RE: All members - new moderator

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

In a message dated 3/6/01 12:44:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

kimderry@... writes:

<< I

am all for a " middle of the roader " who will also not tolerate list

domination by said zealots. >>

I fully agree, and i'd like to see those who are interested in moderating

this list to say so on the list, and state how they view themselves....

I would not care if they were a very LOW CARBer, or a very HIGH CArber, as

long as they were willing to moderate and keep this list as a middle of the

road list.

Keeping the Zealots at bay.

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

In a message dated 3/6/01 1:01:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

ottercritter@... writes:

Do we want to live the longest, healthiest lives possible (which means really

> digging into the best possible diabetes treatment methods and practicing

> them), or do we want to hold hands and " go down with the Titanic, " all the

> while exchanging tips on how to deal with the complications that arise from

> iffy diabetes control?

Susie......i am with you on this one......i want to practice the best control

I can and live a long healthy life. It appears to me that Dr. Bernstein is

living proof that His methods work extremely well.

My vote is for Susie for moderator.

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

<<I second for Dave, we need a non biased person to moderate. >>

I definately agree with this. I think that Teri did a wonderful job and am

sorry to see her go... Does this mean that you are unsubscribing, too Teri?

(

D.

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

In a message dated 3/6/01 10:18:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, teri@...

writes:

> I think it's also important to mention NOW that everyone needs to realize

> that on this list the moderator is a list member and is entitled to express

> their own personal opinions just as much as everyone else. In addition to

> any other reasons I have for wanting to be relieved of moderator duty, you

> can add the fact that I got a couple of private emails from list members

> saying that as the moderator of the list I should moderate and NOT espress

my

> personal opinions. :-(

>

The moderator, as a DMer, needs to be free to express his/her personal

opinions.

I guess the best moderator should be someone with infinite patience and a

good sense of fair play. Any elementary school teachers in the group???

Carol T

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

>

>Hi ,

>Good to hear from you.

>This paragraph is very important, and will decide whether the group

>continues on as it is, or morphs into a list that is not acceptable to

>many.

>I can tolerate high-carbers, middle of the road-carbers, and

>low-carbers, but I cannot tolerate zealots for any faction, and IMHO we

>have to be careful that the new moderator is a " middle of the roader " ,

>or the list will change dramatically.

>Good luck!!

>Dave - 11:01:39 AM

>T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

I am with Dave big time on this. I just unsubscribed from 2 other diabetes

lists due to the aggressivness of some posts from some who are " zealots for

a particular faction " . The purpose of the list shouldn't be to convince

every other diabetic that they are managing their diabetes all wrong, are in

denial and will eventually " come around " . That kind of atmosphere doesn't

welcome newbies (like me :-) ). It turns them off and turns them away. I

am all for a " middle of the roader " who will also not tolerate list

domination by said zealots.

Kim

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

I agree with Dave here totally. Whether I low carb or not, I really do not

want to see this turn into a low carb only list. I know this is the problem

Teri was having. Dave --- want to moderate?

Barb

--------

http://www.RainbowFarm.com

http://www.RainbowFarm.com/photos.html

> > Please note that as a moderator you should be able to moderate/broker

> > without getting to involved in whether you think one members opinion

> > and experience is better than anothers. It's important that we keep

> > this a forum where everyone can share their positive experience,

> > without being hunted down - as you remember all you old members!

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

Dave O. wrote:

<< I can tolerate high-carbers, middle of the road-carbers, and low-carbers,

but I cannot tolerate zealots for any faction, and IMHO we have to be

careful that the new moderator is a " middle of the roader " ,

or the list will change dramatically. >>

A serious problem with diabetics is not taking the disease seriously enough,

because it is, in its early stages, an " invisible disease. " For a diabetic

not to recognize that carbohydrates are the problem would be like an

alcoholic thinking booze is not the problem. Until 1929, both type 1's and

2's had no medicine to rely on. Then insulin was invented. It was somewhat

helpful. Then sulfonylureas became available. But within six years of

commencing them, overworked pancreases failed and type 2's had to move on to

insulin (if they were not already on it), because sulfs work by overdriving

the pancreas to produce more and more insulin, to overcome insulin

resistance.

At first, insulin was made from animals' pancreases - cows and, mostly,

pigs. There are many today who say that pig-origin insulin is better at

relieving hypo unawareness than human-derived insulin. But on the other hand

the animal insulins tended to cause rejection problems ... cell atrophy at

common injection sites.

In 1995, a newer medication for type 2's was released. It caused some liver

problems, and some diabetics died. But it opened the market for many new

medications, some of which cause liver trouble but which hold the promise of

giving us a longer life and a better quality of life. Studies of diabetics

sadly revealed that life expectancy following diagnosis averaged 15 years.

