Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. - Page 78

sgtclub · 03-23-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That your questions were addressed repeatedly over the past few days, by, among others, RT and me.

I didn't have any questions, but thanks for the tip.

ltl/fb · 03-23-2005, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I didn't have any questions, but thanks for the tip.

I would rephrase what Burger said as "because what you say is what so many other people have said on here over the past few days, over and over again, and so you are repetitive and boring and could have just done a "2" post in response to one of the many, many posts that said what you bothered to write a whole paragraph on. And the tone of your post was that everyone on here wasn't smart enough to figure out what you had the brilliant insight to see. It was kind of bilmore-esque, in the worst sense of bilmore-esqosity -- not even punny."

bilmore · 03-23-2005, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Awww, did they not incwude oozums, ickle bunny boy? Maybe you should fax your officey-wofficy number to all the pollster-wollsters.

There are times when I can discern, through the haze, what points you were attempting to make, and then sort of charitably give you credit for them.

I can't even do that for this one.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-23-2005, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When you say gov't, you mean the judiciary, which has developed doctrines such as Rooker-Feldman, to do essentially that? Or do you mean Congress, which is all-powerful and is free to ignore almost any result a state reaches?

I meant Congress, inasmuch as Article IV doesn't refer only to certain branches of the federal government. But it would appear to apply to states respecting other states' judgment, as opposed to a decision by the federal government to undo retroactively a state judgment.

Replaced_Texan · 03-23-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Here's a different take on the brain scan stuff that I hadn't seen before, written in a fairly well-respected doc's blog. He strongly disagrees with the current accepted line on the decomposed CC. Brain scans included so you can play along.

(If he's a quack, someone tell me. It's my impression that he's not.)

http://codeblueblog.blogs.com/codebl...dblogs_co.html

Dunno. I see him cited on Grand Rounds from time to time (btw, that's a great medical blog round up every week, I try not to miss it).

This is one of the neurologists who testified in the case. I would hope that he had more than just access to this single CT scan.

BTW, the privacy stuff is beginning to piss me off. I realize that the trial was before April 14, 2003, but it irritates my HIPAA compliant sensibiliites that someone's medical records are all over the internet like this. I really, really feel sorry for the privacy officer in that nursing home.

bilmore · 03-23-2005, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
BTW, the privacy stuff is beginning to piss me off. I realize that the trial was before April 14, 2003, but it irriates my HIPAA compliant sensibiliites that someone's medical records are all over the internet like this. I really, really feel sorry for the privacy officer in that nursing home.

I understand what you mean, but, by the time Congress is passing new laws concerning only you, I think you've become public grist.

Tyrone Slothrop · 03-23-2005, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand what you mean, but, by the time Congress is passing new laws concerning only you, I think you've become public grist.

I thought you were just disputing that her brain had deteriorated to that point....

ltl/fb · 03-23-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I understand what you mean, but, by the time Congress is passing new laws concerning only you, I think you've become public grist.

She didn't put herself up as public grist, and it's her privacy. She didn't even give the medical information to her parents.

Hey, RT, if I gave med info to my parents, could they post it on the web? Like, did I waive my right to privacy? Now I'm curious. I suppose I could ask a HIPAA compliance person here . . .

NotFromHere · 03-23-2005, 06:42 PM

Appeal Denied.

But Jeb Bush says a doctor who's never examined her says that she may have been misdiagnosed.

Don't ask me why I'm here, I'm just here to report.

Replaced_Texan · 03-23-2005, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
She didn't put herself up as public grist, and it's her privacy. She didn't even give the medical information to her parents.

Hey, RT, if I gave med info to my parents, could they post it on the web? Like, did I waive my right to privacy? Now I'm curious. I suppose I could ask a HIPAA compliance person here . . .

They could post it on the web, unless your parents are a HIPAA covered entity (health care provider, health care clearinghouse or healthcare plan). You may have a normal, every day invasion of privacy case against them, though.

I wonder whether or not Michael Schaivo took advantage of the right to request restrictions. I assume that he's the personal representative.

sgtclub · 03-23-2005, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I would rephrase what Burger said as "because what you say is what so many other people have said on here over the past few days, over and over again, and so you are repetitive and boring and could have just done a "2" post in response to one of the many, many posts that said what you bothered to write a whole paragraph on. And the tone of your post was that everyone on here wasn't smart enough to figure out what you had the brilliant insight to see. It was kind of bilmore-esque, in the worst sense of bilmore-esqosity -- not even punny."

I understand all of this, but despite the repetition, those that are continuing to post don't seem to get it, hence my tone.

bilmore · 03-23-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand all of this, but despite the repetition, those that are continuing to post don't seem to get it, hence my tone.

And yet another very viable board motto . . . .

ltl/fb · 03-23-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
I understand all of this, but despite the repetition, those that are continuing to post don't seem to get it, hence my tone.

Ah. You might apply your thoughts on your tone in this case to the tone I and others sometimes use to you when you just aren't seeming to get it.

Hah. I amuse me.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 03-23-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
. But it would appear to apply to states respecting other states' judgment, as opposed to a decision by the federal government to undo retroactively a state judgment.

I think that's what the supremacy clause is for.

Spanky · 03-23-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Who knew Becker had such a big forehead?

I don't get it. Is it one of these?

1) Big forhead = smart

2) Big forhead = not fully evolved

3) I should know who this Becker is and know what he looks like?

4) Some other famous Becker has a big forhead?