A simple carb loving person with diabetes, struggling with managing the condition and living a normal life.
The BMJ has recently published some very important research which I’m sure will bring a smile to all of your faces (including you Edie!).
I like it Carbo.Seasonal greetings and a healthy and happy New Year to you and yours.Eddie
Yeah,gotta admit that did make me smile and in the true spirit of christmas "Merry christmas Carbo!" :)
Well I think Eddie has been on the bottle again - his comments on ETYM have been closed!! I know it is quiet everywhere but it must be driving him crazy. How come he is not on Jimmy Moores favourite blog list!Happy New Year Carbo
Edie's pretty consistent in his inconsistency isn't he? Does anyone else remember this post? Followed up by similar sentiments the following day.As for why the horse's blog doesn't appear on Jimmy's blog roll? Well, perhaps Jimmy has done some research and established that Edie often spouts utter bollocks...especially about his so-called haters.
Here is an interesting top 100http://greatist.com/health/most-influential-health-fitness-people/#Just goes to show that people who have an influence are not JM and Taubes only comes in at 82!!Says something I think!
Did you actually read the list?Mercola @6Pollan @18Sisson @43Kresser @50Poliquin @53Wolf @69Taubes @82Eades @93It's like a veritable "Who's Who" of the Low-Carb/Paleo world. Look's to me like the Feorists are taking over the asylum.
Nope, haven't read the list, but if only 8 of the top 100 health influencers are low carb/pales protagonists - then I'd use that statistic to infer just how marginal their thoughts are - wouldn't you?
But it's a mainstream list containing the likes of "Dr Oz" and "Jamie Oliver", 8% penetration into that deomgraphic is very impressive indeed.
Oh I see Mr Know it all is back!! ETYM a bit tame for you lol!Interesting list as none of your gurus rates very highly and seeing as Mrs Obama is ranked number one then I am happy - and our Jamie at least he doesn't sprout extreme diets.
Very childish.Name calling is usually grown out of in the school yard.
Dude, Jamie Oliver (who makes me look slim) is number 2, and Dr Oz is number 3. The list has zero credibility, but it's hard to deny that the Feorists are penetrating the mainstream media.If I was you, I'd expand my reading a bit.I like here. I miss humiliating you on DCUK, I'm glad that you give me the opportunity to do it here.Happy New Year!BF
If Jamie Oliver makes you looks slim you must have a terribly out of proportion fat face.
CarboI am gutted ! I come onto your blog and wish you “Seasonal greetings and a healthy and happy New Year to you and yours” and you put the boot in ! For years slagging me and my friends has kept you blog going and this is how you repay me !May I take this opportunity to thank you for the incredible publicity you have given to our humble blog. BTW how is the weight loss going ?Eddie
Have you viewed your own blog lately? Name calling is a feature of most of the comments and posts here!
Have you seen Ediot's attempts to save JM at Carbsane. Jimmy Moore does not need the Ediot or anyone else to defend him, he is in it up to his neck and feeble attempts by his supporters keep the spotlight on. JM needs to apologise and stop shifting the blame, he is guilty as charged and should own up and say that he is sorry.
OMG! And Brorofergie too. LOL. Wonder if they'll get another interview with Saint Jimmy?
For sure he was stupid, but he has apologised. I don't believe that he knew who the guy was. Learning a complete list of American racists would take a very long time.But of course Carbsane and her acolytes don't give a shit about Nazis and racism, they're just in it for a bit of Jimmy bashing.The whole thing is the spectacular breach of Godwin's law I've ever seen. As Evelyn wrote in a supposedly "humourous" comment:"And if you think LCHF-Paleo = the new Hitler Youth sounds inflammatory, that is where this is headed if the supposedly upstanding members don't speak up and speak out for once and for all!"Which is much worse than Jimmy accidently posting on a racist's blog.
I accept that Jimmy has apologised...in his own way. I also accept that to learn the list of white supremacist 'personalities' might be considered an arduous task. But to paraphrase Marks and Spencers, Duke isn't just any ordinary white supremacist is he?I find it difficult to believe that someone of our generation wouldn't know that neo-nazis exist, I mean, they're not a particularly European phenomenon are they?I think Carbsane enjoys a bit of Moore bashing now and then, precisely because she can see some of the inconsistencies that Jimmy publishes - and why not, I enjoyed a bit of Edie bashing in my time because of his absolute insistence that LC is the only way to manage diabetes and because its fun.By the way, what did you hope to achieve by invoking Godwin's law? It would be a bit difficult to shut down a thread discussing diet and the relationship with certain white supremacists - wouldn't it?