We are trying to create a more hopeful scenario. We " modern diabetics, " if

you will, want to prove to ourselves and others that we can live long,

healthy lives by educating ourselves, testing regularly, eating wisely, and

taking good care of ourselves.

There are two groups of diabetics who don't understand the importance of

diet: those newly diagnosed who didn't receive adequate diabetes education

(or, quite often, unsound education), and those who know better but choose a

path that involves less sacrifice. We can pay attention to the details now,

and perhaps spare ourselves years of awful complications, or we will be

forced to pay attention down the road, when the complications accumulate.

Dave O. is an old hand at diabetes. He knows everything I've written. But he

continues to cling to the myth that we can be diagnosed diabetic and that

our lives won't be forever changed. Dave wants an " I'm okay; you're okay "

group, where every opinion is valid and we just throw up our hands and

repeat, " YMMV " (your mileage may vary). That way, Dave won't have to admit

that his gastronomic excursions cause his glucose elevations. He can go on

packing away the hickory-smoked nuts and " trail mix " and increasing his

insulin doses, and say, " That's just the nature of the disease ... diabetic

'progression' ... YMMV. "

I think it's a shame to lose Teri. I think some newly-diagnosed diabetics

and at least one oldtimer made her life hell. The newly-diagnoses

( " newbies " ) can be excused because they are being overwhelmed by

information. (A typical reaction would be, " That isn't what my

doctor/dietitian/diabetic friend told me! " ) Teri never said who the

complainers were. But from Dave's public post and his post to me, I think I

know.

The role of the moderator is merely to be the " cop, " if you will ... to

remove spammers or obvious abusers. It appears Dave wants instead a

moderator who will silence people who make him uncomfortable. He wants to

hang onto the illusion that there are many good approaches to diabetes, and

that he represents the " middle of the road. " I still recall what it was like

in misc.health.diabetes. There were intentionally clueless people there

too - as well as the " thought police. " We were allowed to talk only about

our personal experiences. Anybody could claim any fool thing, and the only

response allowed was " YMMV. " Type 1's and type 2's weren't allowed to

discuss each others' experiences. Diabetics were reporting terrible

cholesterol and triglycerides numbers, weight gain, escalating hypertension,

dead feet, heel cracks, restless leg syndrome, blurry vision, erectile

dysfunction, depression, listlessness, sleepiness, food cravings, leg sores,

heart trouble, type 2's were maxed out on their pills, plus hundreds of

units of insulin daily. But it was all supposed to be " okay, " because

everyone's opinion was equally valid, and we weren't allowed to freely

exchange info, and, of course, " YMMV. "

Dave claims this group is headed in the wrong direction. Then how to explain

roughly 370 members today? Which is more important - to save our own and

each others' lives, or to make everyone feel okay about their situation? Do

we want to live the longest, healthiest lives possible (which means really

digging into the best possible diabetes treatment methods and practicing

them), or do we want to hold hands and " go down with the Titanic, " all the

while exchanging tips on how to deal with the complications that arise from

iffy diabetes control?

Dave has been agitating a long while. I hope he understands that, regardless

of who the moderator is, the role of that person is not to suppress freedom

of expression, but merely to get rid of trouble-makers and spammers.

Susie

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

I think it's also important to mention NOW that everyone needs to realize that

on this list the moderator is a list member and is entitled to express their own

personal opinions just as much as everyone else. In addition to any other

reasons I have for wanting to be relieved of moderator duty, you can add the

fact that I got a couple of private emails from list members saying that as the

moderator of the list I should moderate and NOT espress my personal opinions.

:-(

Teri

Re: All members - new moderator

I agree with Dave here totally. Whether I low carb or not, I really do not

want to see this turn into a low carb only list. I know this is the problem

Teri was having. Dave --- want to moderate?

Barb

--------

http://www.RainbowFarm.com

http://www.RainbowFarm.com/photos.html

> > Please note that as a moderator you should be able to moderate/broker

> > without getting to involved in whether you think one members opinion

> > and experience is better than anothers. It's important that we keep

> > this a forum where everyone can share their positive experience,

> > without being hunted down - as you remember all you old members!

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

Rainbow Farm wrote:

I agree with Dave here totally. Whether I low carb or not, I really do not

want to see this turn into a low carb only list. I know this is the problem

Teri was having. Dave --- want to moderate?

