Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

Pulled Muscle

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Offline
That implies that you somehow thought the <shrug> itself was supposed to indicate something about the text that preceded it.
Of course I did. Are you now changing that common perception to fit your argument. Just as emoticons such as the smiley face are related to the text that precedes them. A smiley face shows that the text preceding it was good natured. Do I really need to get this elementary?
If you have invented your own super secret method of inserting a <shrug> here or a <snort> there that have no relation to your preceding text then I was unaware of it. So sorry.

That's a statement written by someone who clearly doesn't even know the definition of "context."
Blaming the reader again because you failed to properly convey the context that you now want your post to have? You just can't make this stuff up.:rolleyes:

That's two different issues. One issue is what "context" is in the first place. The definition of context is "the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect." The writer does indeed decide the context of what he is writing, and often creates the context itself. It is the job of the reader to recognize, acknowledge and accept that context rather than to interpret and create their own context.
I am thrilled to see that you finally looked up the definition of context. It proves the point that I tried to explain in an earlier post when I tried to help you understand the meaning of context.
It is not the readers job to accept what you meant for the context to be. The reader can only accept what context the words have actually created. It was your job to create the words that properly conveyed your context to the reader. There in lies the problem.

For example, "You have to be educated about both [taking a drug as well as not taking a drug]," does not mean you must "fully educate yourself one hundred percent in any and all aspects of the drug and it's effects." Yet you insisted more than once that that's what I really and truly meant to say, even though I made it crystal clear that I did not mean that at all.
No I didn't. You failed to be specific regarding what level of education you were suggesting, therefore, it was up to the reader again to figure out what exact advise you were trying to give.

You failed to comprehend what was written, because by your own admission you believe you are supposed to think something other than what was written.
Well now you are just plain making things up.:confused:

The physiological effect of ice on non-inflamed tissue is to constrict blood vessels, but on inflamed tissue the initial effect is to reduce or retard swelling, and since swelling in and of itself reduces blood flow, the application of ice will promote blood flow.
The above makes absolutely no sense. Ice has the effect of constricting blood vessels whether they are inflamed or not. Ice is used to prevent the swelling that occurs at the injured site due to the increased blood flow that occurs after injury. It is that increased blood flow that causes the swelling, redness and heat. Swelling signifies an increase of blood flow.
You are going to extreme lengths to try and justify your incorrect statement from post #5 when in fact it is the removal of ice that may possibly promote blood flow after the swelling has subsided.

You prolly should have added a little <snort> in there to indicate the sarcasm . . .
Why? The shrug would not have indicated anything at all regarding the text that preceded it.

You, on the other hand, have chosen this thread to promote a personal agenda and to launch a personal attack on me which is outside the scope of this thread. Why would you do that?
My only personal agenda is to advise people to use conservative treatments for their injuries before resorting to medications when possible.
Simply because my advice was contrary to yours does not constitute an "attack" . Playing the victim does not become you.
When you made it personal by criticizing my "reading comprehension" and my ability to understand "context" it created an unfortunate need for me to go off topic and defend myself. But of course, that's what you wanted.
 

Monty

Expert Expediter
Offline
My popcorn got cold .....

However, as I mentioned somewhere above, my back was truly a mess. I'm happy to report it feels good to feel good.

A session with a massage therapist, and a couple of days additional rest and I am back to 75% .. which is about as good as it gets with me! ;)
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Offline
My popcorn got cold .....

However, as I mentioned somewhere above, my back was truly a mess. I'm happy to report it feels good to feel good.

A session with a massage therapist, and a couple of days additional rest and I am back to 75% .. which is about as good as it gets with me! ;)
At our age 75% is the new 100%. ;)

Good to hear of your improvement.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
You said that as if it was over. You should now by now that members with over 14,000 posts
always get the last word. ;)
Not true: the one who most enjoys the argument usually gets the last word. Even if they only have a measly 9063 posts.
Make that 9064, and pass the popcorn - you two are entertaining as all get out, lol.
;)
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
Of course I did. Are you now changing that common perception to fit your argument. Just as emoticons such as the smiley face are related to the text that precedes them. A smiley face shows that the text preceding it was good natured. Do I really need to get this elementary?
If you have invented your own super secret method of inserting a <shrug> here or a <snort> there that have no relation to your preceding text then I was unaware of it. So sorry.
You stated that you didn't know what the <shrug> nor the <snort> meant when I use them. I explained it, and you either don't like the answer, can't comprehend it, or are still convinced it means something other than what I said it means, because now you're telling me what I mean when I use it. That's awesome.