Well I'd never heard of Duke - but that's not really surprising because I'm not an American. But other than Nick Griffith and Oswald Mosley, I'd be hard pressed to name any prominent British Facists either (although thankfully thats partly because there are fewer of them).I'm not sure what a Neo-Nazi is either; I'd guess I'd always assumed they were "Combat 18" type skinheads without an education. Even I'm surprised that even Louisianians would elect am open Neo-Nazi and KKK member.I think that the Godwin's law thing was even more legitimate in the context of the discussion. You can't criticize Jimmy for fratenizing with Nazi's, and then trivialise the Holocaust by claiming all Low-Carbers are junior Nazis.It kinda worked. She's deleted the subsequent comments where she claimed that she was being "humourous" with the Hitler-Youth thing, and where I told her that there is nothing funny about the Nazis.BF
David Duke is very well known in the states. Of course Jimmy Moore knew who he was. He'd be an idiot not to.
TBH if you asked to do an interview then surely you would check who it was for? He has no excuse with the information available!
You say Carbsane wants to bash Jimmy. Tell me, who do you like bashing and are your motives any different? If Mr. Hitler was still alive and was a low carber would you defend him too?
"TBH if you asked to do an interview then surely you would check who it was for? He has no excuse with the information available!"Depends how busy I was - in an ideal world yes, but when my inbox is overflowing, no I wouldn't. To be honest, if I was having a discussion on diet and nutrition, then neo-nazism would be the last thing on my mind."You say Carbsane wants to bash Jimmy. Tell me, who do you like bashing and are your motives any different? If Mr. Hitler was still alive and was a low carber would you defend him too?"Would I back someone who killed 6 million Jews if he was a low-carber? That's possibly the most stupid thing I've ever read. Why would anyone defend anyone based entirely on their choice of diet?Idiot.BF
My problem with your assertion is that if I were going to take time out from my ever so hectic calendar to be interviewed, then I'd like to understand where my interviewer was coming from - which would mean doing more than the most basic research about someone.Unfortunately, today, you are going to be tarred with the same brush as the people you associate with. In this instance, jimmy made a big song and dance about being made famous by the people who hate him - and then goes and gets interviewed by one of the most despicable haters of the modern age. People who live in glass houses...As for Hitler, well, he was a vegetarian.
I agree. He was dumb. He's paying the price.
Precisely, and people are going to enjoy watching it unfold.
...and on my motives. I like to have intelligent debates with intellgent people, although when stupid people get in my way, I do rather enjoy making them look bad."If Hitler was a Low-Carber". FFS.BF
So you decide who is and is not intelligent. How about the people who think you are stupid? I have read many things that you have written and I see someone with average intelligence who thinks he is well informed.
I'm not sure Stephen thinks he's that well-informed, given the massive gap in his understanding of recent psephological thinking. Ah well, perhaps he's not the polymath he thought he was :)
Well I had to Google "psephological". So that shows you something.Politics isn't really my thing. Neither is knitting. I usually tend to avoid arguing those topics.
Both are fascinating subjects and both are the cause of many a lively discussion in our household.
“Both are fascinating subjects and both are the cause of many a lively discussion in our household.”Politics I agree but lively conversations about knitting. Jeez Carbo you sure live one exciting life. What do you do in the summer ? Lively conversations about watching grass grow ?EddiePS. Any chance of you knitting me a pair of gloves ?
Your wish, Edie, is my command. You just need to let me know where to send them.
Thank you Carbo you’re a gent. Save the postage mate I’ll pick ’em up. You know how much I would like to meet you !Regards Eddie
No sweat mate, number 8, WR1 2LA
Not like you to "skulk in the shadows" Eddie. Oh wait. Yes it is.
I cannot believe what that individual borofergie has just posted on lc blog - what a horrid post!!
An obnoxious individual. Be thankful that he doesn't live in your house.