Barb

--------

I second for Dave, we need a non biased person to moderate. We don't need a

moderator that dominates or hovers like a " parent " , I just can't deal with that,

I was almost ready to unsub myself

Also I would like a moderator to step in when diabetes data is posted that isn't

scientific proven, opinions ok, but I'm sure most of you know what I mean

without me going into detail. Sorry folks, JMHO

carol

---------------------------------

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

Teri wrote:

<< I think it's also important to mention NOW that everyone needs to realize

that on this list the moderator is a list member and is entitled to express

their own personal opinions just as much as everyone else. In addition to

any other reasons I have for wanting to be relieved of moderator duty, you

can add the fact that I got a couple of private emails from list members

saying that as the moderator of the list I should moderate and NOT espress

my personal opinions. :-( >>

Teri came to this group seeking information and support. She was kind enough

to create a lovely website for the group and to selflessly devote her time

to maintaining it as well as her moderator duties. Given Teri's unpleasant

experience, who in the world would want to be moderator, knowing that some

intolerant person is going to try to stifle his/her comments?

Susie

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

In a message dated 3/6/01 1:17:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, teri@...

writes:

<< I think it's also important to mention NOW that everyone needs to realize

that on this list the moderator is a list member and is entitled to express

their own personal opinions just as much as everyone else. In addition to

any other reasons I have for wanting to be relieved of moderator duty, you

can add the fact that I got a couple of private emails from list members

saying that as the moderator of the list I should moderate and NOT espress my

personal opinions. :-(

>>

Perhaps when the moderator is in Moderator mode... they can type in the

subject heading, or at the beginning of the mail.... Moderator and then

post...

that way, when they are in member mode, they can just share.

I do feel the moderator should be able to give their own opinions etc, but i

can see newbies being confufsed.

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

norgaards@... wrote:

>

> Please note that as a moderator you should be able to moderate/broker

> without getting to involved in whether you think one members opinion

> and experience is better than anothers. It's important that we keep

> this a forum where everyone can share their positive experience,

> without being hunted down - as you remember all you old members!

Hi ,

Good to hear from you.

This paragraph is very important, and will decide whether the group

continues on as it is, or morphs into a list that is not acceptable to

many.

I can tolerate high-carbers, middle of the road-carbers, and

low-carbers, but I cannot tolerate zealots for any faction, and IMHO we

have to be careful that the new moderator is a " middle of the roader " ,

or the list will change dramatically.

Good luck!!

--

Dave - 11:01:39 AM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

Constant change is here to stay.

--

Visit my HomePage:

http://dorcutt.homepage.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

And yes, the role of moderator is to get rid of trouble-makers and spammers.

But it is also to encourage mutual respect and involvement of all list

members regardless of the moderator’s position on the issues at hand.

Kim

.......And I say AMEN

Love and best wishes to all.

Tootie

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

As far as I am aware, none of us on this list are doctors and there are no

“Gods” here and I certainly wouldn’t look to anyone on this list to save my

life. I would rely on myself and my doctor for that if the need arose. It

is one thing to offer information and an opinion and to state what method

works best for you and why but it is entirely another to tell other

diabetics that their particular method of management is wrong, that they are

intentionally clueless, that they are misinformed, don’t understand the

importance of their diet and that it is only an illusion that there is more

than one good approach to managing diabetes.

I understand that some people are very convinced that their method is THE

right one. I also understand that there are others who don’t happen to

agree. This is not a “moderator” issue. It is a general “respect for other

people’s position issue”. I am not pro-Atkins or con-Atkins as I am

currently in the learning & exploration stage. but I also do not want to be

continually insulted or looked down upon by some “holier than thou” Atkins

supporter or likewise, some “holier than thou” non-Atkins supporter. Can we

not have our own opinions and beliefs without someone else trying to push

theirs down our throats? It reminds me of the “I’m a Catholic and my

religion is the ONLY right religion and any other religion is wrong”

environment that I experienced as a youngster.

It doesn’t appear to me as if Dave is trying to agitate anything. I believe

he has made a very respectful request without insult or injury and that what

he has said thus far makes sense. I don’t believe he is trying to suppress

freedom of expression. I believe he is trying to promote freedom to

practice without persecution. I’d like to see the general atmosphere be

middle of the road with mutual respect given to the followers of both Atkins

and non-Atkins regardless of whom the moderator is. In this way, we are

serving and respecting ALL diabetics, not just “Atkins practicing diabetics”

or “non- Atkins practicing diabetics”.

And yes, the role of moderator is to get rid of trouble-makers and spammers.

But it is also to encourage mutual respect and involvement of all list

members regardless of the moderator’s position on the issues at hand.

