just to clarify

[lovingBenandCambree]

I promise I am not trying to start another thread on this but I do want to clarify that I was the one in fact that nearly drown in my own blood. I reread my thread and it could have very well been misinterpreted that I was quoting the part that I wrote and not the part above that the anonymous poster wrote about it not being possible. I really hope that there are no more responses on this but I did want to clarify and hope that you all didn't read it wrong. I don't know how to set up the quote part. Sorry about that I only hope that this is coming out right as to what I want to say.


If you're gonna list ailments that we get, please don't make up rubbish about drowing in blood. There is no way you'd live long enough to drown in blood unless you underwent a operation. Your lungs would pack out long before then.



To the Anonymous poster that wrote this:
I nearly did drown in my own blood so please don't state "facts" that you don't have. It is really annoying and does no service to anyone. Do I like to dwell on the topic no I don't but it is real and by making it less than what it is very disrespectful and naiive. I am not saying that I always make Lemonade either but I do try to stay positive because the moment I give into the negative I feel like I am losing the battle.

Emilee

 

[Diane]

To whoever that anonymous poster was:
Unfortunately it IS possible to drown in your own blood. ( how could anyone think you can't? ) I almost did it myself too,, and whoever thinks it isn't possible has NEVER had massive hemoptysis ( and i hope they never do). There is no way i will detail what it feels like, because it still scares the heck out of me to even talk about it sometimes, but you DONT want to exprience it and i hope you never do.

 

[WinAce]

Those whiners in the thread were "mostly harmless," as Douglas Adams wrote. I am NOT amused, however, by the thought such made-up "controversy" is the same as a FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) campaign used to slander a political candidate, by repeatedly bringing up bogus accusations until they're engrained in the public's mind. The lasting damage of such threads is that they associate "reputations" with people on a forum which everyone begins to subscribe to, whether or not they're correct.

So to the anonymous poster who has a grudge against me: Go fly a kite. (Seriously. It's good exercise, and will help you put off all the things about CF you don't believe exist.) <img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0">

 

[Mockingbird]

Right,it was my fault people were saying that in the first place. I was bluffing, trying to call out another bluff and I didn't expect the thread was going to go on for five pages. Anyway, don't hash out the anonymous poster for listening to me. Even though they should have known better, I was the source of it all.

Anyway, it was stupid of me to start the whole thing in the first place; it's not like the world outside this site is gonna be affected by anything anyone says (I have GOT to remember that) Anyway, my fault. Not the anon. poster.

 

[lovingBenandCambree]

Diane

I completely agree with you on that notion not detailing it that is. I have honestly had nightmares about it and woke up sweating thinking that it was happening again. Scary times. I am glad that they are passed and hope that they remain there<img src="i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif" border="0"> Thanks for sharing a little as well. It is nice to know there are others out there who know exactly what I am talking about.

Emilee

 

[kybert]

i got what you meant with your other post emilee. to use the quote function just click on quote and type what you want to say in the box.

<blockquote>Quote<br><hr>should look like this<hr></blockquote>

 

[WinAce]

It was very nice of you to admit some of the blame, Mockingbird, but in all fairness, you didn't go out and out with the personal attacks. Someone who remained anonymous <i>did</i>, not only making very insidious insults--for the high crime of my posting that CF sucked--but showing a profound ignorance of just what it's capable of. That anonymous poster made a dork out of themselves several times, denying that severe hemoptysis existed, for instance.

I should clarify my views, sans flaming, in a new topic.

As an aside, since that topic also called into question my religious views...

Drowning in blood is one of the things that made me feel conflicted, even when I believed a god existed. Would it be appropriate to thank it for never making you, in particular, go through it? Condemn it as evil, for making <i>anyone</i> go through it? Or not dwell on it, for fear of either thanking it undeservedly--for something as basic as going without that horror--or pissing it off (and, of course, you do NOT want to anger a god that doesn't take lightly to that kind of questioning)?

I don't necessarily mean to start a debate around it, but it did make me wonder about praying for personal blessings, being thankful, and the like. I think if I ever became convinced a god existed, I might give it the benefit of the doubt, and not actually condemn it, but only that (live as if one didn't exist, being ethical for its own sake, because it might be uncaring, powerless or downright vicious, for all we'd know.)

 

[anonymous]

Well, pick your own god or no-god, as the case may be. Either way requires more certainty than I can muster. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned agnosticism -- not the "don't know, don't care" kind, which requires too much marijuana and very long naps, but the "don't know, <i>do</i> care" kind Thomas Huxley had in mind? A lot of the atheists I know seem as religiose in their belief as the fundamentalists do. And like the fundamentalists, they tend to pigeonhole God -- only to disprove his ("its") existence. In the end, it seems there's still a leap of faith, from "this or that kind of God doesn't exist" to "no God exists." Where does that kind of conviction come from? It's beyond the purview of science, at least, and back into that of religion. I'm not sure what this has to do with the drowning-in-blood question, and I'm not pitching anything here. Just wondering.

Q

 

[WinAce]

I stuck to that for a while. But then, looking back at the history of life, comparative religion, anthropology, neuroscience... it really, really doesn't seem like there's any master plan at work, or that any of the usual claims made by religions are even slightly borne out. (Forty types of horses, all extinct except one? 99.9999% of the universe uninhabitable? Life going through a Frankensteinian evolutionary process--involving genetic defects, dog-eat-dog arms races between predator and prey, and so on? Intelligent life that is xenophobic, irrational and selfish? Gods that bear the most resemblance to vengeful tribal warlords of the time they were first believed in?)

Rather, it seems <i>exactly</i> like what we would expect if humanity was alone here, with everyone trying to find otherworldly meaning in life, and making up gods in their own image. Psychologically, we're predisposed to seeing patterns where none exist ("better to be wrong 100 times about that face in the darkness being a benign shadow, than be correct 99--and eaten once"). Combined with the appearance of a godless world, that seems to be a very strong indication there aren't any.

I don't care about people's beliefs, <i>per se</i>, but a lot of them involve an apparently unhealthy focus on hypothetical afterlives in lieu of the here and now, or are geared to making people's lives miserable. From the point of view of an atheist, for instance, banning gay people from marrying because of the Bible is directly harming people for a wild goose chase. And even when it isn't harmful, from my point of view, it's all false... so there's that to consider.

Regards.