5 ms·

But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. The language I'm seeing says that "shin splints" refer specifically to what's call

But tibial stress fractures are a form --- a common form --- of shin splint. The language I'm seeing says that "shin splints" refer specifically to what's called a "medial stress syndrome", which is different from (and of lesser degree) than an actual "stress fracture" like Snowden was diagnosed with. The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X." The Committee's attempt to get us to believe otherwise in Snowden's case (along with the gratuitous phrase, "washed out") is a blatant attempt at semantic and psychological manipulation.

tptacek 10y ago
I disagree with you on these particulars. But, overall, I feel like both sides are pulling a little bit too hard on the rope in this particular game of tug-of-war. Of course, I agree that House Intelligence is stretching as far as they can to portray Snowden in the worst possible light.
zeveb 10y ago
> The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X." I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate. Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact), and did make it through basic training. Washing out is generally indicative of one wanting to wash out: the military gives one the tools to either succeed or fail, as one wishes.
- kafkaesq 10y ago
  I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate. Perhaps you would, but if so you'd be placing yourself at odds with the consensus definition of what constitutes a "broken bone". Not that it specifically includes "stress fractures": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact) I'd continue, but you're going in circles. It's already been established Snowden did not merely have "shin splints."
  - tptacek 10y ago
    No. "Shin splints" is a symptom, not a diagnosis. Tibial stress fractures are a cause of shin splints. A lot of people who have "shin splints" have, in fact, tibial stress fractures. The first line treatment for bilateral tibial stress fractures is "stop working out for 4-12 weeks". They are apparently common in basic training (and diagnosis is apparently getting better, so that a lot of people that would normally have just complained about shin splints are now being diagnosed with small stress fractures). Neither Gellman nor the House Intelligence report is incorrect here.
    - kafkaesq 10y ago
      Snowden's discharge report makes no mention of "shin splints". It unambiguously mentions "stress fracture", which is unambiguously a form of a "broken bone" by colloquial definition (being as there is no medical definition). The whole point is that there's no way one can reasonably claim Snowden was exaggerating or misstating the reason for his discharge. The Committee's assertions on this point were just a smear, and a pretty crude one at that.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        This is like saying someone wasn't washed out because of a persistent sore throat but was in fact diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis. I mean, OK. Sure. Unfortunately, your argument is made more difficult by the original narrative of Snowden's story, which claims he "broke both legs in a training accident". Were tibial stress fractures what anyone conjured up from that description? Both sides --- Gellman and the House committee --- spun this particular issue. Both sides should have provided more context. Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is, and I don't understand what his personality has to do with public policy. I'm surprised Gellman conceded this dimension of the debate --- especially because a lot of the facts aren't really on his side, in the persuasive sense. Surely Snowden was more sympathetic when we thought he'd been in a pair of casts after a parachute mishap. The House report succeeded in re-casting this part of the story, with some assistance by Gellman.

tptacek 10y ago

I disagree with you on these particulars. But, overall, I feel like both sides are pulling a little bit too hard on the rope in this particular game of tug-of-war. Of course, I agree that House Intelligence is stretching as far as they can to portray Snowden in the worst possible light.

zeveb 10y ago

> The main point is no one would normally accuse someone who suffered a stress fracture of exaggerating or misstating the nature of their condition by referring to it as a "broken X." I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate. Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact), and did make it through basic training. Washing out is generally indicative of one wanting to wash out: the military gives one the tools to either succeed or fail, as one wishes.

kafkaesq 10y ago
I would: I think that it indicates a propensity to exaggerate. Perhaps you would, but if so you'd be placing yourself at odds with the consensus definition of what constitutes a "broken bone". Not that it specifically includes "stress fractures": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_fracture Moreover, I know folks who've had far worse than just shin splints (broken legs, in fact) I'd continue, but you're going in circles. It's already been established Snowden did not merely have "shin splints."
- tptacek 10y ago
  No. "Shin splints" is a symptom, not a diagnosis. Tibial stress fractures are a cause of shin splints. A lot of people who have "shin splints" have, in fact, tibial stress fractures. The first line treatment for bilateral tibial stress fractures is "stop working out for 4-12 weeks". They are apparently common in basic training (and diagnosis is apparently getting better, so that a lot of people that would normally have just complained about shin splints are now being diagnosed with small stress fractures). Neither Gellman nor the House Intelligence report is incorrect here.
  - kafkaesq 10y ago
    Snowden's discharge report makes no mention of "shin splints". It unambiguously mentions "stress fracture", which is unambiguously a form of a "broken bone" by colloquial definition (being as there is no medical definition). The whole point is that there's no way one can reasonably claim Snowden was exaggerating or misstating the reason for his discharge. The Committee's assertions on this point were just a smear, and a pretty crude one at that.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      This is like saying someone wasn't washed out because of a persistent sore throat but was in fact diagnosed with chronic pharyngitis. I mean, OK. Sure. Unfortunately, your argument is made more difficult by the original narrative of Snowden's story, which claims he "broke both legs in a training accident". Were tibial stress fractures what anyone conjured up from that description? Both sides --- Gellman and the House committee --- spun this particular issue. Both sides should have provided more context. Personally, I also think both Gellman and the House report are litigating the dumbest, least important aspect of the Snowden events. I don't really care what kind of person Snowden is, and I don't understand what his personality has to do with public policy. I'm surprised Gellman conceded this dimension of the debate --- especially because a lot of the facts aren't really on his side, in the persuasive sense. Surely Snowden was more sympathetic when we thought he'd been in a pair of casts after a parachute mishap. The House report succeeded in re-casting this part of the story, with some assistance by Gellman.