Again.I go to work, I earn my money, I pay lots of tax, I feed my family, and I pay my mortgage. I get to spend what is left over on whatever I like, including £10 worth of test strips if I choose.If you can't afford test strips, I sincerely feel very sorry for you, I honestly think that the NHS should supply them to all diabetics who show a commitment to controlling their diabetes. If you can't afford ~£3 to do an experiment, then YOU should obviously feed YOUR family and pay YOUR bills as a priority. You absolutely don't get to point your finger at ME and tell me how to spend MY money.Are you honestly telling me that I shouldn't spend money on test strips because some people can't afford them? Thinking like that is a product of a simple mind.BF
ETYM excludes people who do not have the funds to invest in test strips. Typical Borofergie.
Borofergie - you have missed the point completely! You inferred that if people were not as clever as you and did not earn enough money then they should work harder. Bragging about yourself and your mercedes is uncalled for. Many people work hard too you know. I am shocked also that you think you are doing people a favour by dedicating your life to helping others - think we can get along without your attitude. I think even poor old eddie was a bit shocked by your outburst. I am really not sure why people have to live their lives on the internet!
No you missed the point. I'll repeat it for you:"If you want more things than you can afford you have to options: accept that you can't afford them, or work harder until you can."That's called a "work ethic" and it's a core principle in my life, learned from working class parents that did everything to make ends meet. It's the exact opposite from the sense of entitlement that you are espousing.I am shocked also that you think you are doing people a favour by dedicating your life to helping others:Actually I was talking about the charity that I run which provides educational opportunities for adult's with special educational needs.Since you're obviously a strong believer in "charity", maybe you should make a donation?.I don't often "LOL". But "living my life on the internet". LOL.
"ETYM excludes people who do not have the funds to invest in test strips. Typical Borofergie."No. I said that ETYM is for people who are sensible about controlling their diabetes. We have (at our own expense) provided strips to a number of diabetics. I also launched this thread and this one.Get your facts straight.
Phew Fergie are you an angel - so if you are not on ETYM you are not sensible?I am not sure what you are trying to achieve - but upsetting people must be top of the list because your mate eddie is not defending you and the posters on ETYM are upset at your rants.You need to look at yourself because you are seeing something different to everyone else! I would not want charity from such an arrogant person.
ah yes looked at the charity - looks a bit like my kids PTA - mmmm
£300,000. Nuff said?
"So if you are not on ETYM you are not sensible?" Let me see - there are 385 million diabetics in the world, and we have 177 members...Do the maths for yourself Einstein.Boo hoo hoo. It makes me very sad when people don't like me.
Stephen for goodness sake calm down - ETYM is quite a sad place I feel - people seem to be afraid of several posters including you and you best friend Eddie.Forums are really all the same!
The low carbers could cause trouble in a empty house..lol ediot is having the time of his life disrupting yet another forum and causing discord amongst the rank & file, little sympathy for the ETYM members as they were forewarned.
Eddie and xyzzy will be the downfall of ETYM. People switch off when debates are not inclusive. Eddie and xyzzy's views are well known and do not need to be aired at every opportunity. They should agree to disagree and move on. Boooooooring..................zzzzzzzzzz,zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Easy peasy. Ban Ediot from ETYM. If you don't he will continue to wind people up there and still complain about ETYM on his blog.Ban him, it is what he deserves and his blog is not as popular as he seems to think it is. He is an obnoxious individual and has to be banned before he gets too big for his boots and destroys ETYM any way. He likes everyone to sing from the same hymn sheet, his sheet. He wants low carb for every diabetic and unless ETYM fulfills that then he will complain every time he gets the opportunity.It is so sad that some members on ETYM cannot see what he is up to..
So Carbophile what I don't get about you and yours over on this side is if you think we're so wrong why don't you ever come and tell us face to face? Didn't you and your friends use to run a forum yourselves so surely at some point you all use to think helping people was a good thing? If we're that bad at handing out advice and helping then sitting here on your blog bitching about us with all your sycophants just comes across as you and them enjoying watching others suffer in my opinion.
You proved you couldn't debate on DCUK Mr. Blind Doggie. You always threatened people that did not agree with you. You are now campaigning for ETYM members and your head poacher Fraddycat wants to be part of the campaign. Where is she going to poach from now?You all need to get a life, reading your forum you have more in common with Alcoholics Anonymous and Eating Disorders than diabetics
No "I have a metabolic disorder that requires a specialised diet" one of Carbsanes friends told me that.People can make their own minds up. We will either succeed or fail but I don't see what's wrong with trying. If you don't want to join then don't. I really think accusing vulnerable people of being alcoholics and having eating disorders says far more about the kind of person you are don't you think? Are you even a diabetic?
