Oh please, oh please, oh please let me use this as my new signature.
PLEEEEEEEEASE!!!
Why, certainly. I’d be honored. The whole world should know of my devotion to my Queen. I am only a simple jackass, and I have so much to learn about being nasty to people who have the audacity to try helping me out somehow.
I don’t really have an opinion on the OP but I just wanted to let her know that she misused the phrase per se in her thread title. Per se mean “by itself” or “in itself.” It is commonly misused to mean something like “exactly” or “technically,” but the correct meaning is “by itself.” If you’re not sure you’re using the phrase correctly, mentally replace it with the words “by itself” and see if that still conveys what you want to convey. Strictly speaking, this IS a per se Pit thread.
Sorry for the rant. Carry on.
/pet peeve
Awesome!
Shit!
If you can’t see the difference in tone between what I posted and what is posted here, then I think you need some remedial reading classes. She reinterpreted everyone’s advice to mean “please ignore your doctor and continue drinking your Diet Pepsi” instead of “hey, your doc might have made a mistake.”
She specifically stated in her OP that she was avoiding aspatame because of problems with high blood pressure (on doctor’s advice). If I had said I was avoidng peanut prodcuts because I was afraid of growing breasts (on my doctor’s orders!!) don’t you think more than one person would have stepped up to tell me that there is no correlation between peanut products and growing breasts?
It is not your place or anyone else’s to chastise someone for failing to word their polite refusal of your unsolicited advice in the precise manner you claim you would’ve accepted it.
[/QUOTE]
This is very interesting - I had no idea.
Although “This is not a pit, in itself, but-” does not necessarily strike me as being something different than what it was I was trying to say.
Keep fighting the good fight Joe.
If you can’t see that it doesn’t freaking matter how she worded her request, she said “thanks, but no thanks,” and that’s all it should’ve taken, then it’s you who not only needs a course in remedial reading, but etiquette as well. She is under no obligation, no matter how right or well-meaning you were, to take your unsolicited advice. And you don’t get to tell her how she should have had to word her refusal before you’d be willing to back the fuck off. It’s really that simple.
Now it’s you who doesn’t get it. Y’all told her her doctor’s advice was suspect. You pointed her to the sources where you found your information. All’s well and good up to there. She saw those replies, weighed whether or not she felt comfortable accepting those sources vs her doctor and chose to continue to follow her doctor’s recommendation, whether right or wrong, because it wasn’t going to hurt her to do so anyway. Once that was established, polite people would’ve shut the fuck up about it. And a moderator shouldn’t have admonished her for not being willing to take unsolicited medical advice from “well-meaning” posters on a message board, particularly one where there’s a prohibition for asking for or dispensing same!
Two pages and you STILL don’t get that “maybe you should talk to your doctor” isn’t medical advice?
Not quite but close? Do we have time to fit in a torrid affair? If not, how about a quick game of doctor?
Two pages and you STILL don’t get that she acknowledged it and asked everyone politely to move on, since this was off topic from what she had asked?
I always have time to fit in a torrid affair. Silly boy!
Actually no, I don’t. She’s complaining about “medical advice,” and “are medical threads allowed here” and “was she admonished for NOT taking medical advice.” The pit thread shows she (and apparently others) have a wrongheaded idea about the reason it was closed.
As I posted before, “Talk to your doctor,” is not and to my knowledge never has been considered medical advice here. So statements like, “And a moderator shouldn’t have admonished her for not being willing to take unsolicited medical advice from “well-meaning” posters on a message board, particularly one where there’s a prohibition for asking for or dispensing same!” and “That sounds an awful lot like samclem is taking me to task for NOT taking medical advice from a message board, and instead relying on the medical advice of my actual physician.” Make absolutely no sense.
And her second to last post in that thread says
I don’t know about you, but if I was confused and concerned about seemingly-reliable information contradicting something my doctor told me, I’d probably ask about it. She’s said in this thread a couple times that she probably will, the next time she sees her physician, and it occurs to me that had she posted that right off, it would have stopped the whole hijack.
Oh no, she did ask it, right there in the OP. Or implied it. Or alluded to it. Or something. Sheesh – do you need a remedial reading course like I do?
Bingo.
Although she did, it has to be remembered that the OP is not the owner of a thread. Sometimes, another poster will have a legit tangent- that isn’t a hijack. In this case, the OP’s question had been answered but other poster did ask a legit related question- which was also answered. Now, sure, the OP isn’t to be scorned and can ask for a thread to be closed or for dudes to stop the hijack. But really, when an OP asks a question, we (and by we I mean I 
) are not nessesarily answering that question just for the edification of one person and one person only. Quite often the answer is of interest to many other board Members. Which is why we answer the question on an open MB, rather than just PMing them back. Often, I see a question asked in GQ which I click on and read to see the answers for my personal edification, not to answer myself.
I’m flattered that you and Garfield have managed to wrustle up all this righteous indignation just for little old me. So much so, that this post needs my new sig.
Dude - I’m not only the owner of my threads, I’m the owner of the INTERNET. You’d be advised to remember that in the future…
Actually, no. samclem closed the thread admonishing alice_in_wonderland for “choosing to disregard informed opinions.” Simply saying, “Talk to your doctor,” doesn’t qualify, in and of itself, as an “informed” opinion. It’s not even an opinion at all, it’s just a recommendation. No, it is quite clear that samclem was referring to the content of the advice wrt whether or not there was sufficient evidence to link aspartame to high (or low) blood pressure. He all but said she was an idiot for choosing to disregard these oh-so-brilliant anonymous posters “(including a real doctor)”!. Yeah, he really only closed the thread because the OP didn’t want to follow the advice to “talk to her doctor.” Right. Sorry, not buying it.