Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 410

Thread: For one who shall remain nameless.....

  1. #201
    Julie Bove Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    W. Baker wrote:
    > Ozgirl <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> "KROM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:jei33c$6tu$[email protected]..
    >>> sorry ozgirl but "put it out of its misery" has always meant to kill
    >>> it here and I've heard it used in UK movies in the euthanize
    >>> context.
    >>>
    >>> put "what does put it out of its misery mean?" into a Google search
    >>> bar and see the result.
    >>>
    >>> its very easy to take something a person says wrong..so lets be
    >>> careful when taking a idiom wrong in others because we will
    >>> eventually do it ourselves.
    >>>
    >>> KROM

    >
    >> In my country an ass is not a butt. Should I take Americans literally
    >> when they say ass? I accept what Americans use in that context, can
    >> it be possible that Americans can accept different word/phrase
    >> usages from others? Especially when the context was there, i.e.
    >> followed by a list of possible ways to relieve said misery. Instead
    >> of a call of Ozgirl suggests I kill my cat! How about, Ozgirl, are
    >> you saying I should kill my cat? Nope, kangaroo trial instead.
    >> Tolerance for differences at its best, but yet... the phrase means
    >> more than just to kill even in America. Not my problem if people in
    >> here haven't experienced it. Not my problem that people refuse to
    >> check it into properly. Google: "define: put out of misery".

    >
    >> "http://www.writersevents.com/Words_Starting_with_P/put_ones_foot_down_put_something_together/put_someone_or_something_out_of_their_misery_defin ition.html
    >> Idiom: put someone or something out of their misery
    >> To ****relieve them***** from their physical suffering or their
    >> mental anguish.
    >> To kill (an animal that is in great pain)." (American)

    >
    >> "http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/put-sb-out-of-their-misery
    >> to stop someone worrying, usually by giving them information that
    >> they have been waiting for" (British)

    >
    >> "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/put+someone+out+of+his+or+her+misery
    >> Kill a wounded or suffering animal or person, as in When a horse
    >> breaks a leg, there is nothing to do but put it out of its misery .
    >> [Late 1700s]

    >
    >> End someone's feeling of suspense, as in Tell them who won the
    >> tournament; put them out of their misery . [c. 1920] *******Both
    >> usages employ put out of in the sense of "extricate" or "free
    >> from."********" (American)

    >
    >> http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+out+of+misery
    >> Put (one) out of (one's) misery
    >> 1. Euph. Fig. to kill someone as an act of mercy. Why doesn't the
    >> doctor simply put her out of her misery? He took pills to put
    >> himself out of his misery.
    >> 2. Fig. to end a suspenseful situation for someone. Please, put me
    >> out of misery; what happened? I put her out of her misery and told
    >> her how the movie ended.
    >> See also: misery, out, put
    >> McGraw-Hill Dictionary of ****************American
    >> Idioms************* and Phrasal Verbs. ? 2002 by The McGraw-Hill
    >> Companies, Inc.

    >
    >> Anyone still want to tell me the phase ONLY means to euthanise?

    >
    >>

    >
    > A number of us simultainiously were astounded to hear that there was
    > another meaning for a phrase we had all only heard s meaning to put
    > down or wthenize n animal. We all wrote, pretty simlutaniously.
    > When you described tht to you it didn't mean that some of us , at
    > leasi I, said that in the US it was not such a meaning tht it had in
    > oz. thant's all. When you sain put him out of his misery we had had
    > an automatic response. Once we were told tht it was one of those bum
    > , ass, knock up , kind of differences between British based and
    > American usages we could begin to deal with it. Criticising us all
    > and claiming dog iling, etc is rather an overkill from the Aussies as
    > it was totally new to us USAns that there was any other meaning.
    >
    > Please don't let your hostility towards Susan so cloud your view that
    > you misinterpret all of our reactions. It is simply one of those
    > langage differences that come up every once in a while.


    Could it be an age thing? Older people think it means that? I will ask my
    mom.