Blaming the reader again because you failed to properly convey the context that you now want your post to have? You just can't make this stuff up.:rolleyes:
Again, that's a statement from someone who still doesn't understand the the term means, and is using it incorrectly. That, or it's a statement from someone who is intentionally being combative and and trying to be condescending. I'm not sure which.

I am thrilled to see that you finally looked up the definition of context. It proves the point that I tried to explain in an earlier post when I tried to help you understand the meaning of context.
That's funny, and a valiant attempt at true condescension, but no. Sorry.

It is not the readers job to accept what you meant for the context to be.
Actually that's precisely the reader's job. That's the reader's only job. It's the only way the reader can comprehend the meaning of the ideas within the text.

Context is created by the writer, not the reader. It cannot happen in reverse order. If the reader creates their own context, the meaning if the text is altered or even lost entirely.

Writers create texts in particular contexts, but still rely on their readers to make sense of them. All texts, regardless of the type, be it non-fiction, fiction, technical or even non-print, reflect the particular attitudes and values of their writers, and their contexts. The sense the readers make of these texts depends on their personal experiences, language skills, intelligence levels, and the contexts in which they are reading (like, say, within the context of a forum thread). Meanings, therefore, arise out of the relationships between and among the writer, the text, the context created, and how well the reader is able to comprehend what the writer has written within the context in which it was written.

This is basic high school composition stuff, and my posting that you are so bent out of shape about used the textbook formula of:

1. Establish the Context
2. State the Basics
3. For/Against Ordering (Alternatives)
4. Conclusion/Wrap-up

When I write things that people do not understand, they are quick to let me know (man, are they ever). The context I established was clear and unambiguous to the vast majority of readers, since (a), it was written at a high school reading level, and (b), you are the only one I have heard from thus far who cannot comprehend what I have written.

The context you created in order to derive the meaning of my text is also clear and unambiguous, but it's an incorrect context. You simply choose to hold onto the incorrect context, even after being told it's the wrong context, for whatever reasons. There is little I can do about that. And it's not my fault.

The reader can only accept what context the words have actually created.
Correct. And yet you repeatedly refuse, or are unable, to do so. You keep adding words to what was written, as if they were included in the text all along, and by paraphrasing the sentences in your mind as you are reading them, which in and of itself obscures and changes the very context the words themselves actually created. You can't change "educated" to "fully educated" because it changes both the meaning and the context, and you certainly can't change the text from the original to something else and then challenge me on the newly created context which the original text never contained. That's just retarded. You also can't take a single sentence, remove it from it's context, and use it by itself in a completely different context, a context which you created all on your own, and then tell me that I'm not being clear, when if you had left it in the original context it was unambiguously clear. That's why I questioned your reading comprehension, and I see that I was correct in doing so.

It was your job to create the words that properly conveyed your context to the reader. There in lies the problem.
Hardly. The writer's task is to create the
context within which to convey the meaning, but the writer cannot convey meaning to those who cannot understand the context and thus comprehend what they read. It is the reader's task is to accept the context as written. If the reader cannot do that, it's not the writer's fault. It is not the job of the writer to write to the lowest common, or the lowest possible, intelligence quotient, nor to write to the experiences of every possible reader so as to write in a context in which any and all readers can relate.

No I didn't. You failed to be specific regarding what level of education you were suggesting, therefore, it was up to the reader again to figure out what exact advise you were trying to give.
You absolutely did insist more than once that that's what I really and truly meant to say, in Post #30 and Post #33. I did not specify a specific level of education because stating a specific level of education is not necessary. If you felt is was necessary or needed some clarification, fine, you should have asked, instead of assuming. The reader is free to educate themselves at whatever level they feel comfortable with. The problem is, you altered what I said using your own additional meaning, and then used the new meaning to attack what I said. That's a straw man argument, and it's lame.

Well now you are just plain making things up.:confused:
I'm just going by what you said: In response to my statement that you need to educate yourself about both, you replied to something other than what was written (the impossible task of being "fully" educated) and when I responded to that with, "I did not say you have to be FULLY educated about both," you replied, "Seriously? I was supposed to think that you meant somewhat educated? partially educated? It is now my fault for assuming that you may want to be fully educated about something that your life depends on? Maybe you should "actually say" what you mean instead of modifying it after the fact to suit your argument." So, by your own admission, you believe you are supposed to think something other than what was written, to assume something beyond what was stated. So, no, I'm not making things up.

