Medicine and your license

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Anth, Jan 27, 2004.

  1. Anth

    Anth Guest

    For the purpose of the offense of practicing medicine without a license, the "practice of medicine"
    means the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, cure, or relieving of a human disease, ailment, defect,
    complaint, or other physical or mental condition, by attendance, advice, device, diagnostic test, or
    other means, or offering, undertaking, attempting to do, or holding oneself out as able to do, any
    of these acts.

    Anth
     
    Tags:


  2. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > For the purpose of the offense of practicing medicine without a license,
    the
    > "practice of medicine" means the diagnosis, treatment, prevention, cure,
    or
    > relieving of a human disease, ailment, defect, complaint, or other
    physical
    > or mental condition, by attendance, advice, device, diagnostic test, or other means, or offering,
    > undertaking, attempting to do, or holding
    oneself
    > out as able to do, any of these acts.
    >
    > Anth
    >
    >
    Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.
     
  3. Drceephd

    Drceephd Guest

    >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license
    >From: "mdd" [email protected]
    >Date: 1/27/04 8:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>

    >>
    >Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.

    You cannot have a really good monopoly today without help from the government. The medical monopoly
    reigns supreme with not ony federal laws but State and local laws protecting "their rights." With
    medical insurance supplying the money part, and the FDA policing any intruders, the medical monopoly
    is still going full bore. Then you have the attorneys ready and willing to sue if you do not follow
    the rules, the rules of "usual and customary care."

    It truly is sad how little room a modern doctor has to provide his patient with something other than
    treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.

    An the debunkers here support the killing effort of the medical monopoly. Truly sad.

    DrC PhD
     
  4. Hawki63

    Hawki63 Guest

    >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license
    >From: "mdd" [email protected]
    >Date: 1/27/2004 5:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>

    >Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.

    I see it at protecting the majority of consumers who prefer that their medical doctors have
    documented credentials,,,

    without them..anyone..including Janny Drew could stand on a street corner and babble about
    sujbects she has no knowledge of...what she calls "actual experience" is obviously not
    knowledge..esp when she butts into every thread out there...most of the time not even reading what
    she posts..nor understanding it if she reads it..then if anyone questions her,,she simply reposts
    over and over again....

    hawki.....

    any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my own.....

    any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health care provider evaluate and
    treat any problems
     
  5. Hawki63

    Hawki63 Guest

    >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license
    >From: [email protected] (DRCEEPHD)
    >Date: 1/27/2004 5:44 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>

    >he FDA policing any intruders, the medical monopoly is

    The FDA does not police any intruders..unless you are talking about unproven substances...

    .>modern doctor has to provide his patient with
    >something other than treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.

    that is truly a stupid statement...oh right you do believe trauma is real....right???

    hawki.....

    any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my own.....

    any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health care provider evaluate and
    treat any problems
     
  6. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Hawki63" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: "mdd" [email protected] Date: 1/27/2004 5:31 PM Pacific
    > >Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    > >Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.
    >
    > I see it at protecting the majority of consumers who prefer that their medical doctors have
    > documented credentials,,,
    >
    > without them..anyone..including Janny Drew could stand on a street corner
    and So, you are opposed to freedom of speech? Perhaps you would be happy in some other place?
    > babble about sujbects she has no knowledge of...what she calls "actual experience" is obviously
    > not knowledge..
    Experince is not knowledge? May I quote you on this? esp when she butts into every thread
    > out there...most of the time not even reading what she posts..nor
    understanding
    > it if she reads it..then if anyone questions her,,she simply reposts over
    and
    > over again....

    Sure got a hard-on for Jan huh?
    >
    >
    > hawki.....
    >
    > any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my
    own..... And you arrive at those "views" without any experince, right?
    >
    > any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health
    care
    > provider evaluate and treat any problems
    >
    >
    Whata matter? Do you fear lawsuits?
     
