowed, talking about cretins.
>
> Derek was suffering from cretinitis - he was inflamed by a cretin.

Having read the "Deployed spouse and limo" thread, I was afraid
some participants might object to the use of the word "cretin",
given its etymology.

--
John

[Leslie Danks]

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:

>
> "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote ...
>
>> In misc.health.diabetes Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:
>
>> [...] -itis means inflamed. If I'm not producing any then how the fsck
>> : can it be inflamed.
>>
>> How aboaut wateritis, water set on fire when gasoline is floated on top
>> and ignited?
>>
>> Wendy
>
> How about Insulitis, an existing word,
> what about that word do you think
> would inflame the anti-Insulinitis crowd?
> Put another way, do you think that
> group is as opposed to the Insulitis
> word as they are to the Insulinitis
> word? If not, why not? If so, why so,
> just in ire over anything that doesn't
> have the urine-steeped (and it would
> seem, by some, considered almost
> downright 'holy') diabetes word in it?

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out (I have just stumbled upon
this thread), but the (non-)word "insulinitis" isn't logical. All the "itis"
words I have come across combine "itis" with a root indicating which organ
is inflamed: pancreatitis, myocarditis, rhinitis, bursitis, etc., etc.

The causes of diabetes mellitus are manifold, and it is not possible to name
the disease in terms of inflammation of a particular organ:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diabetes_mellitus#Causes>

Calling it "insulinitis" might appeal to some, but the word means
"inflammation of insulin" and, in view of the fact that insulin is a
hormone, is utter nonsense.

If you really want to replace the term "diabetes", you'll have to come up
with something more convincing than that.

--
Les
(BrE)

[pi...@popper.com]

> There is no support, end of story.

"The previous post defies that misrepresentation."

No.

> Those who are the experts in fact would oppose it.

"See the following post for a clue about the challenges in addressing
the human nature to resist or oppose change, as that's a formid- able
roadblock, one I'm still working on:"

And the road block grows by the day and each repetition of this solution
in search of a problem.

Best to take control of your type 1 diabetes in stead of magical word
play.

[Steve Hayes]

Are you using that as a pretext to introduce a religious discussion?

[Steve Hayes]

No, the preferred term is "Persons with hypothyroiditis".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The problem is real, but the suggested solution is silly, for the
reason you and others give. Like many names of diseases, "diabetes"
(even if we call it "diabetes mellitus") covers a range of what are
actually quite different diseases that have similar enough symptoms and
to be confused with one another when we knew less about them than we do
now. WIWAL "diabetes" usually meant type 1 diabetes, also called
insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, because that was a serious problem
in young children, and type 2 diabetes, or non-insulin-dependent
diabetes mellitus was not particularly well known to the general
public. There is also maturity-onset diabetes of the young (or MODY),
though to my mind a "disease" that has no symptoms and no effects, and
can only be detected from measurements on blood samples, is not a
disease (though it may of course give a warning that a disease may
appear later). In the last 50 years (and particularly the last 20)
there has been a huge increase in the frequency of type 2 diabetes
mellitus, paralleling the huge increase in obesity and excessive sugar
consumption, so that nowadays when people talk about diabetes they
usually mean type 2. Apparently the OP suffers from type 1 and feels
aggrieved by this development, and there is certainly a case for
introducing new names that are more explicit than type 1 and type 2,
and less cumbersome than the existing alternatives. However,
"insulinitis" is certainly not the answer.
> --
athel

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Leslie Danks" <leslie...@aon.at> wrote ...

> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>
>>
>> "W. Baker" <wba...@panix.com> wrote ...
>>
>>> In misc.health.diabetes Derek Turner <frd...@cesmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>> [...] -itis means inflamed. If I'm not producing any then how the fsck
>>> : can it be inflamed.
>>>
>>> How aboaut wateritis, water set on fire when gasoline is floated on top
>>> and ignited?
>>>
>>> Wendy
>>
>> How about Insulitis, an existing word,
>> what about that word do you think
>> would inflame the anti-Insulinitis crowd?
>> Put another way, do you think that
>> group is as opposed to the Insulitis
>> word as they are to the Insulinitis
>> word? If not, why not? If so, why so,
>> just in ire over anything that doesn't
>> have the urine-steeped (and it would
>> seem, by some, considered almost
>> downright 'holy') diabetes word in it?
>
> I'm sure someone has already pointed this out (I have just stumbled upon
> this thread), but the (non-)word "insulinitis" isn't logical. All the "itis"
> words I have come across combine "itis" with a root indicating which organ
> is inflamed: pancreatitis, myocarditis, rhinitis, bursitis, etc., etc.

Apparently, you haven't been paying atten-
tion; both Insulinitis and its overwhelming
cause, that being Insulitis, have inflamma-
tion as overwhelming causality. Only the
Insulinitis caused by damage to the pan-
creas due to cancer, a wound, or some
other reason, would fall outside the first
part of the itis definition and only fit into
the second part of the itis definition

> [skipped remainder of post in which
> the poster erred in both his misinter-
> pretation of the Insulinitis term and
> his failing to note my extensive list
> of new terms to replace the assorted
> terms which redefine the disparate
> conditions currently used to describe
> glucose anomalies]

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

<pi...@popper.com> wrote ...

> [skipped pill's random skips of my
> reply and pill's push for pretense
> and push to continue pumping the
> myth of the 'control'-foisters. In
> actuality my insulin-injections and
> glucose-tests typify someone who
> fits the model of having HbA1c levels
> well below that which is promoted
> by the medical community to mini-
> mize chances of long-term compli-
> cations; of course, in doing so, since
> I have Insulinitis, I'm at risk of seri-
> ous low glucose events, something
> pill pretends that folks with Insulin- ...

> ..itis can avoid, failing to note that
> everyone with Insulinitis suffers
> such events, but few in the media
> and quite a few who have Insulin-
> initis mention that rarely or not at
> all in an effort to pretend and in
> an effort to foist the 'control' myth;
> such efforts do not defy the actual
> nature of treating Insulinitis with
> intense insulin injections (or an
> insulin pump) which are *always*
> problematic with current limitations
> that treatment and the limitations
> inherent in trying to guess at insulin
> dosages and the nature of unpredic-
> table metabolism which *everyone*
> with Insulinitis must live with 24 by
> 7 by 365 (366 every leap year)]

[Ivan I. Deer]

My wife gets "inflamed" at me from time to time. Should I tack the
itis suffix onto her name? I'm afraid that might change the situation
into something more like a nuclear explosion!

[Leslie Danks]

Whether or not I have been paying attention does not affect the point I was
making, which was that the word "insulinitis" is unfit for its intended
purpose because its structure is ridiculous. Insulin cannot become inflamed
under physiological conditions.

[...]

--
Les
(BrE)

[bj]

"Leslie Danks" wrote in message
news:4ec54425$0$1587$91ce...@newsreader04.highway.telekom.at...

Whether or not I have been paying attention does not affect the point I was
making, which was that the word "insulinitis" is unfit for its intended
purpose because its structure is ridiculous. Insulin cannot become inflamed
under physiological conditions.

===========================================

Man, that takes me back about a million years to high school Latin and
college English "history and structure of the English Language" courses.
bj

[pi...@popper.com]

Instead of running after word magic take control of your type 1
diabetes.

You have made a great deal of suffering from the roller coaster effect.

Taking control is not an a1c number but to take control of that roller
coaster effect.

Lows can be lethal and there is some research to suggest they can have
other persisting effects best avoided.

An a1c is a weighted average and the highs from the peaks can contribute
to diabetic complications even with a good a1c.

All of this to say the kinds of roller coaster ride you find so
distressing should open the door for you to consider taking control of
it.

Changing a million terms does not change reality.

Denial is just not a river in egypt.

[Mike Lyle]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:10:53 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<acor...@ifr88.cnrs-mrs.fr> wrote:
>[...]