Hello Blind doggie. Just for your information Eddie is singing the praises of an unknown dog food on his blog. 1st photo on his LC rant of the day.
Yeah well you know I don't give a damn what anyone says about me as I'm not into popularity stakes. I am genuinely interested in hearing Carbophiles and others replies to my points. I get the hate Eddie bit of this blog because of the history but don't get the Schadenfruede attitude towards ETYM and its members. I don't think we could make it much clearer that everyone whatever their viewpoint is welcome. Sometimes I just read here and come away with the impression that people want us to fail.
What bit of the history do you think you understand? Not that I want to repeat vast swathes of it...ever...shudder. Schadenfreude? Not from me or CarbsUnited, we prefer not to discuss individuals, but rather the views those individuals voice.I just don't like health-related fora. I wouldn't take medical advice from anyone on t'Internet regardless of the qualifications they claim to hold (I think I've made that clear on several posts). At the risk of sound very, very, boring...the only thing you are qualified to talk about is your diabetes, not mine, and certainly not anybody else's.We allow posters to comment on here...there is some censorship that goes on (there are a number of candidates whose posts are regularly not published). We also allow posters to vent their spleens...I believe it's called free speech, a topic which I know is close to Edie's heart. We don't always succeed, but we try and ensure that the quality of comments are slightly higher than on some of the horse's other blogs.
Thanks for the reply CarbophileOn the history bit effectively what I got told about the various cliques that existed prior to "my generation" by long term DCUK people and other sources at DCUK. To me there appear to be three old cliques (your lot, Eddies lot and Kens lot). In personal knowledge terms all that really amounts to is just that there are / were differences in how each of the three original groups argued over diabetes treatment. Eddie and Kens diabetic treatment views are pretty obvious but I am honestly far less aware of yours and the others like you. I really don't know or care to know if your dispute with Eddie goes any deeper than just db treatment. I do think you and Eddie and Ken have done a lot of damage to diabetics by continuing the argument for so many years. I'm willing to accept that we can also be perceived as a clique but only because you, Eddie and Ken have made it that way. We wanted nothing to do with the history. I do have strong suspicions and have mounting evidence many who abuse us here come from yet another source. I tend to agree with you that the only thing you are qualified to talk about is your own diabetes but feel relating those personal experiences can be very useful to others as a means of support. Don't you think that's what we try to do? Surely that's what you did in the past. I'd be interested in hearing what changed your mind. I would point out since early on I've always stated their are many ways to control db and have never stated that mine is the only way. My colleagues do likewise. If you control your diabetes to a level that you are happy with and using methods you think are sound then great and I'd love to hear about them and would quite happily tell others about your success.You are of course fully entitled to publish whatever you want. If you want to sanction abuse at people on ETYM who probably don't know this blog even exists that's up to you. I personally find some of the comments published on here very misogynistic.
Misogyny? You're accusing me of misogyny? I'll have you know, I consider myself to be more of a misanthrope than a misogynist!So, your research of the history has been to listen to just one side of the story? Perhaps if you had covered all sources then you wouldn't be so mistaken. I can see from some of your responses to other comments that you have fallen for that old saw that I am also tubolard? I've given up contesting that particular meme, simply because its so pointless. Can you prove I am? Can I prove I'm not...simply put the answer is no.As for our views on diabetes management a simple survey of the posts on this blog should give you an idea. Needless to say there are those who will say that we are anti-lowcarb, the truth could not be further from that particular lie.
