Originally posted by Scriabinhowever, in a case of medical malpractice, the claim would not be based on the idea the defendant doctor was responsible for the death.
no, you shouldn't.
however, in a case of medical malpractice, the claim would not be based on the idea the defendant doctor was responsible for the death.
the claim would be that given the doctor's knowledge of the patient's intent, given the existence of an agreement between them that depended on the patient seeing the doctor for two appointments in ...[text shortened]... o made a mistake won't bring him back. I don't want to mourn for the rest of my life.
the claim would be that given the doctor's knowledge of the patient's intent, given the existence of an agreement between them that depended on the patient seeing the doctor for two appointments in as many days, which the patient did not attend, the doctor had a professional obligation to call the cops at that point and was negligent in not doing so. She didn't kill the patient -- she failed to prevent that which was preventable by doing what her job required her to do. She made a mistake in judgment.
I get your point now.
Originally posted by generalissimoso, you see why there are a great many fine lines here?
I get your point now.
it isn't an obvious or easy set of circumstances.
a much stronger, easier case occurs in suicide malpractice cases where a patient has been admitted to a hospital and somehow manages to suicide on-site or after leaving the hospital without authorization.
the legal nuances are a strong factor in why this case would be so harmful -- it would take a lot of time, it would drag out over a long time, and it would cost a great deal, limiting what the family could otherwise do with their lives.
my wife has about realized all this -- now just one more person needs to understand it.
Originally posted by vistesdKudos to you. A thoughtful, compassionate and intelligent response, which is a rare combination indeed, in general and not least of all on these forums.
Scriabin,
I have read through this thread, and the only thing I can come up with is a question:
If you were simply an attorney—that is, an attorney who did this kind of work—without the particular personal considerations, would you take this case?
Having (finally) read Frankl, I am not sure that anything about this case furthers generating th ...[text shortened]... ge that or not (and that is not just for my own “feeling better” about it).]
Be well, friend.
Originally posted by DrKFthanks, but I've been guilty of taking all this and those here for granted and merely toying and I regret doing it.
Kudos to you. A thoughtful, compassionate and intelligent response, which is a rare combination indeed, in general and not least of all on these forums.
Rather than just pick up and go somewhere more to my liking, I'm sticking around long enough to make some amends, which includes making myself rather vulnerable in this thread.
What I didn't realize and what is becoming ever more clear with messages like yours are two points.
First is how wrong it was of me to just bandy words and insults as though it didn't matter to anyone. I see by doing what I've done here that lots of folks might get as upset as I can when someone thoughtless and rude as I was acts up or gets malicious.
Second is how people reveal themselves here. If you reveal yourself and speak truly about something that really matters to you, and you aren't merely striking a pose or seeking praise or agreement, it is amazing what happens. Eventually you can put up with a lot with which you find completely incorrect or even silly, for there are a lot of other things of value from the same incorrect and silly people. I'm learning a lot about chess from someone like that, now.
Almost all who take the time to get down in the weeds and understand something serious in a thoroughgoing manner have something valuable to say. Many if not most just don't have or spend the time.
Those who have no time or don't want to do more than what I was doing, don't stick around in a thread like this.
Of course, there are exceptions. There are hunters -- predators, who stalk other people on the forum. There are those who seem dedicated to some sort of internet role play they've adopted. I was using a scatter gun and heaping abuse in a nondiscriminatory manner -- not that such behavior is much if any better.
The predatory stalkers, though, if they don't change but keep it up, show themselves to be genuinely malicious, and intellectually dishonest. They don't really believe much of anything they say -- they aren't even interested in debate. They are merely predators, feeding by biting others on the neck. If they do it selectively, it is I think more than mere toying and role play -- it is a symptom of something caused by who knows what serious problem they have.
So, in part to make up for being out of bounds, I put my serious problem right out front and let folks fly -- only one really got under my skin for the completely outrageous, indecency of his/her/their? remarks.
Their technique is really rather creepy. Their agenda dictates their role of commenting, only, on what others say rather than exposing themselves by engaging in the substance of the thread. They use form and manners as cover, throwing up issues about what others post as a shield from behind which they can throw spears.
What can you do? It's a free net.
originally posted by Scriabin
Of course, there are exceptions. There are hunters -- predators, who stalk other people on the forum. There are those who seem dedicated to some sort of internet role play they've adopted. I was using a scatter gun and heaping abuse in a nondiscriminatory manner -- not that such behavior is much if any better.