>
>The problem is real, but the suggested solution is silly, for the
>reason you and others give. Like many names of diseases, "diabetes"
>(even if we call it "diabetes mellitus") covers a range of what are
>actually quite different diseases that have similar enough symptoms and
>to be confused with one another when we knew less about them than we do

>now. [..sound comment snipped...]

Change of tack away from the medical issue:

The language point I notice here comes in the OP's "A person with type

1 diabetes is not 'a diabetic.' He or she is a person with

diabetes." I'm very tentative about this observation, but here goes.
Our age does seem to find something pejorative in referring to people
as "a [single word]", especially (maybe only?) if that word is also an
adjective. I share the discomfort to a very slight degree, presumably
from social pressure, but I really can't work out what's wrong with
the practice.

--
Mike.

[Peter Moylan]

I'm an arthritic. I've never been called that to my face, but I don't
think it would bother me.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:34:00 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

The same language point exists with people with othe conditions and
disabilities. They don't wish to be know primarily for their
disabilities.

[John Varela]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:21:56 UTC, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:45:11 +0000, John Dunlop <dunlo...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
> >Derek Turner:
> >
> >> Cretin. [...]
> >
> >I don't know if that's allowed, talking about cretins.
>
> No, the preferred term is "Persons with hypothyroiditis".

ITYM hypothyroidosis.

--
John Varela

[James Hogg]

Perverts now wish to be referred to as persons with perversions.

--
James

[James Silverton]

However, "persons with hyperthyrododitis" seems to imply that they stand
some possibility of being cured, which is unlikely. That's not to say
that "cretin" is not unkind.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net

[John Dean]

Ah - the Gershwin Brothers!

"You say hypothyroiditis
and I say hypothyroidosis
oiditis, oidosis
Hashimoto, congenital
Let's call the whole thing hypothyroidism"

They don't write them like that any more.
--
John Dean
Oxford

[Skitt]

James Hogg wrote:
> Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:
>> Mike Lyle wrote:

>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>>>> The problem is real, but the suggested solution is silly, for the
>>>> reason you and others give. Like many names of diseases, "diabetes"
>>>> (even if we call it "diabetes mellitus") covers a range of what are
>>>> actually quite different diseases that have similar enough symptoms and
>>>> to be confused with one another when we knew less about them than we do
>>>> now. [..sound comment snipped...]
>>> Change of tack away from the medical issue:
>>>
>>> The language point I notice here comes in the OP's "A person with type
>>> 1 diabetes is not 'a diabetic.' He or she is a person with
>>> diabetes." I'm very tentative about this observation, but here goes.
>>> Our age does seem to find something pejorative in referring to people
>>> as "a [single word]", especially (maybe only?) if that word is also an
>>> adjective. I share the discomfort to a very slight degree, presumably
>> >from social pressure, but I really can't work out what's wrong with
>>> the practice.
>>
>> The same language point exists with people with othe conditions and
>> disabilities. They don't wish to be know primarily for their
>> disabilities.
>
> Perverts now wish to be referred to as persons with perversions.
>

Next -- perversionally enabled.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

[Steve Hayes]

ITYM?

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 21:34:00 +0000, Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

That was my main reason for referring it to aue. "Insulinitis" was another
reason, but not the main one.

Perhaps this also related to the "got" thread, and it seems to apply to
chronic diseases or conditions:

I am diabetic.
I am a diabetic.
I have diabetes.
I've got diabetes.

Which is preferable?

I do feel slightly uncomfortable about using an adjective as a noun, even when
not speaking of a disease:

I prefer "I am human" to "I am a human", though the latter construction is
used by plenty of good writers, including English professors, so there
probably isn't anything really wrong with.

But "a person with diabetes" sounds horribly contrived to me.

I wonder if it isn't part of the carefully cultivated jollity of some
"health-care professionals" sometimes miscalled "political correctness". The
nurse who uses the first person plural instead of the second person singular
"And how are we today?"

It is the desire for an eternal optimism, a forced cheerfulness, a
banish-every-negative thought approach. Illness can be kept at arms-length by
talking about it as if were. So I don't "suffer from" Aids, I'm "living with
Aids". I don't "have" diabetes, I am "a person with diabetes"; I'm not a
leper, I'm "a person with leprosy" -- as if I could cure myself by
linguistically distancing myself from it.

As I said, it only applies to chronic illnesses, not to acute ones. It's OK to
say "I have a cold" rather than "I am a person with a cold".

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <pluac7t3u5jgi6rv1...@4ax.com>,

Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>The language point I notice here comes in the OP's "A person with type
>1 diabetes is not 'a diabetic.' He or she is a person with
>diabetes."

I am distantly acquainted with some autistic people who feel very
strongly the other way (with respect to their condition, of course).

It all depends on how strongly one's sense of identity is tied up in
the health condition.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

[Cindy Wells]

On 11/17/2011 9:14 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:

>
> ITYM?

I Think You Mean.

Cindy Wells
>
>

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:07:53 -0600, Cindy Wells <lcwel...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

In which case, no, I meant what I wrote, as a parody of the neologism invented
by Pro-Humanist whatsisname.

[R H Draney]

Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> filted:

> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>
>> The language point I notice here comes in the OP's "A person with
>> type 1 diabetes is not 'a diabetic.' He or she is a person with
>> diabetes." I'm very tentative about this observation, but here
>> goes. Our age does seem to find something pejorative in referring
>> to people as "a [single word]", especially (maybe only?) if that
>> word is also an adjective. I share the discomfort to a very
>> slight degree, presumably from social pressure, but I really
>> can't work out what's wrong with the practice.
>>
> I'm an arthritic. I've never been called that to my face, but I
> don't think it would bother me.

I'm a deuteranopic, and I don't care who calls me that....r

[Steve Hayes]

I'm a presbyopic hypermetropic myopic, and anyone who can pronounce it is
welcome to call me that, as long as they don't tell me that I belong to the
presbyopic hypermetropic myopic "community",

[Peter Moylan]

Differently perveted.

"I hope the porn channel is disabled."
"No, you sick pervert. It's normal porn."

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Leslie Danks" wrote ...

> Whether or not I have been paying attention does not affect the point I was
> making, which was that the word "insulinitis" is unfit for its intended

> purpose [...]


I re-ask the question, the existing
word Insulitis, is your opinion regard-
ing that word the same or different
than it is toward the new Insulinitis

word? If not, why not? If so, why

so?

The existing word Insulitis and the
existing itis suffix, as defined at
dictionary.com, both of which are
part of the extensive definition for the
new word Insulinitis, as defined at my
website:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Insulinitis (a new word, the extensive
definition and corroborating explanation
at my website)
http://prohuman.net/insulinitis.htm


What is Insulinitis?
(March 26, 2010; updated April 3, 2010
and January 13, 2011)

Insulinitis (also known as "type 1 diabetes"
and "juvenile diabetes", as well as insulin-
dependent diabetes*)

* Pancreas totally or near-totally unable to
produce insulin


Insulinitis Overview / Description

Insulin is a critical pancreatic hormone produced in
the islets of Langerhans, but lacking in persons with
Insulinitis.

The itis part of the new word:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/itis
a suffix used in pathological terms that denote
inflammation of an organ and hence, in extended
senses, nouns denoting abnormal states or condi-
tions, excesses, tendencies, obsessions, etc. (tele-
phonitis; baseballitis).

The itis part of that description that is applicable
in persons with Insulinitis is the part that conveys ...
"nouns denoting abnormal states or conditions,
excesses, tendencies, obsessions, etc. (telephonitis;
baseballitis)," although the condition is often related
to inflammation of an organ, as described in the
Insulinitis Cause area below.

Insulinitis entails the abnormal state or condition of
not producing Insulin + the obsession that persons
with the condition are forced to have in order to
survive the condition by injecting or pumping Insulin
to replace the Insulin production lost (although of
note, other methods, like inhalation and orally taking
insulin are currently being researched/developed).