I accused you of nothing! If you read my comment carefully you'll spot I did not accuse you of misogyny just that comments you have allowed to be published by others have been. You seem to be making assumptions that I should have knowledge of who you are, your history and that the others in this years old war have told me their side of the story. I assure you Ken has never spoken a single coherent word to me and we made it plain to Eddie that we weren't interested in the history between you and him. This is the first time you and I have conversed so as I posted previously I know very little of the detailed history. If you want to tell me that history either publicly or privately then that is your prerogative but please don't assume that I have detailed knowledge of things that occurred years before I was diagnosed.Are you Carbophile or Tubolard? Well again I can really have no view except to suggest that a simple yes or no regarding if you were the administrator of the diabetesforlife forum would answer the question. If you were then my original question on what changed your mind about helping people is valid. If not then it isn't. Also I noted that as a self confessed misanthrope there is an interesting coincidence between that and Swifts "A Tale of Tub" not that I've read it. No I'm sorry a simple survey of the posts on this blog do not give me an idea of your views on diabetes management as most seem to just be posters being abusive to other diabetics. That tells me nothing except that maybe you think undermining other diabetics methods of dealing with their condition is in someway helpful as that's how it reads to me. Perhaps that's all linked to your liking of misanthropy?"Needless to say there are those who will say that we are anti-lowcarb" - well that cuts both ways doesn't it? In the same way as you are painted into that corner your friends and advocates constantly paint us into the opposite corner as you say "the truth could not be further from that particular lie"
I'm sorry my tongue-in-cheek response caused you some offence.In an earlier comment you remarked that you understood a little of the history, now you seem to be saying that you don't, or could I have possibly misunderstood what you've written. If so, I apologise wholeheartedly for once again causing you offence.In surveying our posts on diabetes management, perhaps you've missed the bits where we effectively say that individual mileage may vary and that it's best to work out for yourself which management techniques are effective and which aren't. I won't apologise for constantly reiterating the point that advice from amateur nutritionists (either on the web or in person) is far inferior to the personalised advice given by dietitians, or that the homogenous, easy-to-understand advice doled by many PCTs in their diabetes management leaflets is also far inferior to the personalised advice given by dietitians.Undermined? Where? We maintain all the above, we also maintain that perhaps the Internet is not the best place to dole out advice about diabetes management. I won't apologise for that either. How many of us tell 'little white lies' to our GPs? How exactly do you propose you overcome the fact that there is definitely no trust relationship over the Internet, especially when a large proportion of our communication is made using body language and facial expressions.Those people I deal with face-to-face know when I'm extracting the urine, my face gives it away. Look how easy it was to cause offence with a simple tongue-in-cheek comment typed into a web browser. Perhaps it's the fact that for the last fifteen years I have spent a lot of effort working out how to prevent people committing financial crime using computers, and that my opinion has been coloured by that experience. Trust someone over the Internet to give me specific advice about my diabetes? I'd have to be completely off my rocker to do that!
No offence was taken honest! As you say it is so easy to misinterpret motives and meaning when the conversation isn't face to face.I am very interested in your stance but first lets get my meaning of "undermined" a bit clearer. I have a personal belief that diabetics who gain control of the condition have to develop a good amount of willpower to do so. Simplistically they bolster that willpower with their experiences of what they find works for them so consequently if I turned round to you and tried to impose my way of dealing with db on you it could be interpreted as me trying to undermine your method of control and visa versa. Both of us would rightly feel angered at the others imposition. In the context of some of the posts I see here then a number have been aimed directly at the dietary and control methods people use and to me that is entirely inappropriate behaviour for one diabetic to do to another. A petty example is the poster who suggested the LC food pictures currently up on Eddies blog are dog food. There have been far worse aimed directly at named diabetics in other threads. Onto your personal stance. I see the logic of your argument but feel it is a bit rigid. Here's my thoughts why.The advice you get from a dietitian seems to vary depending on which one you see and how well they have been trained, how up to date with modern practice they are etc. More importantly dietitians in different health services across the world would nowadays recommend different regimes. How do you know the regime you're being told is the right one for you? I accept the "little white lies" premis but as I once pointed out to a LC skeptic on DCUK "they can't all be lying". It is an issue of scale. If 5 people are telling you "it works" then be skeptical but if its over a 100? What about when you start to read scientific papers that back up those 100 even if your own doctor says "rubbish" just because he hasn't kept up to date or feels he shouldn't stray from the party line?Finally there is your own personal experience. In my case I did follow my doctors advice and did the standard NHS regime and got significantly worse over a nine month period. At that point what do you do? I went online and found a diabetes self help forum and that worked for me.I think you have to read posts on any self help forum through a personal filter that translates what you are terming "advice" as "experience" So if someone says "do this" you translate it as "you might consider this it worked for me". At that point you look for evidence that the "advice" is sound. I do absolutely and totally agree with your statement "that individual mileage may vary and that it's best to work out for yourself which management techniques are effective and which aren't. " as that is exactly what we are trying to promote on ETYM. We maybe a predominantly LC arena but that is simply because the majority of posters who joined us only have that experience to relate. We would willingly accept diabetics who could relate different experiences and back their right to state their methods so long as they don't claim it's the only way.