    Okay, I just did. She said in the context in which it was said, there is no
    way she would think that. So not an age thing.



  2. #202
    Susan Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    x-o-archive: yes

    Kate, I don't really see what the person is looking for... is he still
    on prednisone? Or dealing with the aftermath? Symptoms, post
    discontinuation Cushing's or adrenal suppression?

    Interesting about the heightened smell. When I had a bad/high steroid
    reaction to azithromycin, my eyesight got very bright and almost
    overcorrected sharpness.

    Susan

    On 1/10/2012 7:46 PM, Tiger Lily wrote:

    > copy and paste :
    >
    > On 8-1-2012 0:42, Tiger Lily wrote:
    > > On 1/7/2012 7:14 AM, BDR529 wrote:
    > >>>> BG monitoring is what I frequently do these days.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> good, Q
    > >>>>
    > >>>> what other weapons do you have to deal with the raised bg levels?
    > >> Metformin, ditching the prednison and lifestyle is the answer.
    > >>
    > >> Q

    > > well, yes, prednison is/can be a cause of diabetes
    > >
    > > some folks have been able to return to lifestyle choices with no meds,
    > > but many have to continue the diabetes meds
    > >
    > > how are you doing with the Metformin? It's a great type 2 med with lots
    > > of additional benefits and a LONG HISTORY.
    > >
    > > i like the long history part
    > >
    > > kate

    > After I ditched the prednison 4 days ago I experienced some
    > hypersensitiveness yesterday evening, my nose was suddenly all open and
    > very sensitive, suddenly I could smell literally everything, an
    > experience I haven't had in years. You name it, I could smell it,
    > coffee, mandarins, sambal (ugh), soap, fragrance, etc. And when the
    > ability to smell is high then the same is also true for taste, it was
    > amazing.
    >
    > The metformine is in my case 500 mg daily, it prevents the hypo's but
    > not the hypers, so I have to adapt my lifestyle to that. At least I
    > tolerate the taste of metformine. This was not the case with prednison
    > which really has the most intense bitter taste of all medicines I've
    > ever used. Aerius is sort of in between. All of them required plenty of
    > water directly after you take them orally.
    >
    > Q
    >
    >
    > i use [email protected] for my email addy and many folks filter that
    >
    > having said that, i'm getting e-mails that are a week old........ that i
    > haven't seen before
    >
    > ???
    > gotta love the internet!
    >
    > kate



  3. #203
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:jeipdb$iml$[email protected]..
    >
    > "Ozgirl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]..
    >>
    >>
    >> "Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:jeimtm$756$[email protected]..
    >>> Evelyn wrote:
    >>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:14:33 -0500, Susan <[email protected]>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> x-no-archive: yes
    >>>>>
    >>>>> On 1/10/2012 11:23 AM, BlueBrooke wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Must be another one of those cultural things. That's exactly
    >>>>>> what
    >>>>>> "putting them out of their misery" means to every vet I've ever
    >>>>>> been
    >>>>>> to.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Maybe I don't get around much, or don't understand English well
    >>>>> enough to get nuances and connotations, but that's the only way
    >>>>> I've
    >>>>> ever heard it used.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Susan
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I have only ever heard it used that way too. It means to kill.
    >>>
    >>> I have used it in other ways. Oh but I am sad. And pathetic.
    >>> Right?

    >>
    >> Even after I have explained (many times) that the usage was correct
    >> and that it exists in American dictionaries and that the proper
    >> context was used I am still guilty of a shameful act. Its still the
    >> not what you say but who you are attitude that's rife in the
    >> diabetics groups.

    >
    > Yeah. I'm just not good enough to be here. I should feel sorry for
    > myself.


    I'll buy the cake for the pity party because you don't like cake.


