Posts by Bradley Morgan3

That’s strange. Lisa Nelson70, if I were in your shoes, I’d probably try to get those head scans done as soon as possible.

crimsongull20 mentioned she was sent over to neurology. I assume they ran all the necessary tests while she was there.

Lisa Nelson70, I suspect there’s some level of influence here—I can certainly see it playing out in my own body. To be honest, though, I’m not entirely certain about the underlying mechanics. It might involve specific muscle groups, or perhaps it's possible to act directly on the bile, much like how vasodilators function.

Lisa Nelson70, I wasn't actually talking about your posture. What I meant was the possibility that your ability to regulate blood flow to your neck and head might be compromised or just... off. For instance, when I’m doing handstands, I can consciously influence how much blood rushes to my head. It's a thing. But if that mechanism isn't working properly for you, then that could very well be the culprit behind these headaches. Psychosomatic issues have a funny way of hijacking any part of the body governed by semi-autonomous functions—think digestion, heart rate, and things of that nature. In your specific case, it might manifest as some sort of dilation or constriction of the vessels in your neck and head.

Lisa Nelson70, if they haven't turned up anything physical during your checkups, you might be looking at a psychosomatic issue. You mentioned that feeling of blood rushing when you start exercising—to me, that sounds like a sudden spike in blood pressure or perhaps those Neck Muscles just tightening up too aggressively. I used to spend quite a bit of time practicing handstands back in the day, and whenever I was upside down, I could feel the blood surging straight to my head unless I consciously forced myself to regulate it. It’s a strange thing, but it suggests we actually have some level of control over our blood flow. Perhaps your internal mechanism is just slightly out of sync. It's quite common for people who have dealt with chronic pain for a long time to experience these kinds of uncontrolled somatic reactions.

My post was likely nuked simply because it triggered some off-topic quote wars. If it hadn't done that, I'm certain nobody would have even glanced at it. Typical. 🙄

Lisa Nelson70, I caught what you mentioned about feeling thinner than you ought to be. It’s an odd sensation, isn't it? From what I gather, that can sometimes indicate highly dense adipose tissue that messes with your circulation, or perhaps visceral fat accumulating around your organs. Neither scenario is particularly pleasant. If I were in your shoes, I'd focus on shedding some weight while prioritizing exercises designed to boost blood flow. A deep tissue massage might also be worth considering. Of course, this is just my amateur take on things, and you really should run it by your doctor first.

I wasn't specifically talking about just lying around—though, granted, I spent quite a bit of time doing exactly that—but rather the lack of actual movement. To be blunt, there were years where I barely stepped foot outside my house. Naturally, my health took a massive hit because of it. I started dealing with these bizarre sinus headaches, my blood pressure spiked, my vision got blurry, and I was constantly battling infections and allergies. Once I finally forced myself to get active again—cycling, getting out more, you know the drill—all those issues started to taper off significantly. Though, I suppose there might be a bit of a placebo effect at play there... Regardless, staying active can't hurt. As for the lower back issue, if you lose muscle mass from being sedentary, you’re basically inviting nerve impingement to the party. Personally, I used to deal with constant numbness in my arms and legs while sleeping. I couldn't tell you if that's what's happening in your case, but it's certainly a possibility...

Back in my day, he was basically the Dude himself. Later on, I heard he was actually writing for some major national magazines, and I even caught him popping up on TV a few times. As for who the new faces are around here on the forum... honestly, I haven't the slightest clue.

I’ve been dealing with my own share of headaches lately, mostly triggered by blood pressure issues. Honestly, I can’t claim to be much of an expert here—your situation seems significantly more complex than mine—but I did notice my own headaches started ramping up after being sidelined for a while due to illness. It was that period of inactivity that really did me in. So, if you want my amateur, non-medical opinion, just try to stay active as much as possible, regardless of whatever treatment plan you're on. And, obviously, try to shed a few pounds if you can.

Michelle Phillips54, you’re essentially echoing the same sentiment as brighttinker48—as if having a flood of mediocre posts is somehow a good thing. If you actually took the time to read my response to them, you'd see where I'm coming from.

The moderators would only have more on their plates if there were actually more posts to deal with, and I suspect that's exactly what the site owners want—more traffic, more engagement. However, we can't let that come at the expense of keeping threads readable and decent. I've already brought up several different configurations and tweaks that could balance things out.

Besides, wouldn't you moderators (and the folks running Reddit, for that matter) prefer it if the users didn't despise you quite so much? You know how many people end up getting heated when their posts get nuked. Though, I suppose that's secondary to the actual content. We lose far too many insightful, interesting discussions whenever someone hits the delete button.

