Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8,253 Excellent

About plansrme

  • Rank
    Hive Mind Queen Bee

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

693 profile views
  1. Wow. That is an impressive leap, even for you, Tibbie. My hat is off to you, and I trust you can use it because you've given your entire bank account, wardrobe and home to the oppressed as I am (apparently) commanded to do as a Christian. I don't even know how you're managing to have this conversation with no phone or computer because, of course, you've given them away to someone who is oppressed. What? You haven't given it all away? You've limited how much you're giving away because the world's supply of people who are oppressed is infinite? And, yet, you expect the U.S. government to give away all of its resources, to feed, clothe and house the world without limits. Yes, very impressive. I'm going to go back to ignoring the cries of the oppressed (and the rude) now. This really is all I am going to say on the topic. Y'all just sit here and fume amongst yourselves.
  2. I'm going to guess that the hostility comes from (1) the OP's multiple references to an adoptee's "real parents" and to not knowing who you are without knowing who your bio parents (and grandparents, etc.) are, which comes across as insensitive, at best, but she's dug her heels in, so perhaps it's worse; and (2) the sense of glee that seems to come through from her having uncovered secrets her ancestors clearly thought best left as secrets.
  3. Denying a DV victim asylum doesn't mean one doesn't think it's awful; it means that one believes immigration isn't the most appropriate cure for that particular ill. There IS a home government that would seem to be the more natural defender of these victims. The United States really can't take everyone with a sad story. I have no particular opinion about DV as a justification for asylum, but the blame for DV lies with the perpetrator and the government that permits him to get away with it, not with U.S. immigration policy. And that is all I am going to say about that.
  4. But YOU are the one saying--you've said it twice--that your genes are who you are. My point is that your genes are NOT who you are. You can feel any way you want, but your genes are not who you are. You are so, so much more than your genes; everyone is, adopted or not. But if having "someone who looks like you" has truly been the most important thing to them, well, then, I think someone needs more than a DNA test.
  5. So? Are they more “who they are” with this knowledge? No. Genes are just genes; they are not who you are, and they are not who your cousins are.
  6. Your genes are not who you are. As the mom of an adopted child, this kind of talk drives me batty. And I KNOW one of the testing companies uses it extensively in their ad campaign. My adopted child is MY child; ask her if you have any doubt. She is who she is regardless of whether she ever has contact with or even knowledge of any blood relatives. And the thought that knowing you have ancestors from Bolivia, let’s say, has one whit to do with any aspect of your life today is patently absurd. Am I curious to know if my daughter has biological siblings? Of course! Would I encourage her to do the testing? Maybe. But not because she will never know who she is without this information. She knows exactly who she is right now.
  7. My point is that I go to the beach once in twenty years and see a shark, I go to Lake Erie once and see a snake where it's too danged cold for snakes, and there are gators in everything else. Nothing is safe. Oh, and some friends of ours found a snapping turtle in their pool recently. Said snapper has been relocated to a more appropriate habitat, but apparently even pools are not necessarily free of critters that can hurt you.
  8. Lake Erie isn’t in Florida. THE Lake Erie. It even has a water snake named after it, and I presume that is what I saw, the Lake Erie water snake.
  9. I am the poster who saw the hammerhead shark practically on the beach in Panama City. And I was just on the shores of Lake Erie for about 5 minutes and saw a big black water snake swimming around and then crawling onto the boat ramp. I am sure it was not venemous, but my take-away is that no body of water is safe.
  10. I once wrote a long FB post on a seminar I was (supposedly) offering on how to disagree. One of the break-out sessions was How My Making a Different Choice Than You Is Not a Criticism of You, Your Parenting or Your Relationship With God. Perhaps you would like to send your friends some seminar materials?
  11. But there are options other than throwing every head injury into a CT machine, e.g., to watch for deteriorating symptoms, significant loss of consciousness, etc. A basic concussion to an otherwise health child from falling off of one's bike, or from diving into another kid's knee, is unlikely to result in a brain bleed. So you sit in the ER and wait for 2 or 3 hours instead of throwing every head injury into a CT. A medically fragile child is not what we're talking about here; well, it's not what I am talking about! I just don't want everyone whose kid has a concussion to think the doctor is committing malpractice by not rushing him into a CT scan. That is usually both an unnecessary risk and an unnecessary expense.
  12. The most updated research does not support a CT scan for a run-of-the-mill concussion. This is a good summary, and it notes: "No wonder, then, that the American Academy of Neurology guidelines state in no uncertain terms that "CT imaging should not be used to diagnose [sport-related concussion]." [2] In addition to being ineffective (and expensive), there is another reason for fewer CTs: A 2012 study reported in the British medical journal, The Lancet [6] found that children and young adults scanned multiple times by CT have a small increased risk of leukemia and brain tumors in the decade following their first scan. A 2013 study [7] suggests that reducing the highest 25% of radiation doses could prevent 43% of those cancers. The bottom line: parents should make sure a CT scan is really necessary in treatment of their child after head injury."
  13. I completely agree. My son, then 13, had an obvious concussion at a baseball game (diving catch, collided with another kid's knee)--he was disoriented, asked the same questions over and over, cried for no reason, flat affect, all of the classic symptoms. We went straight to the children's ER. The doctor there gave us a choice: CT now or just sit there and watch him for a few hours to see if he started to come out of it. He gave us a time, like 3:00, and suggested we revisit the issue then. Sure enough, pretty close to 3:00, we saw his symptoms getting better. The doctor explained that a head CT is not without risk and, since we were sitting in the ER of a facility that could react promptly to any deterioration, we elected the more conservative path. A CT scan was going to show that he had a concussion; we KNEW he had a concussion. Heck, the concession stand worker at the park could tell he had a concussion. Seeing it on a CT scan wasn't going to change his treatment at all, but any time I can opt not to radiate a growing brain, I'll take it. If I hadn't been in an ER that could have reacted immediately, of course, the answer might have been different, but I very much appreciated the doctor's giving us the choice in this situation.
  14. I don’t understand the implication that big hair and Wham! music videos were not enough to fill a decade.
  • Create New...