The above makes absolutely no sense.
I'm not surprised, especially since I've already written as to what causes inflammation (Post #27), and since you have a reading comprehension problem and all....

Ice has the effect of constricting blood vessels whether they are inflamed or not. Ice is used to prevent the swelling that occurs at the injured site due to the increased blood flow that occurs after injury. It is that increased blood flow that causes the swelling, redness and heat. Swelling signifies an increase of blood flow.
Sorry, incorrect. Increased blood flow (to the damaged cells and the surrounding tissues) is responsible for the redness and the heat, true enough, but the swelling is caused by the mastocytes, primarily the histamines and the heparin. Swelling doesn't signify increased blood flow at all and in fact actually reduces blood flow to the surrounding tissues because of the increased pressure on the blood vessels. Swelling signifies the presence of histamines and the anticoagulant properties of the heparin. The heparin increases the pooling of blood within the tissues at the injured cells so the macrophages, dendritic cells and histocytes can do their jobs, but it does not increase the flow of blood.

You are going to extreme lengths to try and justify your incorrect statement from post #5 when in fact it is the removal of ice that may possibly promote blood flow after the swelling has subsided.
I had no idea that stating verifiable facts is considered to be going to extreme lengths, but be that as it may, I have never stated anything contrary to removing ice from a non-inflamed tissue would do anything other than promote blood flow. If I recall correctly, somewhere in this thread I specifically stated precisely that very thing, when I said something along the lines of the physiological effect of ice on non-inflamed tissue being to constrict blood vessels, which will, of course, reduce blood flow, and thus the 20 minute limit for ice on non-inflamed tissue is recommended.

My only personal agenda is to advise people to use conservative treatments for their injuries before resorting to medications when possible.
That's what I gathered, and it's why I said you used the thread to promote your personal agenda.

Simply because my advice was contrary to yours does not constitute an "attack" . Playing the victim does not become you.
When you made it personal by criticizing my "reading comprehension" and my ability to understand "context" it created an unfortunate need for me to go off topic and defend myself. But of course, that's what you wanted.
I'm not playing the victim, nor am I characterizing a disagreement as being an attack. I'm characterizing your attack as an attack, and you launched it well before I mentioned anything about your reading comprehension problem. You pulled something from outside the current thread into this thread to use an ammunition against me to discredit both me and my statements and specifically to make me look bad when you erroneously charged me with focusing on and arguing semantics to defray an opponent's arguments, and noted that it's something you have seen me do many times on these forums. You then charged me with practicing a weak form of debate which was below my intelligence level, and in an incredible show of irony, accused me of failing to stick to the substance of the debate. I said nothing within this thread to warrant such an action by you, so clearly something happened outside the thread which prompted you to attack in such an unwarranted manner.

Maybe you just don't like me. Maybe you've hated me from afar and my posts grate on your nerves, you can't stand the <snort> or the <shrug> or perhaps it's anything at all inside the brackets, or I simply pίss you off a lot, and you saw this as an opportunity to get that Turtle good, I don't know. But in any case it was unwarranted and out of line. When you did that you crossed the line, and me, and it was you who made it personal.

I didn't mention your reading comprehension level until after you had attacked me with the above, and not until well after you had demonstrated a significant deficiency in that department. I never once mentioned your reading comprehension problems as an attack, only as an blatant observation used to try and explain what you had failed to comprehend, and were mischaracterizing because of that failed comprehension. It turns out, my trying to explain to you what you cannot to comprehend, or refuse to, is an exercise in futility, either because you really and truly are too stupid to comprehend what I've written, even after I've come back and explained it to you, or you comprehend it just fine and you are intentionally choosing to continue to argue in the hopes of winning an argument, which you created, for the specific purpose of winning in order to make me look bad. If there is another explanation, I'm certainly open to it, but I have a feeling it's it's pretty much got to be one or the other.
 