Now, I'm going to pivot into something that sounds like a total conspiracy theory. After one particularly intense debate, I received an email from a user claiming there's an actual clique of moderators here running a specific agenda, and that this rigid, black-and-white enforcement policy suits them perfectly. What do you all think? Is there any water in that claim? 😬

rustydrifter10, it isn't just the admins who see deleted posts; plenty of other forum users catch them before they're actually scrubbed.

I mean, isn't it pretty logical to assume people would prefer their posts be marked as hidden rather than completely wiped out? It’s kind of like saying a soccer player would rather take a yellow card instead of getting tossed with a red one. 😁

Moderators pull posts for all sorts of reasons—that's not really the issue here. The problem lies in this rigid, black-and-white system we're working with. I'm simply suggesting we add some nuance, maybe a "gray area" category. Black stays black, white stays white, but we need something in between. I think there's more than enough merit in that idea for you all to consider it.

I fail to grasp the logic behind why everyone needs to have eyes on everything. The whole point of deleting messages is precisely so that not everyone sees every single thing.

Personally, I certainly wouldn't be complaining if my posts were just marked as "invisible" instead of being scrubbed entirely—and frankly, I don't know anyone who would. If we consider that there would simply be fewer deleted posts and more hidden ones, the total number of complaints would likely remain roughly the same, while simultaneously reducing the volume of what I just wrote in my previous sentence.

I am confused by your implication that inappropriate content shouldn't exist on a forum at all. As I’ve already pointed out, anything falling into that "gray area" shouldn't be visible to the general public. It's much like American television; they broadcast content that isn't meant for everyone, which is exactly why you see those rating icons in the corner of the screen late at night.

There is often plenty of interesting, informative substance tucked away in deleted posts. Frequently, entire discussions branch out from those very comments, leaving people who didn't see them completely lost as to what is actually happening.

Under the current system, such an "invisible" discussion would most likely just end up being deleted anyway; and if it wasn't deleted, then there wouldn't be any reason to hide it.

Anyway, thanks for the exhaustive response. 🙂

rustydrifter10, so you're telling me not one single point I laid out actually holds water?
Could you perhaps elaborate on that? I'd appreciate a bit more substance, because from where I'm sitting, this seems like a pretty solid concept.

rustydrifter10, look, I’ve witnessed plenty of things on this board that ended up getting scrubbed later on. Honestly, I’m just not following your train of thought here.

What I’m actually getting at here is the concept of invisible subthreads—essentially, nested discussions that would only be visible to those who have already engaged with the main thread. There are quite a few ways one could spin this idea; for instance, we could block further citations of these hidden threads or even restrict participation strictly to those already involved in the conversation. Personally, I don't think such extra layers of restriction are strictly necessary, but I suppose it's up to you all to flesh out the mechanics however you see fit.

Post = A total lack of actual answers on this thread.
Discussion = Every single post in a thread that isn't marked as private.

brighttinker48, I think you might have misread my point entirely. It’s not like the whole world would be watching the debate; only the actual participants would see those specific posts that the moderators—for whatever reason they deem necessary—decide to mark as invisible (along with any quotes from them, of course). I don't think we'd see an explosion of trolling, mostly because the moderators still hold the power to delete things whenever they want, and let's be honest, most people on these boards just want as many eyes on their takes as possible anyway. We could always just build in an option where users can toggle those hidden posts off if they find them annoying.

It’s certainly not some groundbreaking revolution 😁, but there might be some merit to it. Here is how I envision the system working: rather than moderators (who always seem to be) just deleting posts, they should instead mark them as invisible. Not completely wiped from existence, mind you, but simply hidden from anyone who isn't actively participating in that specific thread. This approach offers several distinct advantages. First off, you’d see far fewer complaints about moderation; it would mitigate that nagging sense of unfairness while actually giving the mods more breathing room to manage things. Secondly, discussions could become much more spontaneous and free-wheeling, since no one could accuse the site owners of hosting inappropriate content if it were effectively private and shielded from the general public. Third, it prevents that frustrating situation where people return to a thread only to find themselves totally out of the loop regarding what transpired in their absence—which, frankly, is incredibly irritating. Finally, this setup might actually nudge the lurkers into joining the conversation, as they'd finally have an incentive to engage to see the "hidden" content.

Implementing something like this would require quite a bit of backend coding and technical maneuvering, but I suspect the payoff would be worth the effort. What are your thoughts? And has anyone else already floated this idea around?

Dear visionary, love and dreams—they really are the two pillars of existence. They provide the purpose and the sheer grit needed just to keep going. Honestly, if you ask me, life is little more than a grand fantasy. Some people chase dreams that are far too large, others settle for ones that are much too small; some actually pull them off, while others spend their whole lives running away from them out of pure fear. As for your own destiny? Well, you'll have to go out and uncover that yourself.