Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Dear Trish, I'm no expert but it sounds like you need to get Kelsey in the the dr. What you are describing sounds like some serious fluid retention, a problem with liver problems. I'm sure the rest will help but get her in to see her doc! Amy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Dear nne, I'm with you on the vile contrast for CTs. Luckily, for some reason I've only had to have it a few times, I usually get some radioactive shot - putting it that way it doesn't sound to great but I can handle it better. I need another CT next month so I suspect they will be calling soon! Amy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 21, 2003 Report Share Posted November 21, 2003 Dear Gaynel, We will miss you. I hope that Cliff will have some smooth sailing for awhile! Take care. Amy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2004 Report Share Posted August 26, 2004 >> From: " cat777spikenard " <cat777spikenard@...> > Subject: wanting iv after recent but getting oral tetracycline > > > I finally visited a good llmd in the Ft. Worth area, Dr. M. Recently dx with lyme > after 14 yrs of illness, he put me on tetracycline. Dr. M said he had concerns > about blood stickiness and said that another llmd in Tx a Dr. H, lost patients > newly on iv.. >> He did say that tetracycline compared to Rocephin in effectiveness. >> He also gave me Diflucan and previcid. >> Thank You All-Anne > Hi Anne, I was under the same impression, that IV's were the way to go, but I've been hearing that it may not be right for everyone, right away. My doctor has opted for the oral route too, at least to begin with. I was wondering what dose of tetracycline did your doctor prescribe for you? Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 In a message dated 2/27/2005 2:24:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, seaorca@... writes: I think that the closer to either extreme pole one moves on this issue, the more utopianism is required. To my way of thinking, the anarchist notion of " property is theft " is a more natural and desirable social concept than property uber alles, yet also requires some degree of utopianism. _____ Say, just for the sake of argument, that natural resources were unlimited (they aren't.) Would it then be theft to take a portion of them, modify them into something useful, and then claim ownership over what you've modified? If it would, isn't this declaring person a's right to take what person b has created of her own work? Isn't, it, then, the lack of property that is theft rather than property? Now, unfortunately, resources are scarce. It would be a more just world if everyone had unlimited capacity to use their own labor and ingenuity without being trapped down by past occurrences that had nothing to do with them. Yet this is all the more reason for property to be necessary. Property allows scarce resources to be managed efficiently, whereas lack of property allows them to be overused, abused, and eventually destroyed (see 's post on the tragedy of the commons.) It seems paragraph one shows that property more closely approximates justice than lack of property, and paragraph two shows that it is more desirable from a utilitarian perspective than lack of property. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 On Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:46:13 -0500 Idol wrote:<Idol@...> > Well... yes, I do think situations analogous to my hypothetical are not > merely likely but virtually certain to occur in a property uber alles > world, but I don't expect you to concede the fact. Most propertarians (to > borrow your most welcomely forthright term) at least pretend to a certain > degree of utopianism, asserting that the world would be either somewhat > better or much better for most people if their will were done. I think that the closer to either extreme pole one moves on this issue, the more utopianism is required. To my way of thinking, the anarchist notion of " property is theft " is a more natural and desirable social concept than property uber alles, yet also requires some degree of utopianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 On Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 14:54:35 EST ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote > > Say, just for the sake of argument, that natural resources were unlimited > (they aren't.) Would it then be theft to take a portion of them, modify > them > into something useful, and then claim ownership over what you've > modified? If > it would, isn't this declaring person a's right to take what person b has > created of her own work? Isn't, it, then, the lack of property that is > theft > rather than property? First of all, apologies for not fixing the subject line and losing the thread. In your scenario above, assuming unlimited resources and perfect distribution, I don't think that b has any claim over the product of a's work provided that a's product is not required for b's life (which would seem unlikely). If you and I both have equal access to the unlimited resources and skill training to make widgets then it shouldn't matter IMHO. Before continuing. it would be best to define property and possessions so that they are not confused. Anarchists define " private property " (or just " property, " for short) as state-protected monopolies of certain objects or privileges which are used to exploit others. " Possession, " on the other hand, is ownership of things that are not used to exploit others (e.g. a car, a refrigerator, a toothbrush, etc.). Thus many things can be considered as either property or possessions depending on how they are used. For example, a house that one lives in is a possession, whereas if one rents it to someone else at a profit it becomes property. Similarly, if one uses a saw to make a living as a self-employed carpenter, the saw is a possession; whereas if one employs others at wages to use the saw for one's own profit, it is property. Anarchism " abolishes private ownership of the means of production and distribution, and with it goes capitalistic business. Personal possession remains only in the things you use. Thus, your watch is your own, but the watch factory belongs to the people. Land, machinery, and all other public utilities will be collective property, neither to be bought nor sold. Actual use will be considered the only title -- not to ownership but to possession. " {ABCs of Anarchism]. Thus the phrase " property is theft " does not refer to possessions (this is commonly misunderstood). > > Now, unfortunately, resources are scarce. It would be a more just world > if > everyone had unlimited capacity to use their own labor and ingenuity > without > being trapped down by past occurrences that had nothing to do with them. > Yet > this is all the more reason for property to be necessary. Property > allows > scarce resources to be managed efficiently, whereas lack of property > allows > them to be overused, abused, and eventually destroyed (see 's post > on > the tragedy of the commons.) I would contend that the right of a person to self-ownership is more important than resource management and that property promotes the overuse, abuse, and destruction of the individual. I also believe that the concept of " no property " results in a more steady state economy without the capitalist " grow or die " ethic The hierarchical form of capitalist business funnels profits upward, requiring more and more workers and resources. A co-op is more steady state because the larger it becomes the more people will need to get an equal slice of the pie, so there is no incentive for growth. > > It seems paragraph one shows that property more closely approximates > justice > than lack of property, and paragraph two shows that it is more desirable > from a utilitarian perspective than lack of property. I've no political expert, but I think I've argued against your conclusions here. Honestly, I mostly come to this by way of my spiritual beliefs (Buddhism) which seem to be off- topic here, rather than through extensive political and economic analysis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.