Beav wrote:
>
> "Jim Dumas" <
[email protected]!mindspring.com> wrote in
> message
news:[email protected]
> ews.com...
>> Beav wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Jim Dumas" <
[email protected]!mindspring.com> wrote in
>> > message
news:[email protected]
>> > banews.com...
>> >> Beav wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Come on Jim, accept what S said. you did say you'd
>> >> > set DG up for an embarrasing moment, and he's right,
>> >> > friends DON'T do that.
>> >>
>> >> Anybody with common sense knows you don't jump into a
>> >> ng thread if you
>> > have
>> >> no idea what's going on, i.e., the significance of
>> >> this death.
>> >
>> > Jim, you're squirming here. You did say you were going
>> > to set DG up and friends DON'T do those things to each
>> > other. That's the WHOLE point of sieweke's post.
>>
>> I don't remember saying that I would "set up Dave."
>
> Jim, let's not get into playing childish word games eh?
> You know EXACTLY what you wrote (see the quote)
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3C431F39.1EBDD4D5%40do-
ntSPAMMEmindspring.com&output=gplain
>
> J.D. said....Now that you know I want to keep Groves away
> from the public, just email me if he shows and I'll
> help to move him on to his official duties. I'll
> probably set up a thread to suck him in, embarrass
> him in public and this will get him out of mhd for
> awhile.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> --------
Dear Beav,
It worked on you two years ago. It's an effective method and
I'll continue to use it.
> Now do you think that's the kind of things friends do to
> each other? I don't, and sieweke doesn't either, which is
> why he pulled you. I think he was right to do that and I
> think you ARE wrong to keep on arguing the "finer" point.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
I've seen friends beat the sh*t outta each other. So this is
mild. It really depends on the relationship. Some people
aren't happy unless they are in an argument with somebody.
My exwife was like this, and Dave Groves had this
propensity. So friendship is in the eyes of the two
beholders. These two parties are all that count as the bond
is only between them.
> J.D. said....You should also realize how deliberate and
> methodical I am by now.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
>
> This is another part of your post and it shows EXACTLY how
> good a "friend" you were to DG.
>
> If a side argument will not help to achieve the goal, it
> gets shutdown.
>
> Sorry to upset everybody, my mission is over, thanks,
All these are true. When my mission is over I shut down the
thread just as I did in our argument two years ago. If a
side argument is wasteful, it gets shut down.
But this argument is useful. You're moving the cause forward
unwittingly. We're looking at the seed of some patient-based
organization. This is Dave's true contribution to the DM
community.
> But I do remember
>> saying that I would try to move him away from MHD if he
>> ever came here because he was too disruptive.
>
> You said what you said Jim and it's there for all to see.
Indeed I did. And I'll do it all over the same way again.
> You do this by using embarassment as a tool
>> in a public forum like MHD. The end result (move him away
>> from MHD) is planned. But the method is unknown as it
>> unfolds as an argument
> progresses.
>> I look at this as part of trying to keep the DIF image
>> from getting worse as Dave spouts off. He was his own
>> worst enemy. In any case, friendship ends as the ship
>> begins to sink because of poor decisions.
>
>
>>
>>
>> > S came in
>> >> as the curtain fell on the last act of this tragedy.
>> >
>> > The "whole thread" at that point was a mere 4 posts
>> > long (his was the
> 5th
>> > in the thread)
>>
>>
>> I Googled back to S's first post in September's
>> "Dave Groves in Hospital" thread. It demonstrated a
>> person without knowledge or interest in Dave's beef
>> insulin work.
>
> So? Dave was more than a beef insulin advocate wasn't he?
It was: 1) beef insulin, 2) a cure for diabetes; and, 3)
support for T1s with legal problems from hypoglycemic-
mediated events like car accidents.
> So the "curtain was falling" as S tried to understand
>> why this was important in MHD.
>
> It was important because DG used to be a "member" here.
> It's sometimes interesting to find out how past members
> are faring. In Daves case, not to well at that time.
>
>>
>>
>> > Then S tries to
>> >> deduce what happened.
