Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

General or non-medical topics with information and discussion related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
RitaA
Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu 1 Jul 2010 8:33

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by RitaA » Tue 20 Dec 2011 20:38

Spanky,

You wrote:
And what? Just from a viewpoint of governmental efficiency...oh, 'let's form a committee, boys and girls'? I mean, COME ON...it's a laughable CLICHE. What? No 'taskforce'? You just gotta have a 'taskforce'...
Please feel free to mock your fellow citizens, but I'm not having any part of that.

Rita A

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 20 Dec 2011 20:45

"RitaA":

You wrote:

Spanky:" And what? Just from a viewpoint of governmental efficiency...oh, 'let's form a committee, boys and girls'? I mean, COME ON...it's a laughable CLICHE. What? No 'taskforce'? You just gotta have a 'taskforce'..."
Please feel free to mock your fellow citizens, but I'm not having any part of that.
:lol:

"Mock my fellow citizens"?

I wasn't aware that I was doing that...rather than mocking a misguided approach that 'some people' suggest.

I was attacking what they SAID...not them...see this?
Just from a viewpoint of governmental efficiency...
See, that prelude introduces the thought...that this is an inefficient use of governmental resources. Not a good way to address the problem.

RitaA
Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu 1 Jul 2010 8:33

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by RitaA » Tue 20 Dec 2011 21:10

Spanky,

Maybe this is just a difference in how we view life, but I consider mocking what a person says to be the same as mocking a person. Perhaps there's a distinction that I'm missing.

In any case, committees of all kinds are formed in government and even the private sector so people can meet to discuss issues that are deemed important. I do see a difference between content and process, and you seem to be objecting to both -- which you are more than entitled to do as a U.S. citizen/taxpayer who subsidizes these activities.

Rita A

p.s. I was not comparing HIV/AIDS to Lyme disease. I referred to that advisory committee only because it was specifically mentioned in the NIAID Council's material I was quoting from.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 20 Dec 2011 21:21

"RitaA":
Maybe this is just a difference in how we view life, but I consider mocking what a person says to be the same as mocking a person. Perhaps there's a distinction that I'm missing.
Well, it is the apology for those remarks that I am missing...

But no, RitaA, you are incorrect about that.

Now here is a simple little illustration for you to help you understand:

1. Spanky, that was a stupid thing to say.

2. Spanky you are stupid.

You see, in #1, above, the comment is directed at what was said, whereas, in #2, the comment characterizes the speaker.

And, what you failed to observe (and unfairly mischaracterized), was that my comments were CLEARLY directed at policy...and did NOT...in any way, characterize anyone who subscribed to those views.

No. I disagree. And I think that your comment was unfair, unecessary and entirely inappropriate, as well.
In any case, committees of all kinds are formed in government and even the private sector so people can meet to discuss issues that are deemed important.
Well, yes...but even for people who have not served in governement...the cliche of let's form a committee is just a pretty well-worn joke...as I think most people reading this will recognize.

And my point is that when you suggest that you are actually accomplishing something by forming a committee...is when people with sense and real world experience start laughing.

RitaA
Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu 1 Jul 2010 8:33

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by RitaA » Tue 20 Dec 2011 22:47

Spanky,

I'm afraid you won't be getting an apology from me this time.

Your characterization of the "approach" or "what they said" as "stupid" or "misguided" might be slightly ambiguous, but your tone is not. Behind every word and action is at least one person or a group of people. If the person/group isn't stupid, their words or actions are, according to you. That doesn't seem like a huge difference to me. As I mentioned before, perhaps it a difference in how we perceive things.

And here's an example for you:

"They" say and do "stupid" or "misguided" things that are a complete waste of time and money, but I still have the utmost respect for them.

Doesn't that seem the least bit inconsistent to you?

Rita A

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 20 Dec 2011 22:56

"RitaA":
I'm afraid you won't be getting an apology from me this time.
Well, that's up to you.
Behind every word and action is at least one person or a group of people. If the person/group isn't stupid, their words or actions are, according to you. That doesn't seem like a huge difference to me. As I mentioned before, perhaps it a difference in how we perceive things.

I clearly didn't say that and if you insist on interpreting what I said in a way in which it wasn't intended, there's little I can say about that, except that's your problem and not mine.

