3 ms·

There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. I suggest you read intopieces'

by Sone7 10y ago

There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed.

vonmoltke 10y ago
> Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed. First, pharmaceutical companies are required to publish study data as part of the approval process. Whether the requirements are sufficient is a tangent all its own. Second, I can obviously look up research. I have. It indicates debilitating side effects for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well, which intopieces seems to be ignoring because of bad personal experiences. Third, if you don't want to re-live bad experiences, don't use references to them to score points in a debate.
cgriswald 10y ago
> There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. Except for that fact that you chose to interject on behalf of the emotions you presumed he would have? > I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. I did read it. What you read into it was some kind of assault that isn't necessarily there in the first place. I read it as a challenge to back up his claims (especially now due to subsequent posts), but one could also read it as simply being curious. Perhaps you should try the fresh perspective? Being challenged on a broad claim that is supported only with anecdote is pretty par for the course on HN. This isn't a support group, it's adult discussion. Should we stop challenging broad claims whenever people bring personal anecdotes to the table? After all, even seemingly innocuous anecdotes could be deeply painful for the people involved. > Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation... You've moved the goalposts. You didn't say you had a problem with how he said it (i.e. tact), you said you had a problem with what he said (i.e. "don't do that...") Even so, being "blunt" (your interpretation) isn't being disrespectful. Not everyone wants sugarcoating on their cereal. I'd say your perspective here has quite a lot to do with how you would like to be treated, but that doesn't mean others feel the same way. > ...which is why you're being greyed. I've been upvoted, actually. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? You seem to think this means something...

by Sone7 10y ago

vonmoltke 10y ago

> Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed. First, pharmaceutical companies are required to publish study data as part of the approval process. Whether the requirements are sufficient is a tangent all its own. Second, I can obviously look up research. I have. It indicates debilitating side effects for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well, which intopieces seems to be ignoring because of bad personal experiences. Third, if you don't want to re-live bad experiences, don't use references to them to score points in a debate.

cgriswald 10y ago

> There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. Except for that fact that you chose to interject on behalf of the emotions you presumed he would have? > I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. I did read it. What you read into it was some kind of assault that isn't necessarily there in the first place. I read it as a challenge to back up his claims (especially now due to subsequent posts), but one could also read it as simply being curious. Perhaps you should try the fresh perspective? Being challenged on a broad claim that is supported only with anecdote is pretty par for the course on HN. This isn't a support group, it's adult discussion. Should we stop challenging broad claims whenever people bring personal anecdotes to the table? After all, even seemingly innocuous anecdotes could be deeply painful for the people involved. > Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation... You've moved the goalposts. You didn't say you had a problem with how he said it (i.e. tact), you said you had a problem with what he said (i.e. "don't do that...") Even so, being "blunt" (your interpretation) isn't being disrespectful. Not everyone wants sugarcoating on their cereal. I'd say your perspective here has quite a lot to do with how you would like to be treated, but that doesn't mean others feel the same way. > ...which is why you're being greyed. I've been upvoted, actually. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? You seem to think this means something...