Kim

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

>

>A serious problem with diabetics is not taking the disease seriously

>enough,

>because it is, in its early stages, an " invisible disease. " For a diabetic

>not to recognize that carbohydrates are the problem would be like an

>alcoholic thinking booze is not the problem. Until 1929, both type 1's and

>2's had no medicine to rely on. Then insulin was invented. It was somewhat

>helpful. Then sulfonylureas became available. But within six years of

>commencing them, overworked pancreases failed and type 2's had to move on

>to

>insulin (if they were not already on it), because sulfs work by overdriving

>the pancreas to produce more and more insulin, to overcome insulin

>resistance.

>

>At first, insulin was made from animals' pancreases - cows and, mostly,

>pigs. There are many today who say that pig-origin insulin is better at

>relieving hypo unawareness than human-derived insulin. But on the other

>hand

>the animal insulins tended to cause rejection problems ... cell atrophy at

>common injection sites.

>

>In 1995, a newer medication for type 2's was released. It caused some liver

>problems, and some diabetics died. But it opened the market for many new

>medications, some of which cause liver trouble but which hold the promise

>of

>giving us a longer life and a better quality of life. Studies of diabetics

>sadly revealed that life expectancy following diagnosis averaged 15 years.

>We are trying to create a more hopeful scenario. We " modern diabetics, " if

>you will, want to prove to ourselves and others that we can live long,

>healthy lives by educating ourselves, testing regularly, eating wisely, and

>taking good care of ourselves.

>

>There are two groups of diabetics who don't understand the importance of

>diet: those newly diagnosed who didn't receive adequate diabetes education

>(or, quite often, unsound education), and those who know better but choose

>a

>path that involves less sacrifice. We can pay attention to the details now,

>and perhaps spare ourselves years of awful complications, or we will be

>forced to pay attention down the road, when the complications accumulate.

>

>Dave O. is an old hand at diabetes. He knows everything I've written. But

>he

>continues to cling to the myth that we can be diagnosed diabetic and that

>our lives won't be forever changed. Dave wants an " I'm okay; you're okay "

>group, where every opinion is valid and we just throw up our hands and

>repeat, " YMMV " (your mileage may vary). That way, Dave won't have to admit

>that his gastronomic excursions cause his glucose elevations. He can go on

>packing away the hickory-smoked nuts and " trail mix " and increasing his

>insulin doses, and say, " That's just the nature of the disease ... diabetic

>'progression' ... YMMV. "

>

>I think it's a shame to lose Teri. I think some newly-diagnosed diabetics

>and at least one oldtimer made her life hell. The newly-diagnoses

>( " newbies " ) can be excused because they are being overwhelmed by

>information. (A typical reaction would be, " That isn't what my

>doctor/dietitian/diabetic friend told me! " ) Teri never said who the

>complainers were. But from Dave's public post and his post to me, I think I

>know.

>

>The role of the moderator is merely to be the " cop, " if you will ... to

>remove spammers or obvious abusers. It appears Dave wants instead a

>moderator who will silence people who make him uncomfortable. He wants to

>hang onto the illusion that there are many good approaches to diabetes, and

>that he represents the " middle of the road. " I still recall what it was

>like

>in misc.health.diabetes. There were intentionally clueless people there

>too - as well as the " thought police. " We were allowed to talk only about

>our personal experiences. Anybody could claim any fool thing, and the only

>response allowed was " YMMV. " Type 1's and type 2's weren't allowed to

>discuss each others' experiences. Diabetics were reporting terrible

>cholesterol and triglycerides numbers, weight gain, escalating

>hypertension,

>dead feet, heel cracks, restless leg syndrome, blurry vision, erectile

>dysfunction, depression, listlessness, sleepiness, food cravings, leg

>sores,

>heart trouble, type 2's were maxed out on their pills, plus hundreds of

>units of insulin daily. But it was all supposed to be " okay, " because

>everyone's opinion was equally valid, and we weren't allowed to freely

>exchange info, and, of course, " YMMV. "

>

>Dave claims this group is headed in the wrong direction. Then how to

>explain

>roughly 370 members today? Which is more important - to save our own and

>each others' lives, or to make everyone feel okay about their situation? Do

>we want to live the longest, healthiest lives possible (which means really

>digging into the best possible diabetes treatment methods and practicing

>them), or do we want to hold hands and " go down with the Titanic, " all the

>while exchanging tips on how to deal with the complications that arise from

>iffy diabetes control?

>

>Dave has been agitating a long while. I hope he understands that,

>regardless

>of who the moderator is, the role of that person is not to suppress freedom

>of expression, but merely to get rid of trouble-makers and spammers.