  4. #204
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:jeipjq$5j3$[email protected]..
    > Ozgirl <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > : "Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > : news:jeimtm$756$[email protected]..
    > : > Evelyn wrote:
    > : >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:14:33 -0500, Susan <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > : >>
    > : >>> x-no-archive: yes
    > : >>>
    > : >>> On 1/10/2012 11:23 AM, BlueBrooke wrote:
    > : >>>
    > : >>>> Must be another one of those cultural things. That's exactly
    > what
    > : >>>> "putting them out of their misery" means to every vet I've ever
    > : >>>> been
    > : >>>> to.
    > : >>>
    > : >>> Maybe I don't get around much, or don't understand English well
    > : >>> enough to get nuances and connotations, but that's the only way
    > I've
    > : >>> ever heard it used.
    > : >>>
    > : >>> Susan
    > : >>
    > : >>
    > : >> I have only ever heard it used that way too. It means to kill.
    > : >
    > : > I have used it in other ways. Oh but I am sad. And pathetic.
    > Right?
    >
    > : Even after I have explained (many times) that the usage was correct
    > and
    > : that it exists in American dictionaries and that the proper context
    > was
    > : used I am still guilty of a shameful act. Its still the not what you
    > say
    > : but who you are attitude that's rife in the diabetics groups.
    >
    > No. It is the timing of the responses wich came after each individual
    > read you original post. They had NOT read you explanation or if they
    > had,
    > they were explaining that it had only one meaning to them here in the
    > US.


    So therefore that was the right one and my comment meant I have ill will
    towards Susan's cat? Anyone care to ask why I was allegedly being so
    cruel?

    > Perhaps Julie has read more Englich authors than we ave, but I,
    > certainly,
    > have never heard it used in the way you use it. I generally do not
    > look
    > up everything in the dictionary if I firmly believe I understand a
    > word or
    > phrase. Do you?


    No but if someone told me it had another meaning then for sure I would
    be not only checking but apologising (if I had hastily ripped into
    them).

    There is no reason not to suppse that you thought the
    > poor cat had had enough and should be put down.


    Then why would I follow with a bunch of possible treatments? Why not
    stop at Susan, put your cat down. Is that really your belief about
    someone who is an advocate to the extreme about acting humanely towards
    others? How often do I doggedly defend people to the hilt for their
    rights? How often in the past weeks/months have I suggested probiotics
    to Susan about her cat's problems? Why would I suggest something
    potentially helpful if I thought the cat should be put down?