Last edited:

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Offline
I think you might have jumped the gun there Humble after reading through all of this. Outside of that, I believe I just pulled a muscle in my left eye. Umm...what to do? :cool:
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Offline
I think you might have jumped the gun there Humble after reading through all of this.
So it is true. Fleet owners really do have a lot of spare time on their hands. :)

At least jumping is in line with a fitness forum but I think the mention of guns in this thread should be prohibited. :p
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Offline
****** Disclaimer******
For those members other than Turtle and Dave, please skip to the conclusion at the end of this post to avoid eye strain and boredom. :cool:

You stated that you didn't know what the <shrug> nor the <snort> meant when I use them. I explained it, and you either don't like the answer, can't comprehend it, or are still convinced it means something other than what I said it means . . .
None of the above. I know what they mean and never tried to tell you differently. It is the fact that you place them at the end of a statement and claim that it has nothing to do with what you just said that is puzzling.

In your typical smart aleck nature you stated:

Why you wouldn't want to reduce swelling is beyond me, but to each his or her own. <shrug>
You then claimed that your statement was lighthearted based on the nature of your words plus the shrug.

From your earlier post:
I had hoped the light hearted nature of the response and the <shrug> would have been enough, but apparently not.
Then you changed your mind and claimed that the shrug had nothing to do with the preceding text:

From your earlier post:
I'm glad it's finally clear to you now that the <shrug> doesn't indicate anything at all about the text which preceded it.
If the shrug has nothing to do with the preceding text then how is it instrumental in conveying lightheartedness to the preceding text?

As I tried to explain on an elementary level, your <shrug>type turtlisms seemed to be a practice similar to emoticons. When something immediately follows a statement that signifies an emotion (facial expression) or a body movement ( shrug) it is normally associated with the statement that precedes it.
Example: Turtle would never imply that someone may be stupid in a post <sarcasm>

In place of the emoticon I put the term that an emoticon might represent.
It let's the reader know that the statement was meant sarcastically and Turtle does in fact have a practice of implying that people are stupid in his posts.

I can't believe we are having this conversation. Whatever happened to NSAIDs and ice?

Context is created by the writer, not the reader. It cannot happen in reverse order. If the reader creates their own context, the meaning if the text is altered or even lost entirely.
I never said it happened in the reverse order. I tried to explain that if the writer failed to write in such a way to convey the desired context to the reader then it is wrong to blame the reader. I said this after you tried to sell the concept that you meant for your post to be in a certain context that it wasn't.
Your context was easily understood. I simply responded in regards to your post where you were using the term anti-inflammatories following your lecture about medications.
When I made the statement:

" I do not want an anti-inflammatory at all if it can be avoided."

it was obvious to even the most casual observer that I was referring to medications and not ice. You understood that as well.
Apparently, you take offense to opinions that are contrary to yours so you decided to focus on semantics to discredit my post.
Due to your arrogance coupled with the belief that you are smarter than the average E.O. member, I must assume that you really believed that I would go away having been corrected.
You were wrong this time.
Can we please get back to the subject of the thread??

I've already written as to what causes inflammation (Post #27), and since you have a reading comprehension problem and all....
Oh my! The reading comprehension thing again, do we really need to do this?
Fortunately, your opinion does not apply to my education outside of your posts.
Somehow I was able to earn 3 college degrees with honors and the right to put Dr. in front of my name. I have read, comprehended and been tested on volumes of written material for many years.
Your conclusion that because someone disagrees with your explanation of how your written context should be perceived, they must have a reading comprehension problem is flawed logic. It is a rude distraction from the original subject of the thread.

Sorry, incorrect. Increased blood flow (to the damaged cells and the surrounding tissues) is responsible for the redness and the heat, true enough, but the swelling is caused by the mastocytes, primarily the histamines and the heparin.
Sorry, not exactly. As I correctly stated swelling is primarily due to the increased blood flow to the area because that is the first physiological response which the other events build upon. It is this blood flow that delivers an over abundance of chemical mediators including many protein molecules.
Histamine, along with the injury itself can contribute to causing gaps in the capillary walls which allow protein molecules to slip out. It is the polarity of these protein molecules that draws water out of the capillaries and into the extracellular spaces. This is how and why the swelling process started with the increased blood flow to the injured area. Heparin does not have a role that I can think of?