>

>Susie

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

" Susie M. " wrote:

>

> Teri wrote:

>

> << I think it's also important to mention NOW that everyone needs to realize

> that on this list the moderator is a list member and is entitled to express

> their own personal opinions just as much as everyone else. In addition to

> any other reasons I have for wanting to be relieved of moderator duty, you

> can add the fact that I got a couple of private emails from list members

> saying that as the moderator of the list I should moderate and NOT espress

> my personal opinions. :-( >>

>

> Teri came to this group seeking information and support. She was kind enough

> to create a lovely website for the group and to selflessly devote her time

> to maintaining it as well as her moderator duties. Given Teri's unpleasant

> experience, who in the world would want to be moderator, knowing that some

> intolerant person is going to try to stifle his/her comments?

>

> Susie

Unfortunately, that's the way that it always is, and I feel for her.

E. and I have lots of experience running EBBS's.. myself a six

line board going back to 1983, and the Sysop/moderator really has to

walk on eggs when issuing their own positions, as there is always

someone that will take offense.

--

Dave - 2:16:44 PM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

Friends come and go. Enemies are forever.

--

Visit my HomePage:

http://dorcutt.homepage.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

carol wrote:

>

> Rainbow Farm wrote:

>

> I agree with Dave here totally. Whether I low carb or not, I really do not

> want to see this turn into a low carb only list. I know this is the problem

> Teri was having. Dave --- want to moderate?

>

> Barb

> --------

> I second for Dave, we need a non biased person to moderate. We don't need a

moderator that dominates or hovers like a " parent " , I just can't deal with that,

I was almost ready to unsub myself

Non biased?

Some would wonder, but I really am.

>

> Also I would like a moderator to step in when diabetes data is posted that

isn't scientific proven, opinions ok, but I'm sure most of you know what I mean

without me going into detail. Sorry folks, JMHO

So important.. We are all working for the same goals.

--

Dave - 2:19:44 PM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

Nobody's ugly after 2 a.m.

--

Visit my HomePage:

http://dorcutt.homepage.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

Teri wrote:

>

> I think it's also important to mention NOW that everyone needs to realize that

on this list the moderator is a list member and is entitled to express their own

personal opinions just as much as everyone else. In addition to any other

reasons I have for wanting to be relieved of moderator duty, you can add the

fact that I got a couple of private emails from list members saying that as the

moderator of the list I should moderate and NOT espress my personal opinions.

:-(

>

> Teri

And I'm sorry that it happened that way, it shouldn't.

--

Dave - 2:25:45 PM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

I wake near the end of the day.

--

Visit my HomePage:

http://dorcutt.homepage.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

" Susie M. " wrote:

>

> Dave O. wrote:

>

> << I can tolerate high-carbers, middle of the road-carbers, and low-carbers,

> but I cannot tolerate zealots for any faction, and IMHO we have to be

> careful that the new moderator is a " middle of the roader " ,

> or the list will change dramatically. >>

>

> A serious problem with diabetics is not taking the disease seriously enough,

> because it is, in its early stages, an " invisible disease. " For a diabetic

> not to recognize that carbohydrates are the problem would be like an

> alcoholic thinking booze is not the problem. Until 1929, both type 1's and

> 2's had no medicine to rely on. Then insulin was invented. It was somewhat

> helpful. Then sulfonylureas became available. But within six years of

> commencing them, overworked pancreases failed and type 2's had to move on to

> insulin (if they were not already on it), because sulfs work by overdriving

> the pancreas to produce more and more insulin, to overcome insulin

> resistance.

Would you accept that too many carbs are " one " of the problems? How

about diet; how about exercise?

I don't hold the same position as you with regard to sulfs, and I have

never seen it *proven* via clinical research that sulfs " pummel " the

pancreas into not working. And the six year figure is " out of the air " ..

not proven. Yes, sulfs to stimulate the pancreas, and there are

*articles* on the remodeling of the pancreas (by Hayden), but nothing

clinical proving that sulfs destroy the pancreas. There is secondary

failure of medications, but this is a progression of the disease and not

a proven aspect of taking sulfs.

I also feel that some people, overweight, with no exercise regimen, need

a medication that will get them on track, and get their numbers very

quickly into a safer zone, and if it takes sulfs to do that, then I feel

it is necessary.

I hate to be a naysayer when it comes to some of your advice Susie,

because I know you work from the heart, and you hate this disease, and

you want to help others, but there is no place for unproven theory.

>

> At first, insulin was made from animals' pancreases - cows and, mostly,

> pigs. There are many today who say that pig-origin insulin is better at

> relieving hypo unawareness than human-derived insulin. But on the other hand

> the animal insulins tended to cause rejection problems ... cell atrophy at

> common injection sites.

>

> In 1995, a newer medication for type 2's was released. It caused some liver

> problems, and some diabetics died. But it opened the market for many new

> medications, some of which cause liver trouble but which hold the promise of

> giving us a longer life and a better quality of life. Studies of diabetics

> sadly revealed that life expectancy following diagnosis averaged 15 years.