  7. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Hawki63" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) Date: 1/27/2004 5:44 PM
    > >Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    > >he FDA policing any intruders, the medical monopoly is
    >
    > The FDA does not police any intruders..unless you are talking about
    unproven
    > substances...
    >
    > .>modern doctor has to provide his patient with
    > >something other than treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.
    >
    > that is truly a stupid statement...oh right you do believe trauma is real....right???
    >
    > hawki.....
    >
    > any info imparted by me does not represent any views other than my
    own.....
    >
    > any and all medical info is for your use in helping you and your health
    care
    > provider evaluate and treat any problems
    >
    >
    Hawki, you really should think before you post.
     
  8. Michele

    Michele Guest

    [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: "mdd" [email protected] Date: 1/27/04 8:31 PM Eastern
    > >Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    > >>
    > >Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect the good ol boys club.
    >
    > You cannot have a really good monopoly today without help from the government. The medical
    > monopoly reigns supreme with not ony federal laws but State and local laws protecting "their
    > rights."

    By defining what a doctor or a nurse or any health care provider actually is & what they can or
    cannot do, the gov't. is merely establishing the parameters of various jobs & their educational
    requirements -- just as with regulations of many professions/trades. Those who claim to heal with
    prayer are not forced to go to med school, nor should they be. Those who prescribe potentially
    contraindicated substances are mandated to have training WRT those substances, A&P, etc. & such
    training is definitely in the patient's interest. Restricting the use of surgery to those with
    surgical training is reasonable. Expecting a licensed nurse to be able to safely administer
    medication is just as logical. Having definitions of various jobs lets patients know what education
    they can expect their doctor, nurse, X-ray tech, etc. to have. Conventional providers can & often do
    include alt. treatment/advice in their practice -- they are not forbidden by anyone from doing so.
    Insurance companies decide what services are covered, what professionals they will pay. That isn't
    established by the gov't. here in the States.

    > With medical insurance supplying the money part, and the FDA policing any intruders, the medical
    > monopoly is still going full bore.

    The FDA has nothing to do with scope of practice in the health care field.

    > Then you have the attorneys ready and willing to sue if you do not follow the rules, the rules of
    > "usual and customary care."

    So, dissatisfied consumers exercise their right to sue.....

    They sue conventional docs all the time when they think the doc did something wrong & suing an alt.
    provider is no different. If a provider (alt. or mainstream) wants to participate in the health care
    arena, they expose themselves to that risk. If alt. medicine has satisfied patients, lawsuits will
    be no more of a problem than they are with most MD's.

    > It truly is sad how little room a modern doctor has to provide his patient with something other
    > than treatments that he knows will end up killing the patient.

    The vast majority of MD's benefit their patients. They provide services that usually improve
    the overall quality of life for those they treat -- share information that can enable patients
    to maintain their own good health -- & try to alleviate pain & suffering when possible. There
    are easier ways to make more money than by being a doctor. Ditto for nurses & others who work
    in the field.

    Luckily, helping others & seeing the benefits our work brings people is very satisfying.

    > An the debunkers here support the killing effort of the medical monopoly. Truly sad.
    >
    > DrC PhD

    The skeptics here expect claims based on research, labels on products that are accurate, reporting
    of adverse effects of treatments, & professionals who present their educational/experiential
    credentials honestly.
     
