< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·
|Mar-06-13|| ||Shams: Congratulations to you and the mare! Mazel tov!|
|Mar-10-13|| ||kellmano: Cheers <shams>! I met your mate <check it out> at Christmas, and he spoke highly of you.|
|Mar-14-13|| ||OhioChessFan: Candidates Moves Prediction Contest, sponsored by the legendary <chessmoron> and hosted in my forum, is now open. First round begins Friday. Click on Elvis for details.|
|Mar-20-13|| ||Shams: <kellmano><I met your mate <check it out> at Christmas, and he spoke highly of you.>|
Matt's from that island where every inhabitant half the time speaks lies. And his brother is from the neighboring island. It's three kinds of hoot when you get them together.
|Aug-24-13|| ||Abdel Irada: I know your moral problem was addressed to <Softpaw>, but I would be interested in your response to the answer I gave.|
|Aug-25-13|| ||tpstar: <Someone who trusts you is on their deathbed and asks you if their wife was faithful to them throughout their life. If you know that they were not, what should you say? I find that this question roughly divides opinion.>|
As a doctor who has held several deathbed discussions over the years, the most common theme I encounter is wishing they accomplished more with their lives, leaving a bigger legacy behind (as in memory, not money). The second is they should have spent more time with their family, and third is regretting some personal dispute which could have been satisfactorily resolved but wasn't. I would hope that such an intensely personal question like "Did my wife cheat?" wouldn't even be on the radar.
If I were asked, and I knew the spouse was unfaithful, I would reply, "I don't know that, but I do know that you spent so many good years together and brought several beautiful children and grandchildren into this world" - something positive, without necessarily answering their question but without lying. No I would not reveal any infidelity, as I know cases where someone was outright lying ("Yeah, I bagged her") only to reveal later that they were just playing games, usually just to play games. I would not risk having my patient or my friend die with such a lie weighing so heavily on their mind. Having said that, I can easily see how a good friend would politely lie in that situation, and probably not even think twice about it.
The statistics on cheating are truly frightening: 50% of married men and 25% of married women. For my male patients who cheat on their wives, I typically advise them to disclose their mistake/s and work toward saving their marriage, otherwise the guilt will consume them indefinitely. And the wife usually knows about it. It is not so much the cheating itself (easy) but the multiple factors which led them to cheat (hard).
By the way, you can delete the previous pseudolegal stuff whenever. That case was closed long ago. =)
|Aug-25-13|| ||perfidious: <kellmano>: The question you posed is far from easy to answer and poses a dilemma, for I should have to weigh the consequences of telling the plain truth vis-à-vis the alternative.|
Being raised by a single parent who was wont to use truth as a weapon to inflict hurt, rather than for its own sake, has left me with an understanding that even that concept is very often amorphous, and I have tried to avoid inflicting emotional distress on others, while hewing to the truth.
|Aug-28-13|| ||kellmano: <perfidious> I agree with what you say regarding the infliction of painful truth. That's why I said that they asked (and trusted you). I certainly don't think that 'it's the truth' can be a justification for an offence. I was more wondering whether utility is the <only> measure of morality. I think it isn't.|
<tpstar> I also agree with you, but I could always ask - What if on being fobbed off the patient insisted on the truth because they wanted to know it.
Thanks for the replies both. I have found cg.com pleasantly engaging recently, rather than just containing crude insults and dogmatism. It's nice.
|Nov-13-13|| ||MarkFinan: <kellmano: Just goes to show that the enemy of my enemy truly is my friend. I remember you boys saying that you had co-opted the other's username for a different word. Focus referred to lies as 'goldsbies' and AJ referred to number twos as 'The Focus'.
I remember AJ saying that he told his kids he was just nipping to the loo to 'lay a Focus' or something like that. It made me laugh. Perhaps I have misremembered but I think not. I think it was in the period of the great Nakamura - Goldsby page. Makes me nostalgic to think of it.>|
Lol. I remember that one too. I swear, when I was living with my ex we used to talk about so and so's Goldsby's whilst dropping a Focus haha
|Nov-13-13|| ||MarkFinan: Whilst Sat on the Robed.Bishop loool
|Dec-03-13|| ||ketchuplover: Happy Holidays to you and your kin :)|
|Dec-07-13|| ||Shams: <kellmano> <Following my wife's pregnancy and subsequent birth.>|
I've heard of virgin births but this is ridiculous!