  5. #205
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "W. Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:jeipbf$5j3$[email protected]..
    > Ozgirl <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    > : "KROM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > : news:jei33c$6tu$[email protected]..
    > : > sorry ozgirl but "put it out of its misery" has always meant to
    > kill
    > : > it here and I've heard it used in UK movies in the euthanize
    > context.
    > : >
    > : > put "what does put it out of its misery mean?" into a Google
    > search
    > : > bar and see the result.
    > : >
    > : > its very easy to take something a person says wrong..so lets be
    > : > careful when taking a idiom wrong in others because we will
    > eventually
    > : > do it ourselves.
    > : >
    > : > KROM
    >
    > : In my country an ass is not a butt. Should I take Americans
    > literally
    > : when they say ass? I accept what Americans use in that context, can
    > it
    > : be possible that Americans can accept different word/phrase usages
    > from
    > : others? Especially when the context was there, i.e. followed by a
    > list
    > : of possible ways to relieve said misery. Instead of a call of Ozgirl
    > : suggests I kill my cat! How about, Ozgirl, are you saying I should
    > kill
    > : my cat? Nope, kangaroo trial instead. Tolerance for differences at
    > its
    > : best, but yet... the phrase means more than just to kill even in
    > : America. Not my problem if people in here haven't experienced it.
    > Not my
    > : problem that people refuse to check it into properly. Google:
    > "define:
    > : put out of misery".
    >
    > :
    > "http://www.writersevents.com/Words_Starting_with_P/put_ones_foot_down_put_something_together/put_someone_or_something_out_of_their_misery_defin ition.html
    > : Idiom: put someone or something out of their misery
    > : To ****relieve them***** from their physical suffering or their
    > mental
    > : anguish.
    > : To kill (an animal that is in great pain)." (American)
    >
    > :
    > "http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/put-sb-out-of-their-misery
    > : to stop someone worrying, usually by giving them information that
    > they
    > : have been waiting for" (British)
    >
    > :
    > "http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/put+someone+out+of+his+or+her+misery
    > : Kill a wounded or suffering animal or person, as in When a horse
    > breaks
    > : a leg, there is nothing to do but put it out of its misery . [Late
    > : 1700s]
    >
    > : End someone's feeling of suspense, as in Tell them who won the
    > : tournament; put them out of their misery . [c. 1920] *******Both
    > usages
    > : employ put out of in the sense of "extricate" or "free
    > from."********"
    > : (American)
    >
    > : http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+out+of+misery
    > : Put (one) out of (one's) misery
    > : 1. Euph. Fig. to kill someone as an act of mercy. Why doesn't the
    > doctor
    > : simply put her out of her misery? He took pills to put himself out
    > of
    > : his misery.
    > : 2. Fig. to end a suspenseful situation for someone. Please, put me
    > out
    > : of misery; what happened? I put her out of her misery and told her
    > how
    > : the movie ended.
    > : See also: misery, out, put
    > : McGraw-Hill Dictionary of ****************American
    > Idioms*************
    > : and Phrasal Verbs. ? 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
    >
    > : Anyone still want to tell me the phase ONLY means to euthanise?
    >
    > :
    >
    > A number of us simultainiously were astounded to hear that there was
    > another meaning for a phrase we had all only heard s meaning to put
    > down
    > or wthenize n animal. We all wrote, pretty simlutaniously. When you
    > described tht to you it didn't mean that some of us , at leasi I, said
    > that in the US it was not such a meaning tht it had in oz. thant's
    > all.
    > When you sain put him out of his misery we had had an automatic
    > response.
    > Once we were told tht it was one of those bum , ass, knock up , kind
    > of
    > differences between British based and American usages we could begin
    > to
    > deal with it. Criticising us all and claiming dog iling, etc is
    > rather
    > an overkill from the Aussies as it was totally new to us USAns that
    > there
    > was any other meaning.


    1. I explained (starting at least a couple of days ago) about there
    being another meaning (with suggestions to check dictionaries and
    context) yet the posts still kept flowing in about it only having one
    meaning.

    2. I haven't claimed dog piling at all. I defined (my own
    interpretation) of what dog piling means to me in another message. I do
    not feel dog piled.

    3. This isn't a bum, arse difference at all because every American
    dictionary I have been able to see online thus far gives two meanings to
    the phrase (*without* saying the second meaning is more commonly a
    British phrase) so its more a "I haven't experienced it" moment which
    should mean the posts about it should have stopped long before now.

    4. I have chosen to criticise anyone who has deliberately chosen to
    block that second meaning out of their heads (even after my requests to
    check out dictionaries and check context).

    5. My aversion to a lot of things about Susan doesn't cloud my judgment.
    People choose to ignore or justify her bad behaviour. If one wants to
    take that stance then I enter into a debate with them also.

    6. This is not simply a language difference (apart from the fact your
    dictionaries give two meanings also). If Susan says something derogatory
    a number of people jump to her defence claiming language difference or
    any other excuse. If I supposedly say something that could be a language
    difference issue I am crucified. Name one person in this thread that has
    said anything like oh Jan, I understand you meant no harm, we didn't
    realise that there was another meaning other than to euthanise an
    animal. No posts have had anything remotely sincere, all have said (bar
    one) that it means to kill. No acknowledgment of another meaning
    therefore no apology.

    > Please don't let your hostility towards Susan so cloud your view that
    > you
    > misinterpret all of our reactions. It is simply one of those
    > langage
    > differences that come up every once in a while.


