 |
|
Elephant
|
|
Phila PA
Aug 2002
time: 00:35
|
|
You think this forum is slow - the Strat forum, but for LaFayette's Scenarios posts, is overrun with dustballs...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
 |
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
Yep, I too feel badly about not playing more in the free-for-all games. It is a particularly tough time for me right now. The consolation is that it is somewhat self induced. One of my docs has me doing a very aggressive heavy metal detox program and it is kicking my butt. The good thing is that when this is done, things have a chance to be better.
I have tried to play but can't get very far without getting bogged down and hopelessly confused over unit movement, city management, rule considerations, etc. After five hours and only two turns, I gave up on it. It was easier when the game was in an early stage.
This latest set of games has been marvellous for their vigorous and interesting rules, and the free-for-all games have great appeal too. But, no matter how interesting or challenging the game, when RL rears its demanding head, we all are brought low. Interesting that the slow down came in the winter season when things naturally slow down. So, here's to the coming Spring and renewal along all life's tangents...especially the civ one. 
Monk
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
Monk, I don't know what your situation is, but I do know that for most people, metal detox is completely useful and, as you're seeing, actually harmful. Most doctors who recommend it are quacks who are stealing your money. I strongly recommend that you get a second opinion, from a doctor not aligned with the "clinical ecology" or "multiple chemical sensitivity" or "chemical detox" people. Very very few people have blood metal levels that justify treatment. Whatever your health issues, they probably lie elsewhere.
I speak as a toxicologist who has worked in occupational health for almost 20 years and had all too much experience with people victimized by these money-suckers.
By all means, please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this without dragging everyone else through it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bloody Monk
|
|
austin, tx
May 2001
time: 23:35
|
|
Thanks for your input, debeest, and I'm sure that you have a generally valid point of view. But you seem to have a universal charge about this. Just because a fellow professional has a different angle of attack on a problem doesn't automatically make them blood sucking quacks, especially if it works. Or do you disagree??
Before you gratuiously condemn someone else, someone you know nothing about, perhaps you should look in the mirror. Is your interest to be helpful to me or to vent your "stuff"?? Please try to remember that chemo has short term negatives too, but some folk benifit from it. I have investigated this and the fellow has a great track record. And, not to put too fine a point on it, I am not being charged for this. So, no blood sucking here.
I wonder if this was not a freudian slip on your part,
quote:
for most people, metal detox is completely useful |
....
Thanks for your concern. This is an awful and very complex situation and I have tried everything. I don't care if this isn't AMA, politically correct, especially if this leads to some improvement. I just want my life back; and to be able to civ a lot more.
Monk
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
I hope I gave no offense, Monk. My comments are based on experience with a large number of docs who offer "detox" "treatment," and my experience has been that without exception their services have been useless (my mistyping is amusing, though!), and with only few exceptions they are very expensive. (I'm glad to hear that yours is not charging you, although I'm curious how that's happening.) Moreover, most people offering "detox" have no valid scientific rationale for their claims. For these reasons, most medical organizations look askance at them. The California Medical Association, for example, has issued a formal statement saying essentially that there is no basis for the practices of "clinical ecologists."
Cancer chemotherapy, which has huge adverse side effects, has a track record of improving cancer outcome and life expectancy. A good doctor will discuss the good and the bad of it and provide the patient with a sound way to make a choice. The chemotherapy involved in removing metals from the body is less toxic, but often has serious adverse effects -- and only in very rare cases is there a therapeutic value.
My views on this are, if anything, politically uncorrect, in that I disagree with AMA stances on so many important health issues. But I do agree with them on the basic FDA stance, that treatments should be tested and should only be used if they are effective and safe enough. Metals chelation can be effective and safe in the same way that cancer chemotherapy can, but only when blood metal levels are high enough to be frankly toxic. I don't know this particular doctor's basis for this treatment -- if you do, I'd love to discuss it with you.
I do tend to be vehement about this kind of treatment, because it usually consists of nothing more than flat-out cheating people out of lots of money.
Moreover, it is almost always people in your position -- already tried everything science had to offer, and nothing has worked -- who desperately resort to untested, unproven methods for which there is no good scientific rationale or evidence. It particularly angers me that so many medical professionals take advantage of people in that position. Bad enough to have to admit that there's no explanation or solution -- far, far worse to charge lots of money for treatments that cannot be expected to work either. It sounds as if your caregiver is not in that group, but that doesn't mean there's any basis for the treatment.
Honestly, Monk, I wish the best for you, and these comments are offered in that spirit.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sparrowhawk
|
 |
Canada CST
Apr 1999
time: 23:35
|
|
I am only in one game (Scorched Earth) and have held that one up repeatedly, so a good thing I am not in any others. I have considered taking the free-for-all ("us against them") a couple of times, and still might, but I am wondering about the number of turns in all succession games. Is the number of turns a "suggested maximum" or an expected. I recall several times recently where a player has played less then the number of turns (and a few times more), sometimes this seems to be accidental, sometimes deliberate, but what is the expected? I am wondering if those up in a game if they are unable to play the expected number of turns could post what they are able to play and keep the game going on that way? (Speaking for myself, it took a long time to finish 8 turns in Scorched Earth....though the majority of the time was spend writing  and I would like to see Scorched Earth shortened to 5 turns in the next round).
It seems to me that the game is losing members, and as such less people means more likely that the same person is up in multiple games. As a result the loss of one regular Succession Gamer could bring a number of games to a stop. If there is a loss of more then one regular gamer (such as it seems to be right now...examples include an errant Archer, an Elderly Gentleman, and a Jedi Knight), and you couple this with real life difficulties of those who remain, then the entire forum grinds to a halt.
However, I suspect this is a blip on the radar, not a trend that we need to raise the alarm bells for.
Having said that, I would still like to see General combined with Strategy and thus give both forums a boost with the increased activity (hoped for  )
* Sparrowhawk 
Edit: reread my own post and couldn't understand my own point, so I did some considerable editting 
Last edited by Sparrowhawk on 17-04-2004 at 09:39
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-04-2004 17:35
)
).
|