  9. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > > >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: "mdd" [email protected] Date: 1/27/04 8:31 PM Eastern
    > > >Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
    > >
    > > >>
    > > >Perhaps this is what is wrong with medicine today. Laws that protect
    the
    > > >good ol boys club.
    > >
    > > You cannot have a really good monopoly today without help from the
    government.
    > > The medical monopoly reigns supreme with not ony federal laws but State
    and
    > > local laws protecting "their rights."
    >
    > By defining what a doctor or a nurse or any health care provider actually is & what they can or
    > cannot do, the gov't. is merely establishing the parameters of various jobs & their educational
    > requirements -- just as with regulations of many professions/trades. Those who claim to heal with
    > prayer are not forced to go to med school, nor should they be. Those who prescribe potentially
    > contraindicated substances are mandated to have training WRT those substances, A&P, etc. & such
    > training is definitely in the patient's interest. Restricting the use of surgery to those with
    > surgical training is reasonable. Expecting a licensed nurse to be able to safely administer
    > medication is just as logical. Having definitions of various jobs lets patients know what
    > education they can expect their doctor, nurse, X-ray tech, etc. to have. Conventional providers
    > can & often do include alt. treatment/advice in their practice -- they are not forbidden by anyone
    > from doing so. Insurance companies decide what services are covered, what professionals they will
    > pay. That isn't established by the gov't. here in the States.
    >
    > > With medical insurance supplying the money part, and the FDA policing any intruders, the medical
    > > monopoly is
    still
    > > going full bore.
    >
    > The FDA has nothing to do with scope of practice in the health care field.
    >
    > > Then you have the attorneys ready and willing to sue if you do not follow the rules, the rules
    > > of "usual and customary care."
    >
    > So, dissatisfied consumers exercise their right to sue.....
    >
    > They sue conventional docs all the time when they think the doc did something wrong & suing an
    > alt. provider is no different. If a provider (alt. or mainstream) wants to participate in the
    > health care arena, they expose themselves to that risk. If alt. medicine has satisfied patients,
    > lawsuits will be no more of a problem than they are with most MD's.
    >
    > > It truly is sad how little room a modern doctor has to provide his
    patient with
    > > something other than treatments that he knows will end up killing the
    patient.
    >
    > The vast majority of MD's benefit their patients. They provide services that usually improve
    > the overall quality of life for those they treat -- share information that can enable patients
    > to maintain their own good health -- & try to alleviate pain & suffering when possible. There
    > are easier ways to make more money than by being a doctor. Ditto for nurses & others who work
    > in the field.
    >
    > Luckily, helping others & seeing the benefits our work brings people is very satisfying.
    >
    > > An the debunkers here support the killing effort of the medical
    monopoly.
    > > Truly sad.
    > >
    > > DrC PhD
    >
    > The skeptics here expect claims based on research, labels on products that are accurate, reporting
    > of adverse effects of treatments, & professionals who present their educational/experiential
    > credentials honestly.
    Bla bla bla, same ol same ol. Can't you come up with something more convincing for those of us who
    are skeptical of your drugs and all?
     
  10. Michele

    Michele Guest

    [email protected] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > Hawki is jealous and has very low self esteem. She appears to have a need to belittle others to
    > build herself up.
    >
    > She also like to bitch, she must be Michele''s sister.
    >
    > Jan

    LOLOLOL!! For someone who's claimed I am "waste of time", you sure spend time mentioning my name,
    Jan. I guess you either like wasting time or you lied. What a funny little nincompoop you are......

    Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.
     
  11. Michele

    Michele Guest

    [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >Subject: Re: Medicine and your license From: [email protected] (Michele) Date: 1/28/04 4:06
    > >PM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    > >By defining what a doctor or a nurse or any health care provider actually is & what they can or
    > >cannot do, the gov't. is merely establishing the parameters of various jobs & their educational
    > >requirements -
    >
    > Demanding a license is one way to limit competition and increase the earnings of those who reside
    > within the guild.

    Requiring licensure is a way to establish basic standards. It stops those with no training in (as an
    example) surgery from doing it. We expect those behind the wheel of a car to have met certain
    criteria to drive. Other professions that don't require a gov't. isssued license still require that
    those who work in the profession meet specific standards -- teachers require college degrees in most
    areas of the country being such a situation.

    > It works for carpenters and plumbers

    Not sure about plumbers -- but carpenters aren't professionally licensed by the gov't. It hasn't
    brought down the amount they charge.

    > just as it works for doctors who wish to limit their competition.

    It doesn't "limit competition" -- there are docs everywhere. In the cases of MD's specializing in
    unusual problems, the number of patients requring that specialized treatment is what limits
    practitioner numbers.

    > Licensing in no way guarantees that the doc won't cut off the wrong leg or kill you with the wrong
    > medication.

    And drivers' licenses don't guarantee a safe driver -- but simply *hoping* a professional has met
    minimal educational standards or that they might figure out how to perform a surgical procedure
    leaves consumers at the mercy of anybody who comes down the pike. It also leaves them little
    recourse when gross incompetence leads to serious injury or death. Without minimal standards, there
    are no guidelines at all. Malpractice would become something patients need to accept without so much
    as a grumble.