    > Wendy
    >


  6. #206
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:jeir1j$q6l$[email protected]..
    > W. Baker wrote:
    >> Ozgirl <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> "Julie Bove" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> news:jeimtm$756$[email protected]..
    >>>> Evelyn wrote:
    >>>>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:14:33 -0500, Susan <[email protected]>
    >>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> x-no-archive: yes
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> On 1/10/2012 11:23 AM, BlueBrooke wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Must be another one of those cultural things. That's exactly
    >>>>>>> what "putting them out of their misery" means to every vet I've
    >>>>>>> ever been
    >>>>>>> to.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Maybe I don't get around much, or don't understand English well
    >>>>>> enough to get nuances and connotations, but that's the only way
    >>>>>> I've ever heard it used.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Susan
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have only ever heard it used that way too. It means to kill.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have used it in other ways. Oh but I am sad. And pathetic.
    >>>> Right?

    >>
    >>> Even after I have explained (many times) that the usage was correct
    >>> and that it exists in American dictionaries and that the proper
    >>> context was used I am still guilty of a shameful act. Its still the
    >>> not what you say but who you are attitude that's rife in the
    >>> diabetics groups.

    >>
    >> No. It is the timing of the responses wich came after each
    >> individual
    >> read you original post. They had NOT read you explanation or if they
    >> had, they were explaining that it had only one meaning to them here
    >> in the US. Perhaps Julie has read more Englich authors than we ave,
    >> but I, certainly, have never heard it used in the way you use it. I
    >> generally do not look up everything in the dictionary if I firmly
    >> believe I understand a word or phrase. Do you? There is no reason
    >> not to suppse that you thought the poor cat had had enough and should
    >> be put down.

    >
    > I don't read much at all any more except for magazines. When I was a
    > kid I read because that was pretty much the only entertainment I had.
    > We only had a black and white TV and no cable so there wasn't much to
    > watch there. Now with a color TV, digital cable and a computer, I
    > have no need to read at home. I have a stack of magazines that I will
    > take with me to the dance studio tonight. I will pass them on to
    > another lady there when I am done with them. Only when I get super
    > bored while there will I go to the store to find a book. Most of the
    > books I see are uninteresting to me.
    >
    > I have however watched a lot of Britcoms over the years. Benny Hill
    > was never a favorite but I do like many of the others. And I liked an
    > Australian comedy called Mother and Son. I also worked with a woman
    > from England whose husband was from Australia. I knew them pretty
    > well. So I have some inkling of how they speak although some of the
    > slang does knock me for a loop occasionally.
    >
    > Also as a writer, I have to create characters that are often not at
    > all like me. I have to come up with a way for them to speak. Perhaps
    > a certain dialect or various slang words. I have a lot of
    > dictionaries of slang words and words and phrases common to various
    > cultures and eras. No real need for those now since these things are
    > readily available online.
    >
    > I don't think I have ever heard anyone say to put a pet out of its
    > misery when they mean to put to sleep. Or put down. They will say
    > "put to sleep" or "put down". And I myself have occasionally said to
    > someone, "Just put me out of my misery!", when I am in severe pain
    > with something like a headache or menstrual cramps. Never once did I
    > think someone would kill me.


    Of course you didn't because it is just plain ridiculous. People are
    nitpicking.
    >
    >


  7. #207
    BlueBrooke Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:31 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Anyone still want to tell me the phase ONLY means to euthanise?


    As applied to animals? Yes.

  8. #208
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    The original

    "And how about putting that poor cat out of yours out of its misery.
    *****You could try probiotics. ****** ******If you are going
    to traumatise him by getting T4 blood tests why not have him sedated and
    given a 5 minute ultrasound to see if there is something seriously
    wrong? *******Trauma is trauma no matter what. *****Skittish or not, the
    cat needs
    proper evaluation of his health not you playing around with his diet all
    the time.****** You were obviously able to control him to have his blood
    test,
    you can surely control him to have sedation."

    Yeah I can see where you all thought I meant Susan should put her cat
    down, NOT!

    And weird that no one but PP had a word to say about the fact I wanted
    to kill Susan's cat (which was 5 days later). If everyone thought I
    wanted her to put the cat down why wait 5 days? Why did no one call me
    on being a hard hearted bitch?