>> >
>> > I don't see it that way. There was no deducing to do.
>> > Granted, your previous posts on DG were dug up, but
>> > that doesn't alter the fact that
> you
>> > said what you said. It doesn't matter WHEN you said it,
>> > or WHY you said it, it matters only that you DID say
>> > it, and as sieweke said, friends DON'T do that to each
>> > other. I can't understand why you won't accept
> that.
>>
>> I stand by all that I've said. The reasons were political
>> posturing to
> move
>> away from damage Dave had done to DIF. So yes, I accept
>> what I said. But the why's are no longer friendship
>> related. They are organizational related.
>>
>>
>> > S will never have the full picture and should just
>> >> stand clear.
>> >
>> > I disagree. A full picture isn't needed in this
>> > instance.
>>
>> Any sound decision requires all the information
>> available.
>
> That's a fair amount more squirming you're dong there Jim.
> Siewke's ONLY issue was you calling yourself Daves friend.
> Plainly you're not, so why not just admit it and this
> thread will go the way of all the others before
> it.
Then you must be squirming back. As I posted to Sieweke much
earlier in this thread, by his/her narrow definition, I was
not Dave's friend. This issue was resolved by that post and
Sieweke fell silent. So you must have missed that post.
> If you only get
>> part of the picture and take off on a tangent, you've
>> done all a disservice.
>
> What other part of the picture "I was a friend of Dave
> Groves" IS there to know? now if you'd said "I was a
> friend of Dave Groves UNTIL...... that changes the whole
> slant, but you didn't.
With Dave Groves, one day you were his best friend and
the next day you were his worst enemy. So it was
difficult for anybody to know which day it was: good or
bad. If I summed the bad days, they were probably 75% of
our decade relationship. He was far more upset with me
than I was with him.
You're doing a wonderful job, Beav.
>> > As an example, even you will not show your anger at
>> > Dave in
>> >> public, now that he's dead. Because it will serve no
>> >> useful purpose
> now.
>> >
>> > Everyone that's ever seen any of mine and DG''s posts
>> > (to and about each other) will know there was no love
>> > lost between us, and WHY, but I
> haven't
>> > said he was ever a friend of mine, so I'm not likely to
>> > be accused of
> back
>> > stabbing. EVERYTHING I've written about DG, I've said
>> > TO him on many occasions. You on the other hand, posted
>> > to the NG that you'd set him up KNOWING he wouldn't
>> > read the post because he no longer frequented the
>> > newsgroup. That's back stabbing in my book, and then to
>> > call him a
> friend,
>> > well, that's taking things a bit too far don't you
>> > think?
>>
>> Again, friends with a political agenda are atypical
>> friends. They do what is necessary to get the job done.
>> The political agenda governs. More importantly, you're
>> operating in a Machiavellian environment with friendship
>> secondary.
>
> So you're not ACTUALY friends, you just feed off each
> other to further
Good. No skin off my nose.
>> >> And you of all people should know that if you jump
>> >> into a thread in a
> ng,
>> >> then you should expect to be challenged.
>> >
>> > Indeed, and rightly so, but what sieweke quoted is
>> > still there for
> anyone
>> > to see, and THIS thread isn't actually that complicated
>> > anyone with half
> a
>> > brain couldn't work through in two minutes.
>>
>> Then I encourage all to look for themselves.
>
> Sieweke saved them the trouble. He posted all the links in
> his post to you. Perhaps you should've checked them.
>
>>
>>
>> > He's basically saying that you're a hypocrite, and if
>> > the original post
> on
>> > this thread had come from me and I'd said "Dave Groves
>> > has gone and I'll miss our discussions" (no mention of
>> > frienships) I'd expect a whole slew of peple bombarding
>> > me with words a "little" stronger than "hypocrite".
>> > Wouldn't you?
>>
>> Then I must be a hypocrite. All in the line of duty.