Insulinitis Cause

Insulinitis is most often caused by Insulitis
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insulitis
invasion of the pancreatic islets of Langerhans by
lymphocytes that produces an inflammatory or
autoimmune response and results in destruction
of the beta cells of the pancreas. This causes the
lack of Insulin resulting in Insulinitis (though of
note, other causes, like surgery to remove pan-
creatic cancer, can also cause the condition).

Insulinitis often develops in children, adolescents,
and young adults, so it's sometimes called "juvenile
diabetes." Insulinitis can, however, occur at any
age. It is not contagious. You cannot catch
Insulinitis from someone who has it. Researchers
continue to study how and why Insulinitis occurs,
though the primary causality is genetic in nature,
due to heredity.


Insulinitis Research

Although there is currently no cure for Insulinitis,
research is ongoing to strive to find improved
methods of dealing with Insulinitis and, though
progress has been difficult ever since injected
Insulin was developed as a way to survive,
efforts to find a cure are ongoing.

Currently, research includes a closed-loop
artificial pancreas, islet cell transplantation,
pancreas transplants, stem cell research, leptin,
and other areas.


Insulinitis Impact

People with Insulinitis strive to deal with it via
intense on-going 24 by 7 by 365 (366 every
leap year) battling it which is required to manually
try to avoid too little glucose (which can cause
unconsciousness, even death) or too much
glucose (which can cause coma, unconscious-
ness, and death).

Insulin is of primary importance, as requisite
for survival as is the pumping of blood and the
breathing of properly oxygenated air. Insulin
must be manually delivered (via injections or
pumps, with other methods currently being
researched) for persons with Insulinitis, and
the amount of insulin given must take into
account the impact of all activities on glucose
levels, which includes food, exercise, stress,
other sicknesses, medications, and, in essence,
the totality of what is going on in the body,
metabolically.


Persons With Insulinitis Compared to
Persons Without Insulinitis

For people without Insulinitis and without other
metabolic conditions like Cellosis (aka, type 2
diabetes) or people whose pancreas tends to
send blood glucose levels too low, Insulin is
automatically released by the pancreas on
an as needed basis, in just the right amounts
to maintain blood glucose at proper levels.

A person with Insulinitis doesn't produce any
insulin automatically. Therefore, insulin must
be injected or pumped in to attempt to man-
ually take over the metabolic processes in
place. This is, at best, a challenging process
for people with Insulinitis, and at worst, a
process which can cause unconsciousness
and death.

To attempt to ascertain the blood glucose
level at any moment, a short needle prick
which provides a small drop of blood is
used in conjunction with small glucose
monitors which persons with Insulinitis
(and doctors) rely on.

Some test rarely, but most often, the tests
take place multiple times per day to try to
help with the manual dosing of insulin and
with deciding how much food to ingest, or
whether an outside normal range glucose
event is occurring.

Some use a new technology (a Continuous
Glucose Monitor-CGM) to give a constant
read-out of glucose levels, but as of yet,
they're not approved to be used without
the needle pricks mentioned above (for
calibrating and for validating CGM readings
which are outside normal ranges).

For people with Insulinitis who have not yet
been diagnosed, since they are without insulin,
the glucose builds up in the blood, causing
hyperglycemia, and will eventually lead to
ketoacidosis, coma, and death.


Insulin Needs for Persons With Insulinitis

There is currently no way to know how much
insulin to inject or pump with total confidence,
due to the variability of factors involved (men-
tioned above), and due to the unpredictable
nature of blood glucose levels. What works
perfectly today in terms of insulin-food intake-
exercise may yield a blood glucose level much
higher or much lower tomorrow. In addition,
the rate at which food is absorbed into the
blood is variable. Hence, the reference above
to the battle which persons with Insulinitis are
actively engaged in at all times.


Short-Term and Long-Term Impact of Insulinitis

Insulinitis sometimes results in very short lives
for people with the disease. Prior to the treat-
ment with insulin, everyone with Insulinitis died
due to high blood glucose levels. Now, low
blood glucose levels are most often the short-
term cause of death for people with Insulinitis.

Many people with Insulinitis suffer from serious
damage to the body's organ systems, adversely
affecting the heart, nerves, kidneys, eyes, and
other parts of the body.

This sometimes occurs to people with Insulinitis
over the short-term, but over the long-term,
most people with Insulinitis who've managed
to survive the short-term risks will experience
the problems mentioned above which, by some
estimates, reduce the life expectancy for people
with Insulinitis by an average of 15 years.


- - -

People with Insulinitis (formerly known as
"type 1 diabetics" and "juvenile diabetics").

- - -

References:

The information for this page is based on almost 50
years of having Insulinitis and on information at the
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation "What is
Type 1 Diabetes?" page.

- - -

Diabetes Bubble / Diabetes Bubble Burst
http://tinyurl.com/diabetesbubble

Table : Nature of the Diabetes Name / Names
Problems and the Solution
http://tinyurl.com/diabetesnewnames1

What is Insulinitis?
http://prohuman.net/insulinitis.htm

C.ure I.nsulinitis A.ssociation
http://prohuman.net/cureinsulinitisassociation.htm

What is Cellosis?
http://prohuman.net/cellosis.htm

Reasoning for Using Insulinitis and Cellosis
http://tinyurl.com/reasons-insulinitis-cellosis

What is Diminosis?
http://prohuman.net/diminosis.htm

- - -

Graphics:

Insulinitis - Glucose Tests
http://tinyurl.com/glucosetests1

Insulinitis - Insulin
http://tinyurl.com/insulin-overview

Insulinitis - Significant Short-Term Risks
http://tinyurl.com/insulinitis-risks

- - -

Other support for name changes for the diabetes /
diabetic core words and all the associated lingo
attached to those words (requires being logged
into google):
http://tinyurl.com/diabetesnewnames2

Reasons to keep things the way they are (i.e., to
support the current milieu of diabetes / diabetic
core words and all the associated lingo attached
to those words (requires being logged into google):
http://tinyurl.com/usingdiabetesword-words

- - -

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

- - -

Your assessment and recommendations are
typically flawed. Let's hear about your
condition, assuming (of course) that your
participation in these newsgroups is due
to your having an unspecified glucose
anomaly.

What condition do you have? Be specific
do you have Cellosis (which one can only
presume, since your moniker is pill popper,
but which you've been reticent to acknow-
ledge), or do you have Insulinitis or do
you have Diminosis or do you have some
other glucose anomaly?

What caused your condition? Be specific.

What treatments have you engaged in for
your condition (intially, and all changes
since then)?

How long have you had your condition
and at what age were you diagnosed
with your condition?

How does your condition differ from my
condition, and how does your condition
resemble the characteristics of my con-
dition?

[Leslie Danks]

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:

>
> "Leslie Danks" wrote ...
>
>> Whether or not I have been paying attention does not affect the point I
>> was making, which was that the word "insulinitis" is unfit for its
>> intended purpose [...]
>
>
> I re-ask the question, the existing
> word Insulitis, is your opinion regard-
> ing that word the same or different
> than it is toward the new Insulinitis
> word? If not, why not? If so, why
> so?
>
> The existing word Insulitis and the
> existing itis suffix, as defined at
> dictionary.com, both of which are
> part of the extensive definition for the
> new word Insulinitis, as defined at my
> website:
>

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insulitis>
<quote>
Medical Dictionary
in·su·li·tis definition
Pronunciation: /ˌin(t)-sə-ˈlīt-əs/
Function: n
: invasion of the pancreatic islets of Langerhans by lymphocytes that

produces an inflammatory or autoimmune response and results in destruction
of the beta cells of the pancreas.