    Why does Susan (who self admittedly said she killfiled me so she
    wouldn't have to see anything I had to say) not only read past the first
    word of mine but also comments on what I write? Why does PP KF me in one
    group but not another? I am either acceptable or not. Why are 99% of
    Susan's insults towards me in this group and not in ASD? Not looking for
    answers, just musing.




  9. #209
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "BlueBrooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:34:31 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Anyone still want to tell me the phase ONLY means to euthanise?

    >
    > As applied to animals? Yes.


    And the proof of that statement is where?



  10. #210
    BlueBrooke Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:24:56 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Even after I have explained (many times) that the usage was correct and
    >that it exists in American dictionaries and that the proper context was
    >used I am still guilty of a shameful act. Its still the not what you say
    >but who you are attitude that's rife in the diabetics groups.


    The usage is not correct. The definitions you provided that related
    to animals involved killing them. Unless you're wanting to argue that
    a cat would feel better if they were told who won the tournament, or
    if they were given the information they were waiting for.

    When you tell someone you're giving them "a buck," they know you're
    not about to hand over a male deer. When you tell someone to "put the
    animal out of its misery," they know you're not telling them to have a
    meaningful, information-filled conversation with it.

    I don't know if you're "guilty of a shameful act" or not. Only you
    know that. All I know is you're wrong about the usage -- "in
    context" -- and yet continue to argue that you're not. "In context,"
    the animal is put down.

  11. #211
    BlueBrooke Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:09:13 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >
    >"BlueBrooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]. .
    >> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:05:15 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>There are more ways than one one out of their misery without death.

    >>
    >> Must be another one of those cultural things. That's exactly what
    >> "putting them out of their misery" means to every vet I've ever been
    >> to.

    >
    >Doesn't anyone here have a dictionary? Or able to understand context? If
    >you were "miserable" with the flu what would you like to have to rid
    >yourself of the misery?


    Dictionary? Sure -- lots of dictionaries. Maybe you should pull
    yours out again, because you don't seem to understand the word
    "context." In the "context" of animals who are critically or
    terminally ill, the phrase means to kill them.

    But you already know that.

  12. #212
    Susan Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    x-no-archive: yes

    On 1/10/2012 9:36 PM, BlueBrooke wrote:

    > As applied to animals? Yes.


    Ditto. Usually just before shooting some crippled horse in the head in a
    movie, for instance, or putting down a beloved pet.


    Susan

  13. #213
    Tiger Lily Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    I see someone who has a problem, may not be able to put words to it and
    needs help.

    My 'experience' with steroids doesn't go anywhere near what he's going
    thru...... low dose for 5 days or the old 10 day step down method......
    and every time it was very necessary and very effective with no side
    affects (well, other than i had to test frequently and correct with
    insulin as needed)

    kate

    On 1/10/2012 7:16 PM, Susan wrote:
    > x-o-archive: yes
    >
    > Kate, I don't really see what the person is looking for... is he still
    > on prednisone? Or dealing with the aftermath? Symptoms, post
    > discontinuation Cushing's or adrenal suppression?
    >
    > Interesting about the heightened smell. When I had a bad/high steroid
    > reaction to azithromycin, my eyesight got very bright and almost
    > overcorrected sharpness.
    >
    > Susan
    >
    > On 1/10/2012 7:46 PM, Tiger Lily wrote:
    >
    >> copy and paste :
    >>
    >> On 8-1-2012 0:42, Tiger Lily wrote:
    >> > On 1/7/2012 7:14 AM, BDR529 wrote:
    >> >>>> BG monitoring is what I frequently do these days.
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> good, Q
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> what other weapons do you have to deal with the raised bg levels?
    >> >> Metformin, ditching the prednison and lifestyle is the answer.
    >> >>
    >> >> Q
    >> > well, yes, prednison is/can be a cause of diabetes
    >> >
    >> > some folks have been able to return to lifestyle choices with no meds,
    >> > but many have to continue the diabetes meds
    >> >
    >> > how are you doing with the Metformin? It's a great type 2 med with lots
    >> > of additional benefits and a LONG HISTORY.
    >> >
    >> > i like the long history part
    >> >
    >> > kate