|Dec-08-13|| ||kellmano: <shams> ha ha good point. A joke - I was out with some high school friends the other day. It was going really well until one of them said I should hang about with people my own age.|
|Mar-23-14|| ||waustad: You are right. I got the DST off by a week. That will just affect the last round and tiebreaks, if any.|
|May-11-14|| ||Expendable Asset: <kellmano> Are you a horse-back rider?|
|Nov-03-14|| ||OhioChessFan: ** World Chess Championship Moves Prediction Contest **|
Conducted by the Legendary <chessmoron> and hosted at Graceland, home of Elvis. Click on Elvis for details.
|Dec-31-14|| ||Shams: <kellmano> Have you read this book? Your idea of an existentialist murder mystery made me think of it.|
(I have no idea why they have that classified under 'economics'.)
|Dec-31-14|| ||kellmano: <shams> yes I have. Or rather, I've started it. I noticed that there were lots of 'z's in it early on and this irked me so much that I couldn't finish it. Some of the philosophy was decent, but that constraint, once noticed, stopped me enjoying it. I could no longer be a reader, but also someone looking out for that letter.|
The man I'm looking to emulate (with a different focus) is Krzhizhanovsky (sp?). Are you familiar? Bloody brilliant stuff on the whole. He deals with the 'I' wonderfully.
|Dec-31-14|| ||Shams: Never heard of him. Google suggests "Autobiography of a Corpse" as a starter; do you agree?|
|Dec-31-14|| ||kellmano: <shams> I can only strongly recommend a read. Won't be everyone's cup of tea, but the eponymous tale is entertaining and then when I was reading a few of the others I was just in a state of disbelief that I had got to the age of 34 without coming across them.|
If you get round to reading it drop me a note to tell me what you think. If you like Borges I think you'll like this.
|Jan-04-15|| ||kellmano: <OCF> I thought best to reply here so not to clog up another's forum.|
You and I disagree about pretty much everything politically, but as far as I have seen you conduct yourself well. I know the left have a tendency to use sheer number to support their position, and also a tendency to dictate what is, and is not, open to discussion. Even though I'm a lefty myself I cringe when the people I broadly agree with employ such methods.
I would guess you broadly agree with <Big Pawn> and, like I said, I don't think he's an idiot. But his methods are appalling. Consider the problem of evil. Though not a theist, I wouldn't be too worried about it if I was, so it's probably a reasonable example.
Now, if I said,:
1. God is perfectly good and omnipotent
2. Evil occurs
Therefore God does not exist
and when a response is offered I just said 'Are you saying the Holocaust was not an evil? Another fly swatted. I've beaten all the buffoons on this page. NEXT!'
Wouldn't it annoy you? Particularly if attempts to genuinely engage were met in similar fashion?
|Jan-04-15|| ||OhioChessFan: <Even though I'm a lefty myself I cringe when the people I broadly agree with employ such methods.>|
Yeah, I have a few cringers on my side. I probably am a cringe creator for some who agree with me generally. <HMM> sometimes causes cringes for both sides depneding on the topic at hand.
I will agree about the annoying tactics of <BP> I think that is mitigated to some degree by the tactics of those who disagree with him.
I will say that this past week, if a person doesn't agree <jls> lost a really unimportant skirmish with me, they are either dishonest or incapable of rational thought. I mean, he does x, I respond to x, and then he repeats x. When I call him on it, he accused me of doing x and he had just responded to my x. I showed him how he started it, again, small issue, and he gets quiet for a week. Not a big deal, really, though I think it smacks of intellectual dishonesty. And the cheerleaders on the left congratulated him for winning our battle. I let it go, but I assure you, I majorly wanted to get purposely annoying in response. I am sure you've noticed the right has been pretty quiet for quite a while now. I think it's because of the realization that when you are discussing things with people who are either dishonest or incapable of rational thought, you're just bleating in the wind and wasting bandwidth. Anyway.
I do agree there are some who try to genuinely engage and think <BP> has sometimes not distuinguished between the genuine and non.
|Jan-11-15|| ||OhioChessFan: You have only 6 games selected for Round 3. Still time to fix that.|
|Jan-12-15|| ||tpstar: <kellmano> Thank you for voting in the Best Games of 2014 contest. You may choose up to 9 more games by January 14, if you like; just post them in order please. =)|
|Jan-13-15|| ||chessmoron: <kellmano> You are doing great at the prediction contest. Tomorrow is round 4 and not a rest day.|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 9 OF 9 ·