</quote>

I am not an etymologist, but I see a clear connection between "islets" and
words such as "insular" ("insula" is Latin for "island). Thus "insulitis"
would appear to a perfectly logical construction according to the above
definition: inflammation of the islets of Langerhans.

"Insulinitis", on the other hand, suggests "inflammation of insulin", which,
as I pointed out in my first post, is nonsense. I do not object to your
wanting a new word, but IMO "insulinitis" simply isn't it.

[snipped for brevity]

--
Les (BrE)

[John Dunlop]

Steve Hayes:

> As I said, it only applies to chronic illnesses, not to acute ones. It's OK to
> say "I have a cold" rather than "I am a person with a cold".

Or, as we say here, "I have the cold" or "I've got the cold".

--
John

[R H Draney]

Steve Hayes filted:

>
>It is the desire for an eternal optimism, a forced cheerfulness, a
>banish-every-negative thought approach. Illness can be kept at arms-length by
>talking about it as if were. So I don't "suffer from" Aids, I'm "living with
>Aids". I don't "have" diabetes, I am "a person with diabetes"; I'm not a
>leper, I'm "a person with leprosy" -- as if I could cure myself by
>linguistically distancing myself from it.
>
>As I said, it only applies to chronic illnesses, not to acute ones. It's OK to
>say "I have a cold" rather than "I am a person with a cold".

I'm not a critic; I'm a person with a crisis....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Mike Lyle]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:03:37 +0200, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On 18 Nov 2011 08:19:04 GMT, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter Moylan <inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> filted:
>>
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The language point I notice here comes in the OP's "A person with
>>>> type 1 diabetes is not 'a diabetic.' He or she is a person with
>>>> diabetes." I'm very tentative about this observation, but here
>>>> goes. Our age does seem to find something pejorative in referring
>>>> to people as "a [single word]", especially (maybe only?) if that
>>>> word is also an adjective. I share the discomfort to a very
>>>> slight degree, presumably from social pressure, but I really
>>>> can't work out what's wrong with the practice.
>>>>
>>> I'm an arthritic. I've never been called that to my face, but I
>>> don't think it would bother me.
>>
>>I'm a deuteranopic, and I don't care who calls me that....r
>
>I'm a presbyopic hypermetropic myopic, and anyone who can pronounce it is
>welcome to call me that, as long as they don't tell me that I belong to the
>presbyopic hypermetropic myopic "community",

You people in the unsociable community are all the same.

--
Mike.

[Mike Lyle]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 04:17:31 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>In article <pluac7t3u5jgi6rv1...@4ax.com>,
>Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The language point I notice here comes in the OP's "A person with type
>>1 diabetes is not 'a diabetic.' He or she is a person with
>>diabetes."
>
>I am distantly acquainted with some autistic people who feel very
>strongly the other way (with respect to their condition, of course).
>
>It all depends on how strongly one's sense of identity is tied up in
>the health condition.
>

OK, but I'm still not quite sure how the language of it works.
Strangely, when I raised the subject, I forgot that I could offer
personal tesimony. I'm prone to depression, and don't mind saying so;
but would only say "I'm a depressive" if I were being flippant or for
some other special purpose. I think I'd dislike it a lot if somebody
else called me "a depressive". No problem if somebody called me "a
redhead" when I was one; but I don't see why it's different. (In some
circles red hair is probably perceived as a more obvious disadvantage
than depression.)

--
Mike.

[Garrett Wollman]

In article <1kndc7d5hgu9ei611...@4ax.com>,

Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 04:17:31 +0000 (UTC), wol...@bimajority.org
>(Garrett Wollman) wrote:

>>I am distantly acquainted with some autistic people who feel very
>>strongly the other way (with respect to their condition, of course).

>OK, but I'm still not quite sure how the language of it works.

Well, in this case, you have to know that a number[1] of
high-functioning autists strongly object to language that suggests
that they "have a disease", which is the conclusion they draw from the
autism charities' suggested PC circumlocution, "person with autism".
In their view (to the best I understand it), this presupposes that
there is something *wrong* with them that ought to be "cured" ("this
monster that took my child away"), with which they profoundly
disagree. There are apparently "pro-cure" and "anti-cure" factions.
(Compare "Deaf".) The largest autism charity, Autism Speaks, is often
singled out for opprobrium; opponents claim that it should really be
called "Parents of Autistic Children Speak".[2]

-GAWollman

[1] This is my weaselly way of implying that I don't know how
prevalent this viewpoint is.

[2] Hence the slogan "Autism Speaks Doesn't Speak For Me".

[John Varela]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:34:36 UTC, Steve Hayes
<haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> I'm not a leper, I'm "a person with leprosy"

More precisely, you're a person with Hansen's disease. It had
already occurred to me that the change in terminology from "leprosy"
to "Hansen's disease" gives a little, but not much, hope for
Pro-Humanist's campaign to change the terminology for diabetes.

--
John Varela

[Steve Hayes]

There might be an opening for Up Syndrome to complement Down Syndrome.

[willbill]

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:28:26 +0000 (UTC), Alan Mackenzie <a...@muc.de> wrote:

> For visitors to mhd from aue, please be aware that the OP has been trying
> to foist his "words" onto us for, perhaps, two years, now[*]. This despite
> a full discussion of the issue at the beginning, which resulted in a firm
> thumbs down, followed by several polite requests to desist, arguments, and
> occasional expletives.
>
> [*] Feel free to criticize my use of commas here. :-)
>
> The same request as always: Please don't feed the troll.

+1

Bill t1 since '57

[R H Draney]

Steve Hayes filted:

>
>On 19 Nov 2011 00:20:46 GMT, "John Varela" <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:34:36 UTC, Steve Hayes
>><haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm not a leper, I'm "a person with leprosy"
>>
>>More precisely, you're a person with Hansen's disease. It had
>>already occurred to me that the change in terminology from "leprosy"
>>to "Hansen's disease" gives a little, but not much, hope for
>>Pro-Humanist's campaign to change the terminology for diabetes.
>
>There might be an opening for Up Syndrome to complement Down Syndrome.

No such luck...the name has already been claimed by some who actually *have*
Down Syndrome but felt that it sounded too negative...(see also the religious
wackos who answer the phone "heaven-o")....r

[John Holmes]

Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote:

>
> The same language point exists with people with othe conditions and
> disabilities. They don't wish to be know primarily for their
> disabilities.

How long will it be before we see the same logic applied to abilities as to
disabilities?

She is not a concert pianist; she is a person with classico-pianofortistic
ability.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

[Alan Mackenzie]

Good morning, Garrett!

Here's a suggestion. Being a diabetic doesn't, or only slightly, limit
ones (?one's) social interractions, ones normality. Being a depressive,
at least in the public imagination, much more so. The same is true of
being a leper, with the same qualification. So to call somebody "a
depressive" is to suggest that they're subnormal, that the depression
makes them not worth dealing with.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Leslie Danks" <leslie...@aon.at> wrote ...

> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:

>> "Leslie Danks" wrote ...

>>> Whether or not I have been paying attention does not affect the point I
>>> was making, which was that the word "insulinitis" is unfit for its
>>> intended purpose [...]

>> I re-ask the question, the existing
>> word Insulitis, is your opinion regard-
>> ing that word the same or different
>> than it is toward the new Insulinitis
>> word? If not, why not? If so, why
>> so?
>>
>> The existing word Insulitis and the
>> existing itis suffix, as defined at
>> dictionary.com, both of which are
>> part of the extensive definition for the
>> new word Insulinitis, as defined at my
>> website:

the following, in the original reply, but
left off, with part copied and placed in
Leslie's reply as if Leslie was responsible
for it, when point it fact, he copied it
from the original post, part of which is
re-inserted below:

The existing word Insulitis and the
existing itis suffix, as defined at
dictionary.com, both of which are
part of the extensive definition for the
new word Insulinitis, as defined at my
website:

invasion of the pancreatic islets of Langerhans by
lymphocytes that produces an inflammatory or
autoimmune response and results in destruction

of the beta cells of the pancreas. This causes the
lack of Insulin resulting in Insulinitis (though of
note, other causes, like surgery to remove pan-
creatic cancer, can also cause the condition).