Swelling doesn't signify increased blood flow at all and in fact actually reduces blood flow to the surrounding tissues because of the increased pressure on the blood vessels.
Swelling is not possible without the increased blood flow as I explained so if swelling is present it would certainly signify that there was and may still be an increase in blood flow to the area.
There may be a certain point when uncontrolled swelling can build to where there is enough pressure to impede blood flow in the smaller capillaries in the injured area; however, this is the stage that we are attempting to avoid by utilizing ice and/or NSAIDs and it effects blood return more so than blood delivery.
When you see the development of swelling at an injured site, you can be sure that there is an increase in blood flow to the area. Obviously, that is why we try to reduce the blood flow with ice.
I do admit that as a layperson you have a fairly good grasp on the physiology of swelling. There are just a few minor details that we disagree on.

BTW- I actually pulled my dusty medical textbook off the shelf to check on Heparin (Pathologic Basis of Disease, Robbins, 6th Ed.). It is the medical "bible" on all things pathological including inflammation.
Immediately proceeding the explanation of the inflammatory cascade it had this statement:

"The following mechanisms have been proposed"

This is what I was referring to when I said that a large amount of medical information is still based on theory.

Maybe you just don't like me. Maybe you've hated me from afar and my posts grate on your nerves, you can't stand the <snort> or the <shrug> or perhaps it's anything at all inside the brackets, or I simply pίss you off a lot, and you saw this as an opportunity to get that Turtle good,
What is all of that about? Someone has a slight disagreement with you and they are out to get you?
That is quite the laundry list of imaginary reasons why I dared to have a different opinion than yours regarding NSAID use. Sorry, to burst your ego but it really wasn't about you. It was about when to take medications.

Conclusion: To the E.O. Reader. I would simply like to suggest that when you suffer a muscle strain, consider using non harmful conservative treatments such as ice, elevation, rest, immobilization, etc. before taking medications unless the pain is too intense then you should see a physician.

All medications have possible side effects some of which may not be known until years down the road. :)
 
Last edited:

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Offline
None of the above. I know what they mean and never tried to tell you differently.
You said: "The nature of your statement was condescending and this reader has no idea what your <shrug> is supposed to mean or furthermore what your <snort> is supposed to mean."

That doesn't exactly fit very well with you knowing what they mean.

In your typical smart aleck nature you stated:
No need to be rude.

You then claimed that your statement was lighthearted based on the nature of your words plus the shrug.
Correct, it was light-hearted in nature. You didn't infer it that way. That's the way it goes sometimes. <shrug>

Then you changed your mind and claimed that the shrug had nothing to do with the preceding text:
Originally Posted by Turtle

I'm glad it's finally clear to you now that the <shrug> doesn't indicate anything at all about the text which preceded it.
I didn't claim any such thing. Reading comprehension. I claimed that I was glad that it was finally clear to you that the <shrug> doesn't indicate anything at all about the text which preceded it. The reason I was glad is, because it doesn't, and you finally appeared to understand. But, alas, my gladness was soon trodden upon...


If the shrug has nothing to do with the preceding text then how is it instrumental in conveying lightheartedness to the preceding text?
It's not. Never said it was.

As I tried to explain on an elementary level, your <shrug>type turtlisms seemed to be a practice similar to emoticons. When something immediately follows a statement that signifies an emotion (facial expression) or a body movement ( shrug) it is normally associated with the statement that precedes it.
Example: Turtle would never imply that someone may be stupid in a post <sarcasm>
Yes, you do keep trying to explain to me what my <shrug> means, despite not knowing what it means. I then told you exactly what it means when I said,

"<shrug> is the written illustration of what someone does when they physically shrug and give you that quizzical look."

To which you responded with,

"Thank you for providing that excerpt from the Turtle Urban Dictionary.
It is clear now that <shrug> does not in any way indicate that the preceding text was light hearted in nature. Got it. :)"

...which is correct - and I was glad.

But you're continuing to tell me what they mean when I use them. Since I'm not likely to change how I use them, I'm not sure why you are continuing to do so.

I can't believe we are having this conversation. Whatever happened to NSAIDs and ice?
I can believe it. You went off topic to attack me about what you perceived to be my use of arguing semantics, I tried to bring the thread back on topic, but you won't have any of it, and you want to continue to argue, for reasons I do not know.

I never said it happened in the reverse order. I tried to explain that if the writer failed to write in such a way to convey the desired context to the reader then it is wrong to blame the reader.
It depends on whether or not the writer created the context which the writer wanted to create. In this case the writer did.