> We are trying to create a more hopeful scenario. We " modern diabetics, " if

> you will, want to prove to ourselves and others that we can live long,

> healthy lives by educating ourselves, testing regularly, eating wisely, and

> taking good care of ourselves.

Amen Sis.

>

> There are two groups of diabetics who don't understand the importance of

> diet: those newly diagnosed who didn't receive adequate diabetes education

> (or, quite often, unsound education), and those who know better but choose a

> path that involves less sacrifice.

Sadly Susie, there will always be those who do not want to sacrifice the

total quality of what they feel is their life style, and they require

medication to cover that. I take medication, watch carbs (to some

extent), and exercise when I get the urge, admittedly not enough. But it

is my way, and it works for me, and I have no problems with my HbA1c.

We can pay attention to the details now,

> and perhaps spare ourselves years of awful complications, or we will be

> forced to pay attention down the road, when the complications accumulate.

I agree totally with the paying attention. There are various roads to

travel though.

>

> Dave O. is an old hand at diabetes. He knows everything I've written. But he

> continues to cling to the myth that we can be diagnosed diabetic and that

> our lives won't be forever changed. Dave wants an " I'm okay; you're okay "

> group, where every opinion is valid and we just throw up our hands and

> repeat, " YMMV " (your mileage may vary). That way, Dave won't have to admit

> that his gastronomic excursions cause his glucose elevations. He can go on

> packing away the hickory-smoked nuts and " trail mix " and increasing his

> insulin doses, and say, " That's just the nature of the disease ... diabetic

> 'progression' ... YMMV. "

You are also famous for putting words in people's mouths, along with

excess food that you think they might be eating.. I do not adhere to the

position that " it's just the nature of the disease.. diabetic

progression " ...YMMV and have never indicated that. Yes I eat almonds,

and trail mix, but I don't eat them in addition to what I normally eat,

but instead of. Makes a difference.

Let's compare HbA1cs Susie.. I don't deny myself all of the good things

in life, but I don't partake in all of them either.. moderation allows

me to have appropriate numbers and I don't " miss out " .

I do also feel that if someone has a way that works for them, and keeps

their numbers controlled so that they have a *good* HbA1c, then I don't

fault them.

I think you're jealous..

>

> I think it's a shame to lose Teri. I think some newly-diagnosed diabetics

> and at least one oldtimer made her life hell. The newly-diagnoses

> ( " newbies " ) can be excused because they are being overwhelmed by

> information. (A typical reaction would be, " That isn't what my

> doctor/dietitian/diabetic friend told me! " ) Teri never said who the

> complainers were.

Teri was an excellent moderator. I am deeply saddened to see her go. I

knew what her regimen was, and it certainly isn't what some would do,

and she was even criticized for that, but she *never* came down on

anyone for stating their regimen and that it was working well for

themselves, as it should be.

But from Dave's public post and his post to me, I think I

> know.

Methinks you might be in error with your assumption. My best boss ever

taught me to " never assume anything " .

>

> The role of the moderator is merely to be the " cop, " if you will ... to

> remove spammers or obvious abusers. It appears Dave wants instead a

> moderator who will silence people who make him uncomfortable. He wants to

> hang onto the illusion that there are many good approaches to diabetes, and

> that he represents the " middle of the road. " I still recall what it was like

> in misc.health.diabetes. There were intentionally clueless people there

> too - as well as the " thought police. " We were allowed to talk only about

> our personal experiences. Anybody could claim any fool thing, and the only

> response allowed was " YMMV. " Type 1's and type 2's weren't allowed to

> discuss each others' experiences. Diabetics were reporting terrible

> cholesterol and triglycerides numbers, weight gain, escalating hypertension,

> dead feet, heel cracks, restless leg syndrome, blurry vision, erectile

> dysfunction, depression, listlessness, sleepiness, food cravings, leg sores,

> heart trouble, type 2's were maxed out on their pills, plus hundreds of

> units of insulin daily. But it was all supposed to be " okay, " because

> everyone's opinion was equally valid, and we weren't allowed to freely

> exchange info, and, of course, " YMMV. "

I've had years of experience being a cop.. I'm a retired Det. Police

Sgt., but that is not what is needed here, for darn sure. I don't

believe in silencing anyone either, but I do believe in making sure that

everyone knows that the poster may be prosthelyzing their own regimen

unless it is backed by clinical study.

I am still a member of MHD, and ASD. I talk about things that have

worked for me, and what I've garnered via research, and I respect

other's opinions regarding themselves.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but you cannot get away with your

" pummeling the pancreas " into failure statements without clinical

research backing it up. We don't need to scare newcomers into not taking

their medication if it is working for them.