[...]


> [...]

> I am not an etymologist, but I see a clear connection between "islets" and
> words such as "insular" ("insula" is Latin for "island). Thus "insulitis"
> would appear to a perfectly logical construction according to the above
> definition: inflammation of the islets of Langerhans.
>
> "Insulinitis", on the other hand, suggests "inflammation of insulin", which,
> as I pointed out in my first post, is nonsense. I do not object to your
> wanting a new word, but IMO "insulinitis" simply isn't it.

Noted, your leaving out almost all of
my detailed reply, including leaving out
the "itis" suffix definition, as well as
copying the insulitis definition present
at my website, and inserting it in your
post, ignoring its presence at my web-
site. You're intentionally working to
misrepresent the bounteous support
for Insulinitis present at my website.

So, you support the word Insulitis but
oppose the word Insulinitis. Thanks
for being clear in you support for
Insulitis which in your mind does
*not* mean inflammation of insul
but you oppose Insulinititis because
in your mind it means inflammation
of insulin. In either case, the latter
part of the itis description mates to
both Insulitis and Insulinitis, and the
inflammation which you support in
Insulitis is also present in Insulinitis
as insula is present in both Insulitis
and Insulinitis.

You're merely nitpicking by supporting
Insulitis but opposing Insulinitis and
the definition of the itis suffix applies
to both. Clearly, "insulin" is required
for all conditions in which insulin pro-
duction is totally or almost totally
lost. Clearly, Insulitis is the cause
in the overwhelming majority of cases,
and clearly Insulinitis is a superior term
when you consider the presence of the
loss of insulin in everyone who loses
their insulin production (whether due
to Insulitis or due to some other con-
dition like cancer or a serious wound
to the pancreas).

The key to *every* total or almost
total loss of insulin production is the
injection or pumping of insulin, pre-
sent in everyone with Insulinitis, a
condition which requires insulin to
be injected or pumped to stay alive,
a condition caused, in the overwhelm-
ing majority of cases (not all), by
Insulitis.

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

C.ure I.nsulinitis A.ssociation
http://prohuman.net/cureinsulinitisassociation.htm

- - -

[Leslie Danks]

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:

>
> "Leslie Danks" <leslie...@aon.at> wrote ...
>
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
>
>>> "Leslie Danks" wrote ...
>
>>>> Whether or not I have been paying attention does not affect the point I
>>>> was making, which was that the word "insulinitis" is unfit for its
>>>> intended purpose [...]
>
>>> I re-ask the question, the existing
>>> word Insulitis, is your opinion regard-
>>> ing that word the same or different
>>> than it is toward the new Insulinitis
>>> word? If not, why not? If so, why
>>> so?
>>>
>>> The existing word Insulitis and the
>>> existing itis suffix, as defined at
>>> dictionary.com, both of which are
>>> part of the extensive definition for the
>>> new word Insulinitis, as defined at my
>>> website:
>
> the following, in the original reply, but
> left off, with part copied and placed in
> Leslie's reply as if Leslie was responsible
> for it, when point it fact, he copied it
> from the original post,

I did nothing of the sort. I copied the definition of insulitis directly
from Dictionary.com and stated clearly what I was quoting. All I did with
your voluminous post was to snip most of it.

> part of which is
> re-inserted below:
>
> The existing word Insulitis and the
> existing itis suffix, as defined at
> dictionary.com, both of which are
> part of the extensive definition for the
> new word Insulinitis, as defined at my
> website:

You can define as many new words as you like and suggest their adoption by
the world at large with as many arguments--reasonable, spurious or downright
silly--as you want to. If the world at large decides to reject your
suggestion, tough. I have expressed my opinion of your suggestion, with my
reasons for rejecting it. You are at liberty to disagree; I think I can
stand your calling me a nit-picker. In view of the straightforwardness of
the argument I proffered, I refuse to be drawn into a long-winded discussion
which has no chance of changing my viewpoint.

How many people have you persuaded so far? How many of them possess
authoritative knowledge of diabetes?

--
Les
(BrE)

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

The insulitis definition has been pre-
sented many times, by yours truly,
and directly preceded your offering
of it, and you used the same exact
web address I've used multiple times.
As for your decling to acknowledge
that fact, obviously, you're being
disingenuous.

>
>> part of which is
>> re-inserted below:
>>
>> The existing word Insulitis and the
>> existing itis suffix, as defined at
>> dictionary.com, both of which are
>> part of the extensive definition for the
>> new word Insulinitis, as defined at my
>> website:

> You can define as many new words as you like and suggest their adoption by
> the world at large

See my sig for the list of new words to
replace the urine-steeped diabetes/
diabetic core words -and- group of
multi-word phrases.


> with as many arguments--reasonable,

Yes.

> spurious

No.

> or downright silly

Refer to your reasoning for accepting the
Insulitis word while rejecting the Insulinitis
word for a clear example of that.

> --as you want to. If the world at large decides to reject your
> suggestion, tough.

It takes time to get new words accepted.
The diabetes word, it's been around for
close to 2,000 years. Hence, the difficulty
in changing mindsets, despite the clear
problematic nature which its continued
use inflicts upon everyone.

> I have expressed my opinion of your suggestion,

You, above, commented you ignored my
documentation of the Insulinitis term,
while at the same time copying part
of it that you liked, taking credit for
that part, and ignoring the rest. Not
a credible approach on your part.

> with my
> reasons for rejecting it.

The only reason you gave is that you
like Insulitis, because insular is part
of it, but you dislike Insulinitis, despite
insular being part of it, because it in-
cludes an "in" after insul. Rather weak,
don't you think?

> You are at liberty to disagree; I think I can
> stand your calling me a nit-picker. In view of the straightforwardness of
> the argument I proffered, I refuse to be drawn into a long-winded discussion
> which has no chance of changing my viewpoint.

Your refusal to acknowledge the nature
of the "itis" definition, as if it doesn't
exist or is to be disregarded when it
counters your argument, weakens
your case.

>
> How many people have you persuaded so far?

Documented in the post you say you didn't
read.

> How many of them possess
> authoritative knowledge of diabetes?

Diabetes? What's that? Oh, that's right,
that's the old urine-steeped term in which
no one can tell if a person has Insulinitis,
if a person's condition was caused by
Insulitis, if a person has Cellosis, if a
person has Diminosis, if a person has
some other High Glucose Condition, if
a person has Insipidus, or if the refer-
ence is intended to apply to all High
Glucose Conditions.

I suggest, we can do better. See my
sig for links to detailed documentation
on that better way.

[willbill]

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:17:58 -0500, "bj" <bjon...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:

> Whether or not I have been paying attention does not affect the point I was
> making, which was that the word "insulinitis" is unfit for its intended

> purpose because its structure is ridiculous. Insulin cannot become inflamed
> under physiological conditions.

IMO you should consider plonking posts by this Pro-Humanist idiot.
FWIW that's what I've done, adding only that I don't plonk many.

bill t1 since '57

[Leslie Danks]

I have promoted him from "Normal" to "Ignore". I, too, rarely plonk, and
only then if the plonkee posts sufficiently often to be a nuisance.

--
Les
(BrE)

[Mike Lyle]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:59:34 +0100, Leslie Danks <leslie...@aon.at>
wrote:

The trouble with killfiling individuals is that you don't necessarily
realise at first that a thread is over-full of the undesirable; and
the trouble with barring provenances or crosspostings is that you may
miss some perfectly sensible contributions. The ideal killfiling
situation, in which a known loon or gobshite sets up a thread and
nobody much ever joins in, doesn't really need any action at all.