    >> After I ditched the prednison 4 days ago I experienced some
    >> hypersensitiveness yesterday evening, my nose was suddenly all open and
    >> very sensitive, suddenly I could smell literally everything, an
    >> experience I haven't had in years. You name it, I could smell it,
    >> coffee, mandarins, sambal (ugh), soap, fragrance, etc. And when the
    >> ability to smell is high then the same is also true for taste, it was
    >> amazing.
    >>
    >> The metformine is in my case 500 mg daily, it prevents the hypo's but
    >> not the hypers, so I have to adapt my lifestyle to that. At least I
    >> tolerate the taste of metformine. This was not the case with prednison
    >> which really has the most intense bitter taste of all medicines I've
    >> ever used. Aerius is sort of in between. All of them required plenty of
    >> water directly after you take them orally.
    >>
    >> Q
    >>
    >>
    >> i use [email protected] for my email addy and many folks filter that
    >>
    >> having said that, i'm getting e-mails that are a week old........ that i
    >> haven't seen before
    >>
    >> ???
    >> gotta love the internet!
    >>
    >> kate

    >



  14. #214
    Susan Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    x-no-archive: yes

    On 1/10/2012 9:48 PM, BlueBrooke wrote:

    > The usage is not correct. The definitions you provided that related
    > to animals involved killing them. Unless you're wanting to argue that
    > a cat would feel better if they were told who won the tournament, or
    > if they were given the information they were waiting for.
    >
    > When you tell someone you're giving them "a buck," they know you're
    > not about to hand over a male deer. When you tell someone to "put the
    > animal out of its misery," they know you're not telling them to have a
    > meaningful, information-filled conversation with it.
    >
    > I don't know if you're "guilty of a shameful act" or not. Only you
    > know that. All I know is you're wrong about the usage -- "in
    > context" -- and yet continue to argue that you're not. "In context,"
    > the animal is put down.



    Stop victimizing poor innocent Ozgirl.

    She's only kindheartedly interested in my poor, neglected cat's welfare.

    Why else would she have said to kill him?

    Susan

  15. #215
    Susan Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    x-o-archive: yes

    On 1/10/2012 9:55 PM, BlueBrooke wrote:

    > Dictionary? Sure -- lots of dictionaries. Maybe you should pull
    > yours out again, because you don't seem to understand the word
    > "context." In the "context" of animals who are critically or
    > terminally ill, the phrase means to kill them.
    >
    > But you already know that.


    Yes.

    Watching her try to lie her way to a plausible denial is quite an
    extraordinary spectacle. Every time she does it.

    Susan

  16. #216
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "BlueBrooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 11:24:56 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>Even after I have explained (many times) that the usage was correct
    >>and
    >>that it exists in American dictionaries and that the proper context
    >>was
    >>used I am still guilty of a shameful act. Its still the not what you
    >>say
    >>but who you are attitude that's rife in the diabetics groups.

    >
    > The usage is not correct. The definitions you provided that related
    > to animals involved killing them. Unless you're wanting to argue that
    > a cat would feel better if they were told who won the tournament, or
    > if they were given the information they were waiting for.


    The cat may feel better if "You could try probiotics. If you are going
    to traumatise him by getting T4 blood tests why not have him sedated and
    given a 5 minute ultrasound to see if there is something seriously
    wrong? Trauma is trauma no matter what. Skittish or not, the cat needs
    proper evaluation of his health not you playing around with his diet all
    the time. You were obviously able to control him to have his blood test,
    you can surely control him to have sedation."

    The cat has a vomiting problem, the cat probably feels miserable, the
    cat could (possibly) be put out of its misery if the cat were given
    probiotics or given an ultrasound to see the true state of his guts. Is
    that unacceptable to you? But I can't stop you from believing I am an
    advocate for cat killing, just because... You are free to paint me
    however you wish BlueBrooke. Its your right.