>
> Sorry Jim, but that's bollocks.There IS no duty that
> requires hypocrisy. (Hypocrisy is just a nice way of
> telling lies)
Everybody is a hypocritical in their daily life. It's a tool
to get the children to behave as in: "Do as I say and not as
I do." Both you and Sieweke are hypocritical on this issue
with Dave Groves, as another example. You both have cast the
first stone. But in doing so, have judged yourselves in the
process. In any case, I admit that I'll be hypocritical if
it gets a job done. And I'm an engineer, we don't lie.
> The greater goal is
>> to make DIF into a more powerful organization. But this
>> can't be done unless it moves away from Dave's image.
>> This is why I think a name change is necessary.
>
> This is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Muddy the
> waters all you like, but I'll just put on astonger light,
> as will others.
>>
>>
>> > It goes with the turf.
>> >>
>> >> Lastly, friendship becomes complex when a political
>> >> agenda binds these people together.
>> >
>> > That isn't friendship Jim. You MAY heve been friendly
>> > with DG at some
> time
>> > (but even friendly isn't friendship) but you blew that
>> > when you said
> you'd
>> > set him up n front of the whole net-world.
>>
>> Agreed. Politics and friendship don't mix well. And I
>> admit, I play a
> game
>> of chess in an argument with people on newsgroups. If
>> they fall into my trap, then shame on them.
>
> Jim, you're falling into the trap of actually believing
> you're in cntrol and some sort of debating genious who
> thinks 20 moves in front of everyone. You're not.
>
> That's the way these public forums work. It's a
>> political microcosm. This technique wins arguments and is
>> used on friends as well as enemies. So "set up" is
>> independent of friendship.
>
> Phsycobabble. And morel bollocks too.
You keep squirming and you'll fall off your chair, Beav.
>> > All the usual relationship rules no longer hold.
>> > This is
>> >> easy to see, just look at political running mates.
>> >> They are not always "best friends." (FDR and Truman,
>> >> JFK and Johnson to name two.)
>> >
>> > Totally irrelevant Jim, this isn't a discussion about
>> > political running mates, this is a discussion about YOU
>> > saying you were a FRIEND of Dave Groves. Obviously you
>> > weren't.. If you're a friend of someone, you don't tell
>> > his peers that you're going to set him up.
>>
>> DIF still has a political agenda and therefore it is
>> relevent.
>
> This discussion has nothing to do with the DIF. I realise
> this is a political trick (never answer a question) but
> this isn't misc.health.politics and you ain't no
> politician.
It doen't matter. The jury read it. And I admit I'm not a
politician, thank God.
> The
>> organization needs public opinion to help its cause. As a
>> test, would you join DIF now that Dave has passed on? Or
>> is his legacy still keeping people away?
>
> No way. Not while people who don't think twice about
> stabbing their "friends" in the back are associated
> with it.
>
>>
>> Next, friendship is an evolutionary process. Sometimes it
>> ends abruptly
> as
>> mortal enemies.
>
> Indeed it does, but they don't carry on calling each other
> friends.
Good point. But it was Gary Ennis that said I was
Dave's friend.
> In my case with Dave, it remained on the fence for
>> political reasons. The organization was more important
>> then differences between people in the organization.
>>
>> ASIDE: In light of the AARP's sell out on the Medicare
>> bill this year, it would seem more important then ever
>> for some patient-based political organization to get into
>> Washington, DC. DIF was going in this direction but it
>> never focused on the majority needs.
>
> Would that be because the majority "needs" are perfectly
> satisfied by GM insulins? remember Jim, they ARE. it's
> only a tiny minority who actually NEED animal derived
> insulins, and whn push comes to shove, they CAN get them,
> even if they live in the states.
>
>>
>> So I rest my case,
>
> Actually, what you did was try to deflect your case
> onto something completely different. I answered, but I
> wasn't fooled.
I never deflect. I stand and fight. But I use the
opportunity to further the cause: That of some patient-based
organization.
And keep posting because I'm not done yet. Thanks as always,
--
Jim Dumas T1 4/86, background retinopathy, rarely
hypoglycemic: <1/mo. lispro+R+U+NPH daily, moderate
exercise, typically <6% HbA1c
