Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/02/26

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: OT Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark R.
From: Jim Hemenway <Jim@hemenway.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:36:37 -0500
References: <00a401c2dddd$94faa3c0$0316fea9@ccasony01>

BD:

I was kidding Jerry about his stent.  I have three stents now but like
Jerry that's all that I have in common with the VP.

The second and third were "installed" last June.  I'm glad that I was
watching my innards on the screen because when the Doc was finished with
the first of them, he said something like "all set".  I asked him if
there were any other candidates whilst I was laying there and pointed
out an artery on the screen that didn't look very good. He agreed and
put another stent in me.

So, I'm glad that I was watching it all on the screen. Too bad that they
wouldn't let me bring the SL and 19mm in with me.
- -- 

Jim - http://www.hemenway.com



bdcolen wrote:
> 
> Boy, does that send chills somewhere and make what hair I have left
> standup and take notice. ;-) I'd love to watch in real time as someone
> else got stents, but my own - I don't think so. :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jerry
> Lehrer
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 4:11 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: OT Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark
> R.
> 
> BD
> 
> Yes, there are even more new advances since my stent installation, which
> I watched in real time on a wide screen X-ray while it was being done.
> 
> Jerry
> 
> bdcolen wrote:
> 
> > Boy, I hope the medical info. in that book is dated - King had the
> > surgery in '82 and the book came out a decade ago... ;-)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jerry
> > Lehrer
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 1:29 PM
> > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject: Re: OT Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to
> > Mark R.
> >
> > BD
> >
> > You are a man after my own heart!  Don Rickles would be proud to know
> > you.
> >
> > Speaking of hearts, I just started re-reading the book you wrote for
> > Larry King on his heart attacks.  Since the time that I first read it,
> 
> > I had my own MI which resulted in a stent installation.  5 years ago,
> > and no problems.
> >
> > My cardiologist at UCSD said that a tremendous amount of progress has
> > been made since that book was written.
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > bdcolen wrote:
> >
> > > Greg - Why be so amazingly disingenuous as to sign such a
> > > supercilious, pointedly nasty personal attack "regards?" Stick to
> > > your
> >
> > > guns, man! If you're going to take eight paragraphs to write "fuck
> > > you," sign off with something honest, such as "So there, you
> > > asshole!"
> >
> > > ;-)
> > >
> > > With utterly no regard,
> > > B. D.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Greg
> > > J. Lorenzo
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 6:24 PM
> > > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > > Subject: OT Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark
> > > R.
> > >
> > > Hi B.D.,
> > >
> > > Lets see if I can sum up your latest missive:
> > >
> > > In Paragraph 1: you are informing me "that this discussion had only
> > > ended". (I assume you meant to say "had not only ended" ?)
> > >
> > > What you're really saying is that YOU had decided it had "ended" and
> 
> > > why
> > >
> > > did I dare to catch up on postings YOU had already decided had ended
> 
> > > and
> > >
> > > post. I guess you also decided that all the waaay OT Iraq crap you
> > > continued to post last week (after the List Moderator requested that
> 
> > > you
> > >
> > > stop) was still "On Topic" and "Open" for continued posts because
> > > YOU had decided it was?
> > >
> > > In Paragraph 2: You continue to attempt to rationalize your
> > > completely
> >
> > > and continually irrational behavior of interjecting into posts
> > > demanding
> > >
> > > that certain poster's reveal all of their suspect "commercial
> > > affiliations" because B.D. always does this and says so.
> > >
> > > In Paragraph 3: You're addressing someone named "Chris" to insist
> > > that
> >
> > > all you've done is "suggested that we be upfront. Not that I have
> > > any power over anyone; not that this is MY LIST; not that I MAKE THE
> 
> > > RULES".
> > >
> > > In summary: Why don't YOU reread YOUR OWN WORDS again in all three
> > > Paragraphs below, starting in reverse order 3, 2, 1, just to see if
> > > you may in fact be violating YOUR OWN RULES?
> > >
> > > B.D., respectfully, why don't your get yourself a dog, cat, fish, or
> 
> > > some other interest and thereby spend less time making rules and
> > > posting demands of people on the LUG all day?
> > >
> > > This is my last post on this subject.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Greg
> > >
> > > bdcolen wrote:
> > >
> > > >It's quite simple, Greg - although if you had bothered to read the
> > > >time
> > >
> > > >on posts you would have seen that this discussion had only ended,
> > > >it had long ended in far more calm and collegial way than that in
> > > >which you've decided to revive it...
> > > >
> > > >The point is that as we are constantly giving each other advise
> > > >regarding commercial products - and many of us are factoring that
> > > >advice into purchasing decisions - its really nothing more than
> > > >simple good manners to tell each other if we have what might be
> > > >perceived as conflicts of interest.
> > > >
> > > >BTW, Chris, all I've suggested is that we be upfront. Not that I
> > > >have
> >
> > > >any power over anyone; not that this is my list; not that I make
> > > >the rules. All I did was ask a few questions and make a
> > > >suggestion.I wonder
> > >
> > > >if you've ever given any thought to the possibility that an
> > > >outburst such as yours - with its offensive religious references
> > > >and hectoring
> >
> > > >tone - could lead one to wonder why you find the idea of being
> > > >upfront with people so, uh, troubling?  ;-)
> > > >
> > > >Best,
> > > >
> > > >B. D.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >-----Original Message-----
> > > >From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > > >[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Greg
> > > >J.
> >
> > > >Lorenzo
> > > >Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:13 AM
> > > >To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > > >Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark R.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >bdcolen wrote in part:
> > > >
> > > >>I am not questioning Tina's beliefs.
> > > >>
> > > >No your not, your doing something infinitely worse. By your words
> > > >and
> >
> > > >innuendo YOU are implying that Tina has an ulterior motive for
> > > >posting her opinion and experiences.
> > > >
> > > >>But as I have made quite clear here before, given that we are all
> > > >>friends trading information
> > > >>
> > > >My point exactly. This isn't the Journal of the American Medical
> > > >Association or even Consumer Reports and you're are not Mike
> > > >Wallace doing a segment on Sixty Minutes! Its the Leica Users Group
> 
> > > >and we
> > > don't
> > > >
> > > >need a self appointed policeman. If you, or anyone else, wishes to
> > > >disclose that they have received a camera, lens or some other
> > > >trinket
> >
> > > >from Canon, Fuji or Leica that's their business.
> > > >
> > > >What I'd like to know is why YOU think that YOU need to come
> > > >charging
> >
> > > >into ongoing discussions like Christ to cleanse the Temple and
> > > >suggest that there is something disreputable about a person because
> 
> > > >they
> > > haven't
> > > >
> > > >disclosed something that YOU believe is germane?
> > > >
> > > >At best this type of behavior is bad manners.
> > > >
> > > >Regards,
> > > >
> > > >Greg
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >To unsubscribe, see
> > > >http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> > > >
> > > >--
> > > >To unsubscribe, see
> > > >http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, see
> > > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe, see
> > > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see
> > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, see
> > http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

Replies: Reply from Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net> (Re: OT Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark R.)
In reply to: Message from "bdcolen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net> (RE: OT Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering apologies to Mark R.)