Firstly apologies for not publishing your reasoned response sooner, I have had a lot on my plate. I'm not going to answer your perfectly valid challenges in any particular order - mainly because it makes sense to group some of my responses together.Let's talk about Continuing Professional Development first. All of our NHS clinicians have a duty to keep abreast of recent developments - they may choose to discount certain research or not - that is their choice. If you encounter a professional that is quite clearly not up to speed with the latest research then I would lodge concerns with their professional body - wouldn't you? So what if different dietitians across the many health services recommend different regimes, is the regime they provide you working for you? If not, then surely it is your responsibility to work with them in a) finding out why and b) working out an approach that works for you?As for the "little white lies" comment, I think you misunderstand me - I wonder how you or any other Internet "health adviser" can really be assured that your "patient" is being completely honest with you (and the flip side of that particular coin is also true). I raised the issue of warfarin with Edie on a number of occasions, if you don't know that a patient is on Warfarin (for whatever reason) then how can you tell them that increased consumption of certain vegetables will affect the effectiveness of their drug regime?Now, let's talk about undermining. How does sign posting videos that disparage an alternative approach to low carb not undermine those who are succeeding in managing their diabetes? I'm not pointing any fingers at you. But if the principle applies to people who post on here, then surely it applies to people who post elsewhere?I don't mind publishing posts that are critical of my publishing policy, but I certainly haven't seen any posts criticising anyone elses publication policies either.
BD,xyxz!I think you will find the comment regarding the 1st photograph relates to how badly presented the meal was.Plate to large photograph dreadfull. I'm a low carber but that presentation, as are most of edies master pieces leave a lot to be desired. Try looking for the recipe on here for kinky cake. This will explain what we have all been telling Edie for a very long time.
Anonymous said"BD,xyxz! ..."I would rather not comment on anything Eddie says as I'm already in his bad books lol. Apparently I'm the second coming of Ken. I'm sure Ken is less than impressed with that comparison :-) Eddie does his own thing and I genuinely think he hands out his advice with the best intentions. I've always stated that I feel his attacks against Carbophile and visa-versa do no one any favours and I've made it clear on his own blog that I think he needs to learn how to take criticism and to realise that his way isn't the only way to success.No the real issue I have is when I see quotes like these:"I like the new problem she has with her saggy skin. This is a problem she has always had with her mouth."Just one of many made against (then DCUK, now ETYM posters) on the "Never a truer word spoken in jest..." thread. I am not of course accusing you of making those kind of comments just pointing out an attack made against a person who never once responded in kind to the numerous taunts made about her on that thread and others. She has her own way of controlling her diabetes very successfully. She like anyone else who has been successful has every right to state how and why she thinks her methods work without repeated attempts to undermine her. I do hope you agree.
Carbophile said :"Firstly apologies for not publishing your reasoned response sooner ... "Again no problem in the delay. We all have to try to earn a living.Actually the "lodging concerns with their professional body" is something I and the ETYM board have been considering. A forum can only take things so far and a pressure group to complain and lodge concerns is a next logical step. The issue simply is one of time and experience which is why our recent thread about it on ETYM was not only looking for people who we could pressure or contact but also for people who had experience in doing that kind of role. It's easy for people to assume that as a forum owner / board member you have infinite time to do all things everyone wants but the reality is obviously different. It comes back to what I said earlier to another of your posters. ETYM will fail or succeed not only on the amount of time and effort I or the other board members / moderators put into it but just as importantly how much time others will be willing to commit. To be honest though I see the two things (forum & pressure group) as two distinct things. The forum is there to offer people immediate advice and debate and although the "little white lie" thing is an entirely valid point to make I don't think that by itself is enough to invalidate a self help approach. The counter argument is to say that so long as a reader is clear that someone is just relating their own experiences then it's the readers responsibility to take on any possible risk. I also agree that we should possibly make that point clearer on ETYM and will raise it with my colleagues.I do concede you have every right to disagree with the concept of "medical self help" but I hope you concede back that others have the right to try out the self help route. From my perspective the viewpoint of "don't use a self help forum" is as fixed as "you must eat less than 50g of carbs a day". I personally do not like fixed viewpoints as I think they end up standing in the way of progress (whatever that is).As to "undermining", rather than repeat then I've given an example in my other post today. I see there is a huge difference between posting a link to a video that disparages something or even someone saying someone else is talking rubbish by arguing using what they feel is evidence. In both those instances anyone who disagrees can respond in a rational way and debate the points back (as we are). However simply making personal abusive comments about someone is entirely different. Those kind of statements are simply made to undermine / hurt / ridicule a person and in any arena shouldn't be encouraged in my view. I do kind of agree with your example in that there were cases on DCUK where a LC / not LC debate did end up with other posters stating they were now confused which is a shame. In my opinion the way around that is for both sides to acknowledge that neither has all the answers and that the readers should try to work out an approach that uniquely works for them. In reality I think that's what every successful diabetic actually ends up doing.