The predatory stalkers, though, if they don't change but keep it up, show themselves to be genuinely malicious, and intellectually dishonest. They don't really believe much of anything they say -- they aren't even interested in debate. They are merely predators, feeding by biting others on the neck. If they do it selectively, it is I think more than mere toying and role play -- it is a symptom of something caused by who knows what serious problem they have.
So, in part to make up for being out of bounds, I put my serious problem right out front and let folks fly -- only one really got under my skin for the completely outrageous, indecency of his/her/their? remarks.
Their technique is really rather creepy. Their agenda dictates their role of commenting, only, on what others say rather than exposing themselves by engaging in the substance of the thread. They use form and manners as cover, throwing up issues about what others post as a shield from behind which they can throw spears.
More bewilderingly self-regarding maudlin twaddle. The four paragraphs above about me are indiscernable from the rest of the twisted self-regarding maudlin twaddle on this thread. Talking about your wife and your daughter and the suicides of people known only to you ad nauseam to strangers in an internet chat room (while being roundly ignored by many of the regular posters who think you're an abusive conceited baffoon)?? And you have the gall to cry into your beer about "symptom(s) of something caused by who knows what serious problem they have"? Priceless. Definitive.
I firmly believe - and this my contribution and my penny's worth for you Scriabian, because I've met plenty of people just like you in real life too - that the fact that you are using RHP as an opportunity to simply talk incessantly about yourself and emit various shades of condescending "intellectual" rebuke to many of those who engage with you is a clear indicator that your self-pitying self-regard perhaps lies at the heart of your problem.
Serving up this mawkish story about yourself and then tut'tutting about others' relative lack of emotional intelligence, as they tiptoe about on the eggshells you have very self-consciously scattered on the ground, is itself emotionally twisted. I genuinely believe your suffocating self-obsession might be a factor in the dilemma you find yourself in.
As many other people here have stated, I don't think the psychologist should be sued. Summon up some decency.Tthe psychologist should not be sued. Now, pick yourself up, dust yourself down, try to come to terms with the fact that the central issue isn't you, and then address the real problem with selflessness and assertiveness. You cannot allow people close to you to champion vicarious revenge because they are still stricken with their own unresolved grief.
However if your long tedious dollops of risible armchair psychiatry directed at me are anything to go by, I do wonder whether you have the prerequisite selflessness and objectivity to get it right. Blathering away on a chess web site to people you habitually abuse is not a very good sign.
As for the cause of your 'outrage', at least you now seem to admit (above) that it all started with your routine "heaping (of) abuse" with a "scatter gun" on fellow posters. But your suggestion that putting your "serious problem (about suicides, family strife, legal shenanigans) right out front and let folks fly" is some kind of compensation for previous abusiveness that you say was "out of bounds" (Scriabin: now I am "...making myself rather vulnerable in this thread [to make amends]" ) is absolutely, breathtakingly, and clinically pathetic. It is quite clear that your own "emotional intelligence" is seriously in question here. And this may be the biggest stumbling block between here and a solution to the problem between you and your wife and your daughter.
Originally posted by FMFI just have to ask: Why?
originally posted by Scriabin
Of course, there are exceptions. There are hunters -- predators, who stalk other people on the forum. There are those who seem dedicated to some sort of internet role play they've adopted. I was using a scatter gun and heaping abuse in a nondiscriminatory manner -- not that such behavior is much if any better.
The pred olution to the problem between you and your wife and your daughter.
Let's assume, arguendo, that everything you said in this entire thread is correct.
Why say it? Why make someone feel bad when you don't have to?
You're not debating an issue here. Scriabin was discussing something that has been bothering him and all of the other people on this thread are trying to make him feel better about it. If he was short with people early in the thread, he apologized for it.
So, even if he does have all those problems, why make him feel bad about it? Why not try to make him feel good? He wasn't trying to hurt you or offend you (at least until you ripped him in the middle of page 4 of the thread).
I simply don't get the mentality that possesses one to attack a total stranger who's feeling bad about something.
Originally posted by sh76Oh, you know what we're up against here, alright. The coarse streak shows through, thread after thread, like dung beneath a rosebush
I just have to ask: Why?
Let's assume, arguendo, that everything you said in this entire thread is correct.
Why say it? Why make someone feel bad when you don't have to?