--
Mike.

[John Holmes]

Mike Lyle wrote:
>
> The trouble with killfiling individuals is that you don't necessarily
> realise at first that a thread is over-full of the undesirable; and
> the trouble with barring provenances or crosspostings is that you may
> miss some perfectly sensible contributions. The ideal killfiling
> situation, in which a known loon or gobshite sets up a thread and
> nobody much ever joins in, doesn't really need any action at all.

Another way to do it is to highlight the leading loons in conspicuous
colours. Then you can skip any branches of threads that do not accord with
the colour of your mood, or which look too technicolor altogether. Many
newsreaders can do that.

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

Insulinitis, I've had it over 50 years.

Survival, continued, well, depending on
how one assesses the 4 to 8 percent
chance of dying during a severe hypo-
glycemic event, my chances are 92 to
96 percent, as is everyone who has
Insulinitis.

Don't know if the longer one has it
one's chances of survival in that regard
are reduced or increased, as people
with Insulinitis of a wide range of ages
have been reported to have died due
to a severe hypoglycemic event.

As for fixing/correcting the confusion
and misleading which transpires when
the diabetes/diabetic core word is
used without clarifiers, an open mind
and kind and considerate heart, along
with actually listening to alternative
points of view, and offering other sug-
gestions if one has them, that would
be of value.

Love, all we need is love. A cure, that
would be the greatest love one could
offer to those of us with Insulinitis. A
much-improved treatment, that would
be great, too.

All my love. Let's unite for change, for
a better way, for a much better world
than it would be if most just go along
with the way things are no matter what
problems exist.

When someone (like me, for example)
sticks his or her neck out trying to make
a difference, love them, don't chop their
neck off.

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

Follow-up:

This morning, woke up with a 52
at 6:41. Gave 7 Novolog, 24 Levemir.
Eating today, same as yesterday.
At 7:53, glucose of 101. At 8:53,
glucose of 91. At 9:56, glucose
of 47. Ate one toast.

Yesterday, at 6:25, woke up with
a 115. At 8:04, glucose was 140.
At 9:39, glucose was 146. Eating,
standard breakfast, 29 grams of
carb, both days.

Today? Same deal, dramatic-
ally different result, as all with
Insulinitis know, 47 is not what
one wants, and in my case, is
only 17 away from a near-uncon-
sciousness event (in my case,
I'm fortunate to not go uncon-
scious, yet, today).

Please, please, please, guys and
gals, play nice -- even if you don't
agree with me, you can do it in
a way that's nicer than many have
been to-date, in the 2 primary news-
groups I post to (although, now, I
try to focus on misc.health.diabetes).

Oh well, if I continue to live, and
this morning, I expect I avoided
an unconciousness event, but as
everyone knows, that's a risk that
everyone with Insulinitis endures
with every insulin-giving decision ...

All my best to everyone with Insulinitis,
I love you guys and gals, let's survive
and defeat this disease, with a cure
or a much-improved treatment, regard-
less of what we (and others) choose
to call it.

Thanks. Later (hopefully) ...

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <proh...@cableone.net>
wrote in message news:jag81o$u04$1...@dont-email.me...

[pi...@popper.com]

There is no salvation from the roller coaster effect in word magic.

It is time you take control of your type 1 diabetes and stop whining.

[Alan Mackenzie]

In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> Follow-up:

> Please, please, please, guys and
> gals, play nice -- even if you don't
> agree with me, you can do it in
> a way that's nicer than many have
> been to-date, in the 2 primary news-
> groups I post to (although, now, I
> try to focus on misc.health.diabetes).

Playing nice is a mutual thing. If you don't wan't to use the "es" word,
you don't have to. Indeed, you don't, you use the prolix circumlocution
"high glucose condition" instead. That grates a bit, but is tolerable.
"Low glucose event" in place of the universally accepted "hypo" also
grates somewhat.

What is not tolerable, for me, is the "itis" "word" and its friends.
Having them thrust upon me is like being spat at in the face. Please
don't try and debate this with me, just accept it. I cope with this by
avoiding your posts, or sometimes skimming over them. Judging by the
number of people who don't respond to your posts, it seems I'm not the
only one.

Recently the good folks on alt.english.usage, coming fresh to the topic,
also condemned "itis". Can you not accept their point of view?

In the last year or two the amount of traffic on mhd has dropped to near
zero, apart from your posts and some spam. I think this is to do with
your "itis"ing, which is why I've called you a troll. Newsgroups die
when trolls get a hold, and it looks like mhd is dying. I find this very
sad.

Please just stop using "itis". You don't have to use "es" if you don't
want to, you're clever enough with words to avoid both of these. We all
know by now what you're suffering from.

Let's all just play nice.

> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote ...

> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
> <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>> Follow-up:
>>
>> Please, please, please, guys and
>> gals, play nice -- even if you don't
>> agree with me, you can do it in
>> a way that's nicer than many have
>> been to-date, in the 2 primary news-
>> groups I post to (although, now, I
>> try to focus on misc.health.diabetes).

>> [Alan left off most of my reply
>> without noting that he left it
>> off; I included all of Alan's reply,
>> including his objectionable
>> contentious comments]

> Playing nice is a mutual thing. If you don't wan't to use the "es" word,
> you don't have to. Indeed, you don't, you use the prolix circumlocution
> "high glucose condition" instead. That grates a bit, but is tolerable.
> "Low glucose event" in place of the universally accepted "hypo" also
> grates somewhat.
>
> What is not tolerable, for me, is the "itis" "word" and its friends.
> Having them thrust upon me is like being spat at in the face.

That's a ridiculous and absurd comment.
A new word is *not* anything like that,
and Insulinitis is promotable as a replace-
ment for both the type 1 diabetes and
juvenile diabetes phrases, as well as
the insulin-dependent phrase most
often used in place of type 1 diabetes,
but sometimes incorrectly used even
when a person who has signficant
production of insulin in their pancreas
(and has Cellosis or Diminosis or some
other High Glucose Condition) is being
treated with insulin injections along with
oral medications.

> 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).

> just accept it. I cope with this by
> avoiding your posts, or sometimes skimming over them. Judging by the
> number of people who don't respond to your posts, it seems I'm not the
> only one.
>
> Recently the good folks on alt.english.usage, coming fresh to the topic,
> also condemned "itis". Can you not accept their point of view?

Garnering support for the new terms is a
difficult process for the reasons I've clearly
iterated elsewhere. Lack of support (thus
far) is a difficult challenge to overcome,
but efforts to silence me will not succeed;
only a better word will switch my support
for Insulinitis to some other word in place
of type 1 diabetes / juvenile diabetes /
insulin-dependent diabetes / diabetes
without a core word which oft-times is
used to pertain solely to the previously
mentioned condition and which oft-times
is used to pertain solely to other High
Glucose Conditions or to another speci-
fic High Glucose Condition or to a con-
dition which has nothing to do with high
glucose (that being Insipidus).

Your wanting to pretend that those prob-
lems don't exist (or don't matter) won't
make those problems go away.

> In the last year or two the amount of traffic on mhd has dropped to near
> zero, apart from your posts and some spam. I think this is to do with
> your "itis"ing, which is why I've called you a troll. Newsgroups die
> when trolls get a hold, and it looks like mhd is dying. I find this very
> sad.

The newsgroup posting is at an all-time
low on all newsgroups. I suspect that's
due to the popularity of facebook, but
I don't know why facebook (and twitter)
are so popular.

> Please just stop using "itis".

No. Your comments above are un-
supported by logic or reason nor do
they recognize all of the confusion
and misunderstanding which results
from the plethora of diabetes and
diabetic (without clarifiers), mentions
which promote that confusion and
misunderstanding. By the way, other
alternatives, such as Riva Greenberg's
betasin, are you open to those or are
you opposed to all efforts to try to
replace the terminology mentioned
in the links available via my sig?