I said this after you tried to sell the concept that you meant for your post to be in a certain context that it wasn't.
When a reader fails to grasp the context which the writer created, and then the writer explicitly gives that context to that reader, and the reader still refuses to accept the context, then the reader is the only one to blame for the reader refusing to accept it.

Your context was easily understood.
By everyone other than you, yes.

I simply responded in regards to your post where you were using the term anti-inflammatories following your lecture about medications.
When I made the statement:

" I do not want an anti-inflammatory at all if it can be avoided."
Oh, that's a blatant lie. Just a flat out fabrication. You quoted me out of context in order to create your own context, and then made your statement within your new context. The quote you pulled was not in the context of a lecture about medications (although that characterization is in and of itself telling), it was in the context of using an ice pack.

Now we're circling. You keep pounding away at the same incorrect things, thinking that eventually someone will believe your newly created reality. I'm beginning to wonder if that's the root of the problem here... your created realities. You keep insisting I said things which I did not, insisting that I mean things which I do not mean, you keep insisting that you haven't said things which you indisputably said, you attacked me and then accused me of attacking you, and you hijacked the topic of the thread for the expressed purpose of that attack and then accused me of taking the thread off the subject. These are the manifestations of someone with a mental illness who is delusional.

it was obvious to even the most casual observer that I was referring to medications and not ice. You understood that as well.
Apparently, you take offense to opinions that are contrary to yours so you decided to focus on semantics to discredit my post.
Due to your arrogance coupled with the belief that you are smarter than the average E.O. member, I must assume that you really believed that I would go away having been corrected.
You were wrong this time.
I find it astonishing that you know what the casual observer thinks, that you know what I understand, that you know what I take offense to, that you know what I believe. The reason I find it so astonishing is that you are so incredibly wrong in every instance, yet you apparently believe you are right.

Can we please get back to the subject of the thread??
That's hilarious coming from the person who took it off topic in the first place.

Oh my! The reading comprehension thing again, do we really need to do this?
No, we don't. If you can demonstrate that you can comprehend what you read, instead of repeatedly demonstrating that you cannot, then we won't need to do any of this.

Fortunately, your opinion does not apply to my education outside of your posts.
Somehow I was able to earn 3 college degrees with honors and the right to put Dr. in front of my name. I have read, comprehended and been tested on volumes of written material for many years.
The appeal to authority logical fallacy! Excellent! "I'm a doctor with three degrees so you should bow to my smartness and not question anything I say." Nicely done. It's lame that someone with three college degrees would stoop so low in a debate, but nicely done nevertheless. If you want to get into a college degree pіssing contest, I give up, you win right out of the gate, as my doctorate is only supported by a measly two masters degrees, not three. I bow to your greatness.

Your conclusion that because someone disagrees with your explanation of how your written context should be perceived, they must have a reading comprehension problem is flawed logic.
Yes it is flawed logic. It's also a logic that I have never used, and the stated conclusion above is one that I have never reached. I can conclude someone has a reading comprehension problem when they demonstrate their inability to comprehend the written word as it was written, regardless of context, particularly when that text is written to be intentionally plain, clear and orderly so as to be non-confusing. When someone disagrees with the writer's explicit explanation of how the context should be perceived, that's not a reading comprehension problem, it's a problem with one of three possibilities; it's either an intelligence problem of the reader; the reader intentionally refuses to accept the context as given for the purpose of being argumentative; or it is a problem with delusional reality on the part of the reader. The only other possibility is that the reader's own experiences are such that the context expressed by the writer is a context which is utterly foreign in every possible way to the reader, and the reader cannot relate on any level to the context. But that last possibility is generally for a reader who was raised by wolves and has spent their entire life in wooded isolation, or for recently arrived extraterrestrials who are unaware of our electromagnetic radio and television transmissions.

It is a rude distraction from the original subject of the thread.
In the context of who made that statement, that's funny.

Heparin does not have a role that I can think of?
It allows the blood to pool at the affected area without clotting.

I do admit that as a layperson you have a fairly good grasp on the physiology of swelling.
High priase indeed from a fellow truck driver. Thank you.

There are just a few minor details that we disagree on.
No doubt, I'm sure, due to my failure to be even more long-winded and detailed than I was.

What is all of that about? Someone has a slight disagreement with you and they are out to get you?
For anyone without a reading comprehension problem, that's a question that can be answered by reading what I wrote.