You'll be telling us next that you were all popular on DCUK. lol
Anonymous(surprise surprise) said.."You all need to get a life, reading your forum you have more in common with Alcoholics Anonymous and Eating Disorders than Diabetics"Oh how wonderful it must be to be perfect without any faults and obstacles in your Eutopia.I Agree with Xyzzy-if you feel your point is so valid why don't you come over and express your displeasement?Before you slate me as a 'cakes and tea' person I hold my hand up and admit that I don't have the intelligence to fiercly debate contraversial topics over there and I do what I can the best I know how but all I've heard recently is people complaining about lack of debate yet they still read the forum all the same and from the shadows rather than sharing their opinions and knowledge openly on the forum.Paul
We were glad to see the back of you on DCUK so why would we want to join you?
You know I've sat behind the scenes for nearly a year watching you people send out your hate messages so I really don't give damn what you think of me. I'd have thought that was obvious to even the dumbest of you. You never told me those thoughts on DCUK so you're very unlikely to do that on ETYM are you?No I am really interested in why Carbophile who use to run a self help diabetes forum condones people who so blatantly abuse other diabetics. At some point it was obviously different.
You'll be telling us next that you were all popular on DCUK. lolWe were popular on DCUK, not with you Nigel, but with lots of other forum members.
Paul don’t talk yourself down in this cesspit. They are gutless, cowardly losers, to a man and woman. They offer nothing to no one other than a message of hate. A refuge for the failed and the no hopers. Check out the articles on this blog, and ask yourself how is this place helping the diabetic community. Where is the latest news regarding diabetes, where is the support for newbie’s ? Carbo said on here a long time ago "this blog is for my own personal amusement" I have offered to meet him at least three times, he refuses.BTW Carbo Where’s my f***ing gloves you said you were knitting me.Eddie Mitchell
I'm sorry Edie, I've been really, really, really, busy...errr...washing my hair.Firstly your invitations to meet, in summary you said "meet me" in a tone similar to the Audrey 2 begging Seymour to feed her, and then you've said "f***king meet me". Which part of those invitations was meant to amuse me?Now, onto your gloves, you don't call, you don't write, and then suddenly, when it's cold, you demand a pair of gloves - don't they have decent haberdashers in your neck of the wood?
So Carbophile what I don't get about you and yours over on this side is if you think we're so wrong why don't you ever come and tell us face to face?What's this Carbo, ETYM on a recruitment drive on your blog..lol
It's only ETYM members who seem upset that nobody wants to play with them. They were the bullies on DCUK and people are glad they have moved on. We do not want to associate with them so why do they think we do?
"I'm sorry Edie, I've been really, really, really, busy...errr...washing my hair."Firstly your invitations to meet, in summary you said "meet me" in a tone similar to the Audrey 2 begging Seymour to feed her, and then you've said "f***king meet me". Which part of those invitations was meant to amuse me?Now, onto your gloves, you don't call, you don't write, and then suddenly, when it's cold, you demand a pair of gloves - don't they have decent haberdashers in your neck of the wood?"Luv it. What a game we play eh ?Eddie
Eddies lapping up all the applause again,http://www.eattoyourmeter.com/forum/speaker-s-corner/940-treating-diabetes-in-1917.htmlThe link to the book is freely available on dcuk and has been so for a few years.Eddie being Eddie is far to modest though to own up.
The link is also on this blog.
Does anyone know the logic behind Ediot's thread CEREALS GET REAL PEOPLE on ETYM thread.Could be he has over indulged in the wine today or has he lost the plot again?
It's called attention seeking.
I don't know why ETYM don't give Ediot the boot. It is what he wants so that he can complain and yet he complains about them all the time on his blog so it won't be any different.