But I would suggest to you that before you start to make slightly offensive remarks about how you preceive comments made by other posters...you might want to do them the courtesy of inquiring whether you understood properly, first...you might ask them, first, what they meant.
Last edited by Spanky on Wed 21 Dec 2011 0:02, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Spanky
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008 19:40

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Spanky » Tue 20 Dec 2011 23:19

"RitaA":
"They" say and do "stupid" or "misguided" things that are a complete waste of time and money, but I still have the utmost respect for them".

Doesn't that seem the least bit inconsistent to you?
Not necessarily, no. Not at all.

And I myself, have done many stupid things in my life and said some very stupid things (some on this board, even) and yet, don't consider myself to be a 'stupid' person. I have some papers to back that last one up with, too. So, it's not just my opinion.

People can be wrong and people can differ about matters of public policy and disagree strenuously and even "mock" and ridicule and satarize each others' postions without losing respect for one another.

You know, like in DC, what we were talking about...some Republicans and Democrats do often disagree, mock and ridicule each other's positions...and yet , at the end of the day, retain respect for one another.

Attorneys also. Just part of the deal. You can say that is a really DUMB argument...but still respect the attorney. Of course.

And trying to bring this back to topic...as I recall, this bill involves, not just a committee, but a committee formulated for the purpose of ostensibly providing 'advice'.

Last I heard, there was no shortage of 'advice' in DC.

So, hell, yeah...let's get another committee formed to provide 'advice' to the people who are actually trying to get something done...and pretend that we are doing something...

(That's sarcasm, BTW).

Henry
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu 10 Nov 2011 18:49

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by Henry » Wed 21 Dec 2011 0:53

RitaA: Just one last comment. I often spend a lot of time speaking with members of the Congress and their staff about issues related to Lyme disease. I am astounded about how little they know and how easily they can be misled by false information that they pick up in the media or on the internet. Many even think that Lyme disease is sexually transmitted and is a life threatening, fatal infection that can never really be cured. They would benefit greatly by educating themselves and reading information posted on the CDC and NIH websites. It would be a good way for them to be educated on the facts. Of the Congressmen that I've spoken to, I have the utmost respect for Frank Palone, who many of the activists would like to see kicked out of office. Those who have a lot to learn and are not the least receptive to new ideas or the results of evidence-based research are Chris Smith and Frank Wolfe (VA).

RitaA
Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu 1 Jul 2010 8:33

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by RitaA » Wed 21 Dec 2011 3:59

Spanky,

You wrote:
Last I heard, there was no shortage of 'advice' in DC.

So, hell, yeah...let's get another committee formed to provide 'advice' to the people who are actually trying to get something done...and pretend that we are doing something...

(That's sarcasm, BTW).
Unwanted advice is never welcome, and I understand what you're trying to say much better when you explain it in simple terms like this.

I have trouble keeping track of just who you are referring to when you make frequent use of "they" and "you" in posts that appear to be addressed to me. I either take it personally or start wondering which group of people you're lumping me in with. And no, I don't expect you to change your writing style, just as I don't plan to change mine, but we may well have more misunderstandings because of this.

While I do respect your right to disagree with the statements and actions of others -- including mine -- this isn't a court of law or even a public hearing (at least not a formal one). Your legal background may well predispose you to expressing yourself very forcefully, but I thought the point of posting here was to exchange ideas, to learn and hopefully even to teach when we have something to share. Granted, this forum isn't a classroom either, but if it were, some of us might have been expelled long ago.

I apologize for misunderstanding you, Spanky, but this may indeed be a "chronic" condition for which there really is no cure.

Rita A

Edited to correct typos.
Last edited by RitaA on Wed 21 Dec 2011 4:14, edited 3 times in total.

RitaA
Posts: 2768
Joined: Thu 1 Jul 2010 8:33

Re: Christopher Smith's Lyme Disease Bill 2557

Post by RitaA » Wed 21 Dec 2011 4:10

Henry,

Thanks for posting. I think we all need to do our best to be as educated as possible about things that concern us personally and/or professionally. It would be great if elected officials could be knowledgeable about everything, but that may not be realistic given the number of concerns brought forward by their constituents.

When legislation is being introduced, government staffers need to do their very best to prepare briefing notes using reliable sources of information so politicians can be as well informed as possible about any specific issue -- and especially those that are associated with controversy.

Rita A

Post Reply