>

> Dave claims this group is headed in the wrong direction.

Where has Dave ever said this? I am feeling that this is turning into a

personal attack.

> Then how to explain

> roughly 370 members today? Which is more important - to save our own and

> each others' lives, or to make everyone feel okay about their situation?

A scarey statement. You're no doctor; you're not necessarily saving any

lives other than giving good information on what they need to do to get

their disease under control. We cannot *give* medical advice.

Do

> we want to live the longest, healthiest lives possible (which means really

> digging into the best possible diabetes treatment methods and practicing

> them), or do we want to hold hands and " go down with the Titanic, " all the

> while exchanging tips on how to deal with the complications that arise from

> iffy diabetes control?

Of course, but Susie.. YMMV.. I would imagine that a great many on this

list know how to swim, and aren't going down " with the Titanic " .

>

> Dave has been agitating a long while. I hope he understands that, regardless

> of who the moderator is, the role of that person is not to suppress freedom

> of expression, but merely to get rid of trouble-makers and spammers.

A personal attack. You are the only one who has ever related that to me.

So Dave is an agitator?

I also feel that you would not be tolerant of any way that you didn't

agree with as moderator.

I apologize to the list for this post, both for the sender, and the

receiver (me). This is a perfect example of the type of post that should

receive moderation as it is clearly a personal attack.

This is also a good reason for the continuance of Teri's headaches.

--

Dave - 2:25:45 PM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

I wake near the end of the day.

--

Visit my HomePage:

http://dorcutt.homepage.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

Rainbow Farm wrote:

>

> I agree with Dave here totally. Whether I low carb or not, I really do not

> want to see this turn into a low carb only list. I know this is the problem

> Teri was having. Dave --- want to moderate?

Because I have tended to fool around more than be serious, I think I

would have a difficult time passing muster Barb, but thanks. I really

like this list and wouldn't want to see hard feelings.

--

Dave - 3:10:45 PM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

Impotence: Nature's way of saying " No hard feelings "

--

Visit my HomePage:

http://dorcutt.homepage.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

Kim Derry wrote:

>

> >

> >Hi ,

> >Good to hear from you.

> >This paragraph is very important, and will decide whether the group

> >continues on as it is, or morphs into a list that is not acceptable to

> >many.

> >I can tolerate high-carbers, middle of the road-carbers, and

> >low-carbers, but I cannot tolerate zealots for any faction, and IMHO we

> >have to be careful that the new moderator is a " middle of the roader " ,

> >or the list will change dramatically.

> >Good luck!!

> >Dave - 11:01:39 AM

> >T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

>

> I am with Dave big time on this. I just unsubscribed from 2 other diabetes

> lists due to the aggressivness of some posts from some who are " zealots for

> a particular faction " . The purpose of the list shouldn't be to convince

> every other diabetic that they are managing their diabetes all wrong, are in

> denial and will eventually " come around " . That kind of atmosphere doesn't

> welcome newbies (like me :-) ). It turns them off and turns them away. I

> am all for a " middle of the roader " who will also not tolerate list

> domination by said zealots.

>

> Kim

Thanks Kim. Stick around, there are a lot of good people here.

--

Dave - 3:13:46 PM

T2 - 8/98 Glucophage, NPH

-

Davors Daily Aphorism:

I hear what you're saying

--

Visit my HomePage:

http://dorcutt.homepage.com

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

Dave O. wrote:

<< Would you accept that too many carbs are " one " of the problems? How about

diet; how about exercise? >>

You know very well that I encourage exercise, weight lifting, weight loss,

and other approaches to diabetes treatment. But my comment about carbs was

in response to your promotion of reducing carbohydrate intake as only one of

several other, valid diets.

<< I have never seen it *proven* via clinical research that sulfs " pummel "

the pancreas into not working ... Yes, sulfs to stimulate the pancreas >>

" Pummel " = " stimulate. " Grab a good search engine and do a search including

+diabet* +pancreas +secondary +failure. By the time of diagnosis, Dr.