> You don't have to use "es" if you don't
> want to, you're clever enough with words
> to avoid both of these. We all know by
> now what you're suffering from.
>
> Let's all just play nice.

>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[Alan Mackenzie]

In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

> "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote ...

>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>> <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>>> Follow-up:

>>> Please, please, please, guys and
>>> gals, play nice -- even if you don't
>>> agree with me, you can do it in
>>> a way that's nicer than many have
>>> been to-date, in the 2 primary news-
>>> groups I post to (although, now, I
>>> try to focus on misc.health.diabetes).

> [Alan left off most of my reply
> without noting that he left it
> off; I included all of Alan's reply,
> including his objectionable
> contentious comments]

Yes, I omitted most of your post. It was something like 150 lines long,
which even with you narrow lines is very long. Doing so is a Usenet
convention of long standing. But OK, I'll indicate where I've omitted
things from now on.

>> Playing nice is a mutual thing. If you don't wan't to use the "es" word,
>> you don't have to. Indeed, you don't, you use the prolix circumlocution
>> "high glucose condition" instead. That grates a bit, but is tolerable.
>> "Low glucose event" in place of the universally accepted "hypo" also
>> grates somewhat.

>> What is not tolerable, for me, is the "itis" "word" and its friends.
>> Having them thrust upon me is like being spat at in the face.

> That's a ridiculous and absurd comment.

Please don't tell me that my visceral reaction is ridiculous. It's what
it is, and I'm ashamed neither of it nor telling you about it.

> A new word is *not* anything like that,
> and Insulinitis is promotable as a replace-
> ment for both the type 1 diabetes and
> juvenile diabetes phrases, as well as
> the insulin-dependent phrase most
> often used in place of type 1 diabetes,
> but sometimes incorrectly used even
> when a person who has signficant
> production of insulin in their pancreas
> (and has Cellosis or Diminosis or some
> other High Glucose Condition) is being
> treated with insulin injections along with
> oral medications.

There's nothing new in that paragraph, nor anything new to say about it.

>> Please don't try and debate this with me,

> Debate requires inclusion of the entirety

> of someone's reply, ......

No it does not. The paragraph of yours I answered was logically distinct
from the rest of your post, thus can be argued separately.

> .... something you (in

> this particular post) did not do (and you
> left off most of my reply without any
> indication you had done so).

See above.

>> just accept it. I cope with this by
>> avoiding your posts, or sometimes skimming over them. Judging by the
>> number of people who don't respond to your posts, it seems I'm not the
>> only one.

>> Recently the good folks on alt.english.usage, coming fresh to the topic,
>> also condemned "itis". Can you not accept their point of view?

> Garnering support for the new terms is a
> difficult process for the reasons I've clearly
> iterated elsewhere. Lack of support (thus
> far) is a difficult challenge to overcome,
> but efforts to silence me will not succeed;
> only a better word will switch my support
> for Insulinitis to some other word in place
> of type 1 diabetes / juvenile diabetes /
> insulin-dependent diabetes / diabetes
> without a core word which oft-times is
> used to pertain solely to the previously
> mentioned condition and which oft-times
> is used to pertain solely to other High
> Glucose Conditions or to another speci-
> fic High Glucose Condition or to a con-
> dition which has nothing to do with high
> glucose (that being Insipidus).

Again, nothing to reply to here that hasn't been discussed many times
before. Except the question, why can you not accept the likely expert
views of the posters on alt.usage.english?

> Your wanting to pretend that those prob-
> lems don't exist (or don't matter) won't
> make those problems go away.

Maybe these are problems. Maybe they're not that serious. Maybe your
solution is worse than the problem. Maybe, just maybe, you're blowing
things out of all proportion. The last three of these aren't things
you've been willing to discuss.

>> In the last year or two the amount of traffic on mhd has dropped to near
>> zero, apart from your posts and some spam. I think this is to do with
>> your "itis"ing, which is why I've called you a troll. Newsgroups die
>> when trolls get a hold, and it looks like mhd is dying. I find this very
>> sad.

> 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 and I haven't seen any spam there yet.
comp.lang.c is lively and vibrant. So is rec.juggling, just to mention
three groups I post in or lurk on. misc.health.diabetes never had that
many posts, but ~2 years ago there was an open exchange of views and
lively debate here.

> I suspect that's
> due to the popularity of facebook, but
> I don't know why facebook (and twitter)
> are so popular.

>> Please just stop using "itis".

> No. Your comments above are un-
> supported by logic or reason

Again, manifestly untrue. You seem to be closing your mind off to any
sort of logic or reason which doesn't concur with you own views.

> nor do
> they recognize all of the confusion
> and misunderstanding which results
> from the plethora of diabetes and
> diabetic (without clarifiers), mentions
> which promote that confusion and
> misunderstanding. By the way, other
> alternatives, such as Riva Greenberg's
> betasin, are you open to those or are
> you opposed to all efforts to try to
> replace the terminology mentioned
> in the links available via my sig?

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.

Think about it, misc.health.diabetes is nearly dead. Do you want it to
die completely?

[ Snipped bits of my own last post. ]

[Leslie Danks]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net>
> wrote:

[...]

> Think about it, misc.health.diabetes is nearly dead. Do you want it to
> die completely?

It might die of itisitis (c).

> [ Snipped bits of my own last post. ]

--

Les
(BrE)

[John Williamson]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

<Drivel snipped>

>> - - -
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>

Alan, the OP here is well known as a nutter who has a bee in his bonnet
about him being the only one in the world who is right. We're all wrong,
and always will be, no matter what logic we use to refute his claptrap.

My newsreader just marks his posts as read, so I don't need to open them.

I note from some of his posts that using the wrong terminology hasn't
helped him control his diabetes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Peter Moylan]

If he's trying to treat inflammation of the insulin, he's attacking the
wrong symptom.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Steve Hayes]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 12:06:40 +1100, Peter Moylan
<inv...@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>John Williamson wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net>
>>> wrote:
>>
>> <Drivel snipped>
>>>> - - -
>>>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>>>
>> Alan, the OP here is well known as a nutter who has a bee in his bonnet
>> about him being the only one in the world who is right. We're all wrong,
>> and always will be, no matter what logic we use to refute his claptrap.
>>
>> My newsreader just marks his posts as read, so I don't need to open them.
>>
>> I note from some of his posts that using the wrong terminology hasn't
>> helped him control his diabetes.
>>
>If he's trying to treat inflammation of the insulin, he's attacking the
>wrong symptom.

Perhaps he should call it "hot cockalorum".

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

Here's what's showing up on my server (recently)
in alt.english.usage:

112511 ... 16
112411 ... 8
112311 ... 3
112211 ... 17
112111 ... 3
112011 ... 10
111911 ... 11

Total ...... 68

> and I haven't seen any spam there yet.
> comp.lang.c is lively and vibrant. So is rec.juggling, just to mention
> three groups I post in or lurk on. misc.health.diabetes never had that
> many posts, but ~2 years ago there was an open exchange of views and
> lively debate here.

>> I suspect that's
>> due to the popularity of facebook, but
>> I don't know why facebook (and twitter)
>> are so popular.

>>> Please just stop using "itis".

>> No. Your comments above are un-
>> supported by logic or reason

> Again, manifestly untrue. You seem to be closing your mind off to any
> sort of logic or reason which doesn't concur with you own views.

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. 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.

Ideal, that, logical, reasonable, totally
and manifestly mating to the totality of
the experience of dealing with Insulitis,
and the latter part, for those who lost
insulin function due to cancer, wound,
or some other condition (a very small
percent of the total number who've lost
insulin production), it applies to them,
too, the Insulinitis word.

