Pet Peeves

POSTED BY: Shiny
UPDATED: Friday, May 21, 2004 13:44
VIEWED: 16675
PAGE 8 of 8

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

MILORADELL

Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:32 PM

Ok - read the abstract of the article, 'cause I'm cheap and I'm not plunking down $12 to read an article. So it still peeves me. The two issues I brought up, weren't addressed, period. In the abstract, they don't even SAY Type II Diabetes - they say "older." They constantly refer to the disease as diabetes mellitus - shouldn't they be saying Type II diabetes mellitus? That's the correct, clinical terminology.

So now I'm just peeved all over again!!!

(removed link to article because way too freaking big, and horizontal scrolling peeves me !)

****
Oh well.

FIREFLEW

Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:54 PM

People who raise their voice at the end of sentances, even when it's not a question....god almighty that me off. I just want to go on a spree.

But also, people who talk during cinema/films asking incessant questions, or those who guffaw loudly at either inappropriate times or in just an over the top way. "IT'S NOT A STUDIO AUDIENCE! YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET ON TELLY!"

Glad that's out of my system.

Jayne: "Know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I beat you with till you understand who's in command."

BENDIS

Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:15 PM

My pet peeves are:

Networks that cancel really good shows for no apparently good reason!!!!

People who drive slower than the speed limit. I wanna drive faster but if they go the speed limit at least I don't mind.

People who don't realize they are in the way even though you are carrying really heavy items and have to go through the door that they are blocking and they watch you approach.

People you hardly know who walk up to you and start talking about things you have no idea about. (This new guy at work walked up to me one day and started going on about a party at some guy's place he was going to go to and all the people that were going as well, as if I knew any of them.)

I could go on forever but my fingers are tired.

----------
"We're not gonna die. We can't die, Bendis.
You know why? Because we are so very pretty. We are just too pretty for God to let us die. Huh? Look at that chiseled jaw."

PURPLEBELLY

Thursday, May 20, 2004 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflew:
People who raise their voice at the end of sentances, even when it's not a question....god almighty that me off. I just want to go on a spree.

I should avoid the Principality of Wales, in that case

and anywhere that carries TV soaps from Auz that influence the youth patois

MALICIOUS

Thursday, May 20, 2004 7:02 PM

My newest peeve:

What is the deal with people putting memorials to dead persons on their car's rear windshields? ("In loving memory of Joe Schmoe, born 1-1-1901, died 1-1-2004.")

Are they driving in memory of the dead person? Was the windshield installed in homage to the dead person? Do they think the dead person is going to see it? Do they want to depress the rest of us living people who are behind them? Do they think anyone but them cares?

It's basically a mobile headstone!! Why would anyone want to lug one of those around?

Mal-licious

HEB

Thursday, May 20, 2004 7:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PurpleBelly:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflew:
People who raise their voice at the end of sentances, even when it's not a question....god almighty that me off. I just want to go on a spree.

I should avoid the Principality of Wales, in that case and anywhere that carries TV soaps from Auz that influence the youth patois

I have a confession to make. I live in the Uk and when I was little I watched Neighbours to the extent that many people actually thought I was Australian. I used to raise my voice at the end of every sentence.

I'm over the Neighbours phase now and now I can't work out whether I sound like an American or just like a Joss character.

Well, my sister's a ship... we had a
complicated childhood

WHOODAHN

Friday, May 21, 2004 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by CHobart:
Americans who seem to think that without their help in WWII, all of us Brits would be speaking German.
What a load of arse considering the US only stopped supplying arms to the Nazi's in 1942 and Coca Cola were virtually party sponsors. Yeah, cheers for all the help guys.

You were there?

"I ain't crazy and I've got papers to prove it"

WHOODAHN

Friday, May 21, 2004 10:44 AM

Quote:
Oh man, I know what you mean. Intolerant people totally suck. I hate 'em.
In this day and age, in a country that claims to love freedom, there's just no reason why we should have to put up with intolerance in our midst. We should round them up and ship them off to camps or something.

Yeah!
I can't stand people that can't stand people.

They say the two biggest problems in this country are ignorance and apathy. Well, I don't know if that's true and I really don't care. All I know is that it's my opinion that people should keep their opinions to themselves.

"I ain't crazy and I've got papers to prove it"

WREN

Friday, May 21, 2004 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MiloraDell:
Ok - read the abstract of the article, 'cause I'm cheap and I'm not plunking down $12 to read an article. So it still peeves me. The two issues I brought up, weren't addressed, period. In the abstract, they don't even SAY Type II Diabetes - they say "older." They constantly refer to the disease as diabetes mellitus - shouldn't they be saying Type II diabetes mellitus? That's the correct, clinical terminology.

The important thing to realise is that this is just the first report in an investigation that is gonna take a long time to complete. It's focus was to decide whether there is any point in even doing the longterm investigation.

I haven't read the report either for the same reason

. However, the norm is to provide information about your subjects. I can think of a couple of reasons why type 2 is not specified as the focus in the abstract:
1) The conditions aren't different diseases and poor control in either can have the same result, one of which is damage to cognitive functions, so they may have used a mix of types at this stage. 2) The investigation may have started out with only type 2 subjects, but the subjects may have progressed to type 1 during the investigation. This change would have been discussed in the main report, but would take up too much space in the abstract.

In order to investigate whether diabetes results in alzheimer's the subjects should come from similar backgrounds to remove as many outside influences as possible. The nuns, fathers etc fall into that catagory. The simple equation is that if pure subject A gets it, then impure subject b is more likely to get it. At this early stage they have yet to investigate the effect of the x factor. This report does point out that it could be an x factor rather than the diabetes that caused the subjects to get alzheimer's. Further investigations will occur when they harvest the subjects brains. (Just reread that, I have been watching far to much Angel!

) (Damn, that's made me think of the approaching last episode

)

I fully agree with you about sloppy journalism. They have a space to fill, take the latest medical report and twist it. It causes unfair worry or hope for people with the condition. The best thing to do is read the actual report. If that is not possible you have to accept you aren't getting the full story so it would be unfair to make a critisism.

Oh, I also agree with you on horizontal scrolling

.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8