Bernstein estimates that 80 percent of pancreas function has been lost. Our

beta cells need to be rested. But sulfonylureas just keep overdriving them.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/98v11n4/pg211.htm

As you see, with sulfs, insulin production goes up, glucose levels drop even

in normoglycemia (meaning hypos), plasma insulin levels go up, weight goes

up, and there's no improvement in lipids.

http://www.diabetes.org/clinicaldiabetes/v16n21998/pg58.htm

" The primary mechanism of action of sulfonylureas is direct stimulation of

insulin release ... The secondary failure rate (failure of adequate response

after a period of response) of sulfonylureas has been estimated to be 10%

per year,2 although in many populations the failure rate may be much higher

.... primary significant adverse effects of sulfonylureas are hypoglycemia

and weight gain ... one study revealed a 20% chance of hypoglycemia every 6

months in patients treated with sulfonylureas2 ... The United Kingdom

Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) recently reported the incidence of

hypoglycemia after therapy with chlorpropamide, glyburide, or insulin to be

13.5%, 27.8%, and 33.4%, respectively.13 >>

" the UKPDS reported significant elevations in fasting plasma insulin

concentrations in patients treated with sulfonylureas ... it has been

hypothesized that increases in insulin concentrations may contribute to

complications, weight gain, and possibly cardiovascular disease "

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes/98marchft/pg345.htm

" Treatment of type 2 diabetes with SUs (sulfonylureas) is associated with a

number of problems. These include hypoglycemic episodes, secondary failure,

and possible cardiovascular side effects "

Dave wrote:

<< And the six year figure is " out of the air " .. not proven. >>

http://www.heartinfo.org/news/diabetes.htm

Diabetes drug ups mortality after angioplasty

NEW YORK, Jan 04 (Reuters Health) -- Oral sulfonylurea drugs commonly used

to treat diabetes appear to increase the risk of dying soon after undergoing

balloon angioplasty following a heart attack, a study suggests. A study at

the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, showed that about 24% of the

diabetic patients taking sulfonylurea drugs died in the hospital after the

procedure, compared with 11% of diabetics not taking the drugs. Overall, the

drugs appear to more than double mortality risk, according to a report in

the January issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

High levels of insulin may increase risk of blood clots, heart attack

(3/01/00 HeartInfo) - A recent study shows that persons with elevated

insulin levels had high concentrations of PAI-1 and tPA, two proteins which

impair the blood's ability to dissolve clots. This was true for diabetics

and non-diabetics, but diabetics and people at risk of the disease had the

highest levels of the antigens and of insulin. Because blood clots can clog

arteries, this study links high insulin levels with increased risk of

cardiovascular disease.

Low-carbohydrate diet helps diabetics

NEW YORK, Jan 04 (Reuters Health) -- A low-carbohydrate, calorie-restricted

diet can help people with type 2 diabetes get their blood sugar under

control when standard dietary changes and drug treatment have failed,

according to California researchers. At least in the short term, the diet

may help patients avoid having to take insulin to control their disease.

After 8 weeks on a diet with 25% of calories from carbohydrates, type 2

diabetics had a significant improvement in blood sugar levels compared to

those seen with a diet with 55% of calories from carbohydrates, the authors

report in the December issue of the Journal of the American College of

Nutrition.

Posted March 6, 2001 · March 6, 2001

SusieM. am new here as you know, i have had diabeties for 23 years, there are

people on the list that are very new and you just scared me half to death what

do you think you just did to them. i think in my humble opion, that you and dave

need to take your differences off list post each other privatly, i realize my

doc.s are in the dark ages. but i did not need to know that my mortality rate

went down because of meds i took. thanks i needed that.

very disapointed at this point

glenna

http://barnie640.tripod.com/moneymakers/

Re: All members - new moderator

Dave O. wrote:

<< Would you accept that too many carbs are " one " of the problems? How about

diet; how about exercise? >>

You know very well that I encourage exercise, weight lifting, weight loss,

and other approaches to diabetes treatment. But my comment about carbs was

in response to your promotion of reducing carbohydrate intake as only one of

several other, valid diets.

<< I have never seen it *proven* via clinical research that sulfs " pummel "

the pancreas into not working ... Yes, sulfs to stimulate the pancreas >>

" Pummel " = " stimulate. " Grab a good search engine and do a search including

+diabet* +pancreas +secondary +failure. By the time of diagnosis, Dr.

Bernstein estimates that 80 percent of pancreas function has been lost. Our

beta cells need to be rested. But sulfonylureas just keep overdriving them.

http://www.diabetes.org/diabetesspectrum/98v11n4/pg211.htm

As you see, with sulfs, insulin production goes up, glucose levels drop even

in normoglycemia (meaning hypos), plasma insulin levels go up, weight goes

up, and there's no improvement in lipids.

http://www.diabetes.org/clinicaldiabetes/v16n21998/pg58.htm

" The primary mechanism of action of sulfonylureas is direct stimulation of

insulin release ... The secondary failure rate (failure of adequate response

after a period of response) of sulfonylureas has been estimated to be 10%

per year,2 although in many populations the failure rate may be much higher

... primary significant adverse effects of sulfonylureas are hypoglycemia