>> nor do
>> they recognize all of the confusion
>> and misunderstanding which results
>> from the plethora of diabetes and
>> diabetic (without clarifiers), mentions
>> which promote that confusion and
>> misunderstanding. By the way, other
>> alternatives, such as Riva Greenberg's
>> betasin, are you open to those or are
>> you opposed to all efforts to try to
>> replace the terminology mentioned
>> in the links available via my sig?

> 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" ?

I assure you, my intentions are to propose
fixes for the problematic diabetes nomen-
clature, and if that offends you, I don't see
what I can do about that other than offer
logical and reasonable positions for ceasing
use of the diabetes nomenclature and for
replacing all that with the new terms I've
been promoting since I came up with them,
relatively recently (in March-April-May, 2010).

>
> 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.

Anyone can post anything anywhere, unless
one is in an area in which individuals choose
to censor their posts. I suspect, Facebook has
that characteristic (censorship) in quite a few
of their forums, but in any case, usenet news-
groups have both the advantage and disadvan-
tage of being able to post anything anywhere
in unmoderated forums, albeit in the past many
entities have tried to censor advertising spam
(don't see much of that in here, advertising
spam, and come to think of it, I don't run
across much of that in most venues I view,
unless you include the ads that appear in
most web articles, and in Facebook, some-
where on the page).

>
> [ Snipped bits of my own last post. ]
>
>> - - -
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"John Williamson" <johnwil...@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.

Dealing with my condition, that condition
being Insulinitis, a condition that an esti-
mated 500,000 to 1.3 million to 3 million
Americans have (and no, I haven't been
able to track down details on those num-
bers, why they're so poorly documented,
or how to track down what the actual
number of persons with the condition is ...

... but I have tracked down how the percent
with the condition is miniscule and decreas-
ing relative to the huge dramatically esca-
lating number with Cellosis, and how the
propensity to get the condition of Insulinitis
varies widely based on one's ethnicity and
place of birth), I've been **great** at doing
that (dealing with Insulinitis) ever since I
got the condition in March of 1961 (great,
but not perfect, and control, that word is
an abomination, nowhere near what the
actual nature of dealing with this condition
is).

Methods? Well-documented. Success in
having low HbA1c readings, well-docu-
mented. Hypoglycemia, well documented.
Control, that's what everyone without a
glucose anomaly has. Everyone, with
no effort whatsoever. They exercise /
don't exercise / eat / don't eat / drink /
stress out / relax / participate in life on
an unihibited free basis, 24 by 7 by 365
(366 every leap year) freed from the bur-
dens that folks with Insulinitis (and to a
lesser degree in most cases, that folks
with other glucose anomalies) must deal
with to stay alive. Their pancreases, every
last one of them, perfectly releasing the
'right' amount of insulin, always, perfectly
in tune with whatever they eat or don't
eat, magnificent.

We with Insulinitis, we don't have that,
not at all, not for one second of any day
or night, nada/nothing/zilch is the deal
when it comes to our pancreases, they
were attacked (and for many, that attack
came when we were young) inexplicably,
and due to that fact, we must pay the
price for the rest of our lives (constantly,
unless a cure or a much-improved treat-
ment becomes widely and affordably
available).

Right now, I'm dealing with having no
insulin production. In fact, every second
of every day and night, I'm dealing with
that. The fact I'm doing so, that's why
I and every individual with this condition
is alive, dealing with this condition on an
ongoing basis, all the time.

The fact that we have no insulin production,
and must incessantly guess at the amount
of insulin to inject or pump to stay alive
without having that guess kill us, that's the
actual nature of the beast we wrestle with,
an ongoing battle in which we sometimes
win, and we sometimes lose, but *always*,
it's a battle, and as in every war, no matter
how well-armed or well-prepared you are,
no matter how much effort and will you put
into winning, sometimes you lose. Such is
the nature of the beast.

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[pi...@popper.com]

Best to stop doing rambling whining posts and take control of your type
1 diabetes.

[Steve Hayes]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:30:46 -0600, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
<proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>
>"John Williamson" <johnwil...@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.

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Steve Hayes" <haye...@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).

Sincerely,

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Alan Mackenzie]

In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

> "John Williamson" <johnwil...@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?

[ .... ]

> - - -
> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote ...

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:30:46 -0600, "Pro-Humanist FREELOVER"
> <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>>
>>"John Williamson" <johnwil...@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.

[pi...@popperr.com]

"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.

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote
in message news:jari4v$1ck9$1...@colin.muc.de...

> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
>> "John Williamson" <johnwil...@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.

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

- - -

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-

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-

[Leslie Danks]

Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:

[...]

> "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote ...

>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist
>> FREELOVER <proh...@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:
>
> 112511 ... 16
> 112411 ... 8
> 112311 ... 3
> 112211 ... 17
> 112111 ... 3
> 112011 ... 10
> 111911 ... 11
>
> Total ...... 68
>
>> and I haven't seen any spam there yet.

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.

--
Les(BrE)

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Leslie Danks" <leslie...@aon.at> wrote ...

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:

> 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.

I wish you well, too.

[Antares 531]

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.

[Alan Mackenzie]

In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote ...
>
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist
>> FREELOVER <proh...@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"?

[ .... ]

[Alan Mackenzie]

In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:
>
> "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> 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. 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.

[ .... ]

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote ...

> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:

>> "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote ...
>>
>>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist
>>> FREELOVER <proh...@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.

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.

> [ .... ]
>
>> - - -
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> wrote in message news:jatcdl$1mgd$1...@colin.muc.de...

> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Alan Mackenzie" <a...@muc.de> 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.

>
> [ .... ]
>
>> - - -
>> Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>
> --
> Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Alan Mackenzie]

In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER <proh...@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 <proh...@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?

[terryc]

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

> You have made misc.health.diabetes unpleasant, but
> without intending to.

Obviously he as been intending it all along.

[Robert Miles]

On 11/23/2011 9:02 AM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> "Alan Mackenzie"<a...@muc.de> wrote ...
>
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
>> <proh...@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.

Robert Miles

[Robert Miles]

On 11/26/2011 9:30 AM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> "John Williamson"<johnwil...@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.

Robert Miles

[Robert Miles]

On 11/26/2011 2:44 PM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:
> "Alan Mackenzie"<a...@muc.de> wrote
> in message news:jari4v$1ck9$1...@colin.muc.de...
>
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER<proh...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Williamson"<johnwil...@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.

Robert Miles

[Robert Miles]

On 11/26/2011 2:44 PM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:

> "Alan Mackenzie"<a...@muc.de> wrote
> in message news:jari4v$1ck9$1...@colin.muc.de...
>
>> In misc.health.diabetes Pro-Humanist FREELOVER<proh...@cableone.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "John Williamson"<johnwil...@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:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!overview


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:

alt.requests.alt.newsgroups
alt.requests.new-alt-newsgroups
alt.test.my.new.group
alt.how.to.create.a.newsgroup

Robert Miles

[Peter Moylan]

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.

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Robert Miles" <mil...@Usenet-News.net> wrote ...

Recently, a rare photo of how rats
feel about diabetes:
http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.9630.1324572729!/slideshowimage/10%20rat.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_592/10%20rat.jpg

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?

[just kidding around, to some extent]

- - -
Pro-Humanist FREELOVER

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

"Robert Miles" <mil...@Usenet-News.net> wrote ...

> On 11/26/2011 9:30 AM, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER wrote:

>> "John Williamson"<johnwil...@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:

Table : Nature of the Diabetes Name / Names
Problems and the Solution
http://tinyurl.com/diabetesnewnames1

> 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/92cbe940fcd1aa78?hl=en

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

[Pro-Humanist FREELOVER]

One correction:

"Pro-Humanist FREELOVER" <proh...@cableone.net> wrote
in message news:jd08pb$528$1...@dont-email.me...

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

[Robert Miles]

On 12/22/2011 1:43 AM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> 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.

I see little other use for it, though.