That is quite the laundry list of imaginary reasons why I dared to have a different opinion than yours regarding NSAID use.
The use of medications in any form and circumstance is an issue that by its very nature practically demands differing opinions, and thus they are not only expected, but welcome to all but the most extreme zealots on either side of the issue. The fact that you have a different opinion than mine regarding NSAID use is irrelevant. I don't care that you do, I really don't, and I've never said otherwise. Ironically, our opinions on medications are not that far apart, yet for some reason I do not yet know, you want to create a chasm out of the small differences that are there. It's puzzling.

Sorry, to burst your ego but it really wasn't about you. It was about when to take medications.
If that were even a little bit true, then you wouldn't have attacked me about anything other than my opinion as to when to take medications. Your actions and your own words in this thread make that claim not-credible.

So, we're back to one of the two postulated explanations for your actions, those being either stupidity or that you have done this intentionally to win an argument you created in order to try and make me look bad. I think with three degrees and a doctorate we can safely dismiss stupidity as the explanation. I never really gave that possibility much credence, anyway. Now we're left with the one remaining possibility, that you've done this intentionally. However, with the ridiculously absurd claim put forth that it was all about when to take medications, one cannot so easily dismiss the very real possibility of you being mentally unstable, as your many delusions have been repeatedly detailed by you here. I sincerely hope that's not the case, and it's simply a matter in which you don't like me and want to put me in my place by winning your invented argument.

Conclusion: To the E.O. Reader. I would simply like to suggest that when you suffer a muscle strain, consider using non harmful conservative treatments such as ice, elevation, rest, immobilization, etc. before taking medications unless the pain is too intense then you should see a physician.

All medications have possible side effects some of which may not be known until years down the road. :)[/QUOTE]Fine advice, indeed. Thank you for finally getting back on topic. Let's see if you can stay there. <snort>
 

xmudman

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Offline
I think I just sprained my index finger scrolling thru all of this mess...
 

Humble2drive

Expert Expediter
Offline
You said: "The nature of your statement was condescending and this reader has no idea what your <shrug> is supposed to mean or furthermore what your <snort> is supposed to mean."

That doesn't exactly fit very well with you knowing what they mean.
Wrong again. This is becoming a trend of yours!
The statement you are quoting was before you gave your explanation and before I understood what you meant. Bad try.

I didn't claim any such thing. Reading comprehension. I claimed that I was glad that it was finally clear to you that the <shrug> doesn't indicate anything at all about the text which preceded it. The reason I was glad is, because it doesn't, and you finally appeared to understand. But, alas, my gladness was soon trodden upon...
Wrong again. I did understand and I told you so.

But you're continuing to tell me what they mean when I use them. Since I'm not likely to change how I use them, I'm not sure why you are continuing to do so.
Need I say it? Wrong again. I have not said anything about what they might mean, I have simply acknowledged that they don't pertain to the preceding text which I find to be odd. Just my opinion.

These are the manifestations of someone with a mental illness who is delusional.
No need to be rude.

The appeal to authority logical fallacy! Excellent! "I'm a doctor with three degrees so you should bow to my smartness and not question anything I say." Nicely done.
Extremely wrong. The trend is now set. This from someone who just asked for a demonstration of reading comprehension.

The statement you just made:
. . . If you can demonstrate that you can comprehend what you read. . .
Earning multiple college degrees is a fair argument that I am able to comprehend what I read. That is all. You completely fabricated the rest of your dramatic statement regarding an "appeal to authority"
Please don't tell me you are solely judging someone's reading comprehension based on your convoluted postings here on E.O. ?
You have just reached the epitome of arrogance.

It allows the blood to pool at the affected area without clotting.
Any reference? Just curious as I checked my source and there was no mention of that.

High priase indeed from a fellow truck driver. Thank you.
As far as I know you drive a van.

I sincerely hope that's not the case, and it's simply a matter in which you don't like me and want to put me in my place by winning your invented argument.
Now let's not let it come to this. I like you, I really really do. Let's have lunch sometime and bare our feelings. I think we can get past this. Maybe my conversational comprehension will be better. Seriously. :)
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Offline
Speaking strictly for myself [and I haven't any degrees], this has been the best controversy I've read here in a long time. Both sides are intelligent, educated, passionate, and best of all, not a word about Obama!
Well done, guys.

PS Now I'm going to ice my swollen eyeballs. :p
 
Top