    > >Restricting the use of surgery to those with surgical training is reasonable.
    >
    > True enough, but limiting surgery to only the allopaths is criminalistic and monopolistic. There
    > is no reason chiropractors, naturopaths, and others could not be so trained except for the
    > monopolistic laws on the books which limit surgery to allopaths.

    Not so at all. Training for DC's, naturopaths, etc. doesn't include surgery because *those health
    care philosophies don't include it*. Just as a massage therapist's training doesn't include the
    prescription of drugs *because it's not part of massage*. Nutritionists don't fill cavities --
    nurses don't perform chiropractic adjustments -- the list could go on. To expect that a health care
    professional would be trained in modalities/skills that are not even a part of their purpose, that
    contradict their approach to wellness is absurd.

    > >Expecting a licensed nurse to be able to safely administer medication is just as logical.
    >
    > But forcing her to admister a drug which she knows is wrong happens often. If she refuses, the doc
    > will have her fired.

    Once again, totally untrue. A nurse is expected to use his/her nursing judgement & if that
    contradicts an order, they are obligated to act in what they evaluate is the patient's best
    interest. I've questioned docs in such situations -- checked to make sure dosages are right, that no
    apparent contraindications exist for using a particular med, reminded MD's about considerations like
    patient allergies & what the patient wanted or didn't want. On more than a couple of occasions I
    declined to follow a specific order I thought would negatively impact a patient -- & was NEVER even
    reprimanded (let alone fired) after I informed my supervisor or the MD of my decision. [And unless a
    nurse works directly for a doctor, he's not the one who hires or fires a nurse. I ultimately answer
    to the hospital or other facility where I work. The clinic where I currently work employs the
    doctors & the MD Medical Director there -- just as they employ me.]

    > >Conventional providers can & often do include alt. treatment/advice in their practice -- they are
    > >not forbidden by anyone from doing so.
    >
    > Now that is an absolute lie. You should have known better than to write that. In California, if an
    > oncologist recommends or attempts to use an alt methodology that doc can be fined $10,000 dollars
    > and lose his license to practice medicine.

    It would be YOU lying with that one. An oncologist in any state can prescribe supplements -- massage
    -- meditation -- or any other alt. modality to a patient. There is NO statute that prohibits a
    doctor from encouraging the use of cell salts -- crystals -- or any other non-traditional therapy.
    The MD is mandated not to deceive a patient with false information about various courses of
    treatment, whether alt. or conventional -- & if *that* requirement is not met, then the doc has not
    provided basic standards of care.

    Many docs utilize alt. therapies along with more traditional treatments. Oncologists often prescribe
    massage, acupuncture, meditation, exercise, supplements, etc.

    > >The FDA has nothing to do with scope of practice in the health care field.
    >
    > Who writes the rules for diagnosis?

    Apples & oranges -- scope of practice only defines which professionals are qualified to do what.
    State & sometimes Federal gov'ts. determine scope of practice, nothing to do with the FDA.

    There *are* no "rules for diagnosis". There are commonly acknowledged diagnostic procedures for many
    disorders, but they are guidelines only -- not written in stone. As technology advances, as more
    research gives us more information about various disorders & health care problems, those guidelines
    change to reflect what we've found out. There are also definitions of diseases that outline s/s of
    each. The diganosis of HTN involves not just elevated BP readings, but considers the frequency &
    consistency of such readings, the circumstances where the increased BP is observed, etc. Once again,
    most disorders are defined by generally acepted guidelines, not laws imposed by any gov't. or
    governmental agency.

    > It is my understanding that the FDA changed the rules for diagnosing polio which effectively
    > curtailed the diagnosis of polio after introduction of the vaccine, but left intact an identical
    > disease called aceptic meningitis.

    They are not the same. Just as seizures could be caused by a tumor or by a blow to the head,
    disorders sharing the same s/s could have very different etiologies & respond to very different
    treatments.

    If there *were* "rules for diagnosis", there would no misdiagnosed patients.

    > >So, dissatisfied consumers exercise their right to sue.....
    >
    > And greedy lawyers keep the doctors worried and in the flock, so to speak.

    Follow along, CEE. If staying "in the flock" prevented patients from winning lawsuits, how come docs
    get sued & patients win???? Your argument doesn't hold up. Anybody can sue anyone for anything at
    anytime. The fact that some of the biggest charlatans -- alt. & conventional -- don't get sued also
    pokes big ol' holes in your statement.