You're not debating an issue here. Scriabin was discussing something that has been bothering him and all of the other people on this thread are trying to make him feel better about it. mentality that possesses one to attack a total stranger who's feeling bad about something.
you got ripped in several threads, did you not? what struck me about that was the similarity, the pattern of words used against you as used against me. It isn't personal, really, just a mantra he/she/they use.
for whatever reason, you've become a target and you will be hunted and harassed in the same manner I described.
most are loath to challenge this out of reluctance to themselves become targets. very much like a playground at recess, that bit.
folks don't mind being ragged or screamed at if it is a one off or two.
but this technique used on you and me and others is to systematically and with very good language throw epithets and go for the jugular in what has to be seen as a vendetta-like venom-filled malicious campaign to establish and sustain dominance over discussion without really engaging in anything like discussion or debate.
it is simply intimidation -- bullying.
but the emperor has no clothes. look to see if a direct answer on substantive grounds is offered. more likely you will get yet another bout of sidelong sarcastic commentary on you and what you chose to say and how you said it.
All hat and no cattle ...
everyone knows what sort we're dealing with.
Originally posted by sh76Holy Moley, can you imagine what this hard ass, dishonorable, bastard must be like in bed. Yikes, i feel repulsed just thinking about it. Then again, it depends on how she wields her whip, or trout, as the case may be.
I just have to ask: Why?
Let's assume, arguendo, that everything you said in this entire thread is correct.
Why say it? Why make someone feel bad when you don't have to?
You're not debating an issue here. Scriabin was discussing something that has been bothering him and all of the other people on this thread are trying to make him feel better about it. ...[text shortened]... mentality that possesses one to attack a total stranger who's feeling bad about something.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869granny
Holy Moley, can you imagine what this hard ass, dishonorable, bastard must be like in bed. Yikes, i feel repulsed just thinking about it. Then again, it depends on how she wields her whip, or trout, as the case may be.
GRANNY.
you said "she"
how is one to know here, what makes you sure?
and how many "debaters" here are also he/she/it?
Originally posted by ScriabinWell, she's mentioned her husband several times, BUT, the big give away it that she uses the word "ODD". Then again,IT uses the word pr**k from time to time which is a sure sign of manliness. After gazing into my crystal a-hole i have discerned that IT is two F'n Mother F'ers in one. Granny is what you see in her avatar....a cross dresser.
granny
you said "she"
how is one to know here, what makes you sure?
and how many "debaters" here are also he/she/it?
UNCLE GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869I knew THAT about Granny, of course.
Well, she's mentioned her husband several times, BUT, the big give away it that she uses the word "ODD". Then again,IT uses the word pr**k from time to time which is a sure sign of manliness. After gazing into my crystal a-hole i have discerned that IT is two F'n Mother F'ers in one. Granny is what you see in her avatar....a cross dresser.
UNCLE GRANNY.
btw, I'm going back down to Rehoboth Beach this weekend. got the house painted, still a lot to put back together. my daughter's boyfriend fried the AC trying to connect a new thermostat -- gonna be a hot one down there methinks.
houses are holes in the ground into which you pour money.
geez, I had no idea this fish was as you say -- that creeps me out somehow even worse. but it does explain the kind of semi-radar sort of signals the back of my neck was giving me from time to time, ya know?
but one knows one strikes a nerve when this seemingly erudite "lady" loses her ability to spell the insults she throws: "baffoon" ??? Freud wrote in his unpublished notes, I'm told, that such lapses indicate latent hermaphroditism -- but you knew that already, didn't you, Granny.
Originally posted by sh76As I said - rather as many other people here have stated, I don't think the psychologist should be sued. Scriabin should summon up some decency. The psychologist should not be sued. I reckon he needs to address the problem with selflessness and assertiveness. He cannot allow people close to him to champion vicarious revenge because they are still stricken with their own unresolved grief.
You're not debating an issue here.
Originally posted by ScriabinIf I sift through the harrowing details of my divorce from my first husband in public with all the people I have ever "bullied", and in so doing, make myself "vulnerable", will this make amends?
Oh, you know what we're up against here, alright. [...] everyone knows what sort we're dealing with.
Originally posted by FMFLet us say no more about it.
If I sift through the harrowing details of my divorce from my first husband in public with all the people I have ever "bullied", and in so doing, make myself "vulnerable", will this make amends?
This is the first time where you have addressed me where I have been made aware that you are a woman.
That makes a difference to me. I regret anything I've written that was inappropriate or impolite to or about you. I apologize.
I prefer not to argue with a lady. If I were wearing a hat, I'd be taking it off and bidding you a polite adieu.
Good night, madam.