    > When you tell someone you're giving them "a buck," they know you're
    > not about to hand over a male deer. When you tell someone to "put the
    > animal out of its misery," they know you're not telling them to have a
    > meaningful, information-filled conversation with it.
    >
    > I don't know if you're "guilty of a shameful act" or not. Only you
    > know that. All I know is you're wrong about the usage -- "in
    > context" -- and yet continue to argue that you're not. "In context,"
    > the animal is put down.


    The context I am talking about is : "And how about putting that poor cat
    out
    of yours out of its misery. You could try probiotics. If you are going
    to traumatise him by getting T4 blood tests why not have him sedated and
    given a 5 minute ultrasound to see if there is something seriously
    wrong? Trauma is trauma no matter what. Skittish or not, the cat needs
    proper evaluation of his health not you playing around with his diet all
    the time. You were obviously able to control him to have his blood test,
    you can surely control him to have sedation."

    Talking about putting the cat out of its misery as a stand alone
    statement. i.e. ignoring what immediately follows in the paragraph is
    talking out of context.
    Not a hard thing to understand.
    "con·text/'käntekst/
    Noun:The
    circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea,
    and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
    **********The parts of something written or spoken that immediately
    precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning."*********


  17. #217
    Tiger Lily Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    On 1/10/2012 7:25 PM, Ozgirl wrote:
    > No but if someone told me it had another meaning then for sure I would
    > be not only checking but apologising



    and then there was the day Ratty started a.s.d.uk

    and someone spoke of a 'fanny pack'

    giggle

    i'll never forget THAT discussion, with NO ONE wanting to explain to the
    OP what was 'heard'

    countries divided by a common language

    kate

  18. #218
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "Susan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > x-no-archive: yes
    >
    > On 1/10/2012 9:36 PM, BlueBrooke wrote:
    >
    >> As applied to animals? Yes.

    >
    > Ditto. Usually just before shooting some crippled horse in the head in
    > a movie, for instance, or putting down a beloved pet.
    >
    >
    > Susan


    And I suppose when a parent says they are going to put their baby down
    (to sleep) you would think they wanted to kill their baby? Too
    ridiculous for words.


  19. #219
    Susan Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....

    x-o-archive: yes

    On 1/10/2012 9:59 PM, Tiger Lily wrote:
    > I see someone who has a problem, may not be able to put words to it and
    > needs help.
    >
    > My 'experience' with steroids doesn't go anywhere near what he's going
    > thru...... low dose for 5 days or the old 10 day step down method......
    > and every time it was very necessary and very effective with no side
    > affects (well, other than i had to test frequently and correct with
    > insulin as needed)
    >


    I'm sorry, maybe I'm being dense... I see discussion of metformin,
    prednisone, don't know what the person is still taking or what kind of
    problems he's having?

    I can't find the posts on my reader... maybe give the person my email
    addy if they think I can help? Depending on what their needs are, I can
    direct them to weaning off threads, dosing information, other resources.

    Susan

  20. #220
    Ozgirl Guest

    Default Re: For one who shall remain nameless.....



    "BlueBrooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]..
    > On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 10:09:13 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>"BlueBrooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected] ..
    >>> On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 10:05:15 +1000, "Ozgirl"
    >>> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>There are more ways than one one out of their misery without death.
    >>>
    >>> Must be another one of those cultural things. That's exactly what
    >>> "putting them out of their misery" means to every vet I've ever been
    >>> to.

    >>
    >>Doesn't anyone here have a dictionary? Or able to understand context?
    >>If
    >>you were "miserable" with the flu what would you like to have to rid
    >>yourself of the misery?

    >
    > Dictionary? Sure -- lots of dictionaries. Maybe you should pull
    > yours out again, because you don't seem to understand the word
    > "context." In the "context" of animals who are critically or
    > terminally ill, the phrase means to kill them.
    >



    And you don't seem to understand that the context you are talking about
    isn't the context I am talking about.
    Put the misery phrase back into the whole paragraph and might have an
    inkling of what I mean by context.


Page 11 of 21 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32