    > >The skeptics here expect claims based on research, labels on products that are accurate,
    > >reporting of adverse effects of treatments, & professionals who present their
    > >educational/experiential credentials honestly.
    >
    > Yuk, yuk , yuk.
    >
    > No one reading your posts or the posts of the other debunkers could ever believe honesty resides
    > within your camp.

    Your entire post contains nothing more than misinformation & outright untruths. Citing conspiracies
    that don't exist doesn't change that.

    Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.
     
  12. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>, mdd <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >Hawki, you really should think before you post.

    Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  13. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.
    All of the people that I have encountered who "enjoy" being unpleasant, are to be pitied. They
    cannot enjoy being nice cause they have some serious personal problems.
     
  14. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>... .
    >
    > > just as it works for doctors who wish to limit their competition.
    >
    > It doesn't "limit competition" -- there are docs everywhere.
    It limits the competition to other "Docs" only.

    > > Licensing in no way guarantees that the doc won't cut off the wrong leg
    or kill you with the wrong medication.
    >
    > And drivers' licenses don't guarantee a safe driver -- but simply *hoping* a professional has met
    > minimal educational standards or that they might figure out how to perform a surgical procedure
    > leaves consumers at the mercy of anybody who comes down the pike. It also leaves them little
    > recourse when gross incompetence leads to serious injury or death.
    Like tort reform???
    >
    > Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.
     
  15. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, mdd <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >Hawki, you really should think before you post.
    >
    > Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    > shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    But David, you are not qualified to vote.
     
  16. "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    > > Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.
    > All of the people that I have encountered who "enjoy" being unpleasant,
    are
    > to be pitied. They cannot enjoy being nice cause they have some serious personal problems.

    After reading some of your posts, you should feel sorry for yourself.
     
  17. "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > In article <[email protected]upernews.com>, mdd <[email protected]>
    wrote:
    > > >
    > > >Hawki, you really should think before you post.
    > >
    > > Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.
    > >
    > > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > > always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    > > shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > But David, you are not qualified to vote.

    Please post proof that you are qualified to think. (First, thouh, demonstrate you know what
    "thinking" is.)
     
  18. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Mark ProbertJanuary 29, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
    in message news:p[email protected]...
    >
    > "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > In article <[email protected]>, mdd <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > >Hawki, you really should think before you post.
    > > >
    > > > Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.
    > > >
    > > > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > > > always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on
    > > > my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > But David, you are not qualified to vote.
    >
    > Please post proof that you are qualified to think. (First, thouh, demonstrate you know what
    > "thinking" is.)
    >
    >
    >
    Your sputtering in the "Flu" post clearly show that YOU are not qualified to question anyone's
    abilities.
     
  19. "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Mark ProbertJanuary 29, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:p[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > In article <[email protected]>, mdd <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > > > > >
    > > > > >Hawki, you really should think before you post.
    > > > >
    > > > > Well, that gets my vote for the Self-Referential Post of the Week.
    > > > >
    > > > > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > > > > always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
    > > > > on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > But David, you are not qualified to vote.
    > >
    > > Please post proof that you are qualified to think. (First, thouh, demonstrate you know what
    > > "thinking" is.)
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > Your sputtering in the "Flu" post clearly show that YOU are not qualified
    to
    > question anyone's abilities.

    Sure I am. Since I do not sputter, but cogently discet your pathetic baloney, you just have to
    whine, weasel and wiggle your way out of being logically cornered.
     
  20. Mdd

    Mdd Guest

    "Mark ProbertJanuary 29, 2004" <[email protected]> wrote
    in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "mdd" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Michele" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > > Michele I ENJOY being a cranky bitch.
    > > All of the people that I have encountered who "enjoy" being unpleasant,
    > are
    > > to be pitied. They cannot enjoy being nice cause they have some serious personal problems.
    >
    > After reading some of your posts, you should feel sorry for yourself.
    >
    >
    >
    I DO feel sorry for you. But I feel even more so for anyone who has the misfortune of knowing or
    having to live near or with you.
     
Loading...