Posts by bluerider2

Does anyone happen to have any insight regarding dialysis services over at Austin? It used to be run through the Hippocrates network, but word is the owner sold off the whole operation—machines, gear, staff, the works 🙄—and rebranded it as Austin. I have two friends who used to go to Hippocrates, and while I can't exactly brag about their results—they've both since received transplants—neither of them knows a thing about Austin. I'm wondering if they maintain that same level of patient care, how the actual quality of the dialysis holds up, and how they handle any unexpected complications
.
Thanks so much.

Amy Nelson34 said:When I scroll through the posts on this Forum, I can't help but notice so many grammatical slips that honestly feel like a punch to the gut.
My is my suggestion (...) Of course, I would still leave room for those who prefer using them just for the sake of style.

Amy Nelson34 said:Of course, I’d end up reading even more posts on the Forum than I do now, though eventually, I’d probably gather a group of literate folks to help me out.

I find myself nodding along in complete agreement regarding all those spelling and grammatical errors. 😍

I felt this was the most appropriate thread to start. I can't quite figure out if I'm just being a bit dense here, or if people are actually trying to pull the wool over my eyes. It seems like every hospital, including Dubrava Hospital, maintains a waiting list, and ideally, those lists should be—to put it politely—completely transparent. While they insist everything is available for public review online, I simply cannot find this list anywhere, no matter how hard I look. If anyone happens to stumble upon the data for this year or any upcoming years, would you be so kind as to let me know?

Dubrava Hospital Homepage -> Dubrava Hospital Waiting List.

vividfalcon14 said:It isn't just this specific one, really; in my experience, almost all forum software tends to function this way, at least regarding the platforms I've personally managed as an admin or moderator. 🙂

I wouldn't say they all are, though, because YouTube (which used to be Trello) actually offers a setting that lets you hide links on your own profile posts.

It feels like we're starting to lose our focus here, so if you'll allow me, I'd love to quickly summarize how things are currently shaping up. Because we've moved toward assuming this is all part of some perfectly synchronized group effort, those original complaints have been set aside in favor of putting together a list of candidates for the sub-moderator position. So far, the names on the list include:

• Sarah Garcia46
• Lila_sun
• Colbert
• Andrew Sanchez572
• LNP20

If I’ve accidentally overlooked anyone, please do feel free to jump in and let me know.

Listen, everyone—though I’m honestly not quite sure who exactly I’m addressing here, especially since it feels like we've seen an unusual surge of clones popping up on the Social Science boards lately (a matter I've actually requested an investigation into)—but rather than being a list of specific grievances, this whole situation is starting to feel more like the typical way people post on Social Science: just a massive amount of words without much actual substance behind them.

I’ll certainly try my best to address what I managed to grasp from that, while hopefully clearing up a few things along the way.

First off, believe it or not, I don't actually personally know anyone from the Social Science department—at least not that I'm aware of—so these claims suggesting some sort of deep connection between Stitch, Abyssus, and DementiaPraecox (Paul Price34) simply don't hold any water. Have you included anyone else in this web of supposed affiliations? Maybe a fellow specialist? Or perhaps steelskipper5? Or even Colbert? Anyone who has ever had the nerve to tell you that you were mistaken? Honestly, since this seems to be nothing more than one assertion clashing against another, I really think you should try rewinding the tape just a little bit to see where it all went wrong.

A while back, Stitch left the Social Science group quite heatedly after I raised an objection to Abyssus—specifically regarding how they spoke about Anić, which is exactly what you all seem to be referencing here. To be clear, my issue wasn't with evaluating Anić’s vocabulary, but rather with the way they characterized Anić as a person. I even had to issue a ban to Dementia early on due to some truly inappropriate behavior. Now, would I really have gone that far if we were actually colleagues, close buddies, or genuine friends? Only if we were leaning into conspiracy theories, which, if you ask me, doesn't make much sense at all.

Regarding the matter of Paul Price34's nickname, I have to admit I made a bit of a blunder: Dementia posted under that handle on another forum quite a while ago, and if you check Wikipedia, you'll see the same thing. Since her writing style is so incredibly distinct and she’s never even tried to hide that she's the same person, I simply went along with her using this new moniker. Her ban from the Social Science department was earned at the university and had absolutely nothing to do with our Social Science subforum; besides, that's all in the past now, so the only real issue left is the personal friction between her and Sarah Garcia46. I don't intend to get dragged into that drama, provided it doesn't interfere with our work here in Social Science, but moving forward, Dementia will just have to make up her mind about which identity she wants to use.

Since we’re already discussing Sarah Garcia46 and the suggestions for a sub-moderator, I can't help but reflect on my own journey here. When I first started, I was told quite clearly that my expertise didn't extend beyond linguistics within the realm of Social Science. In fact, that was actually one of the core points discussed when we were planning for a future sub-moderator—to ensure we didn't just pick another linguist, but rather someone whose professional background or even their deepest hobbies lie in a different branch of Social Science altogether. I truly hope you all keep that perspective in mind as you weigh the other proposals.

I can't help but feel that your grievances are, to put it mildly, a bit inconsistent. One moment it’s "bluerider2 doesn't swear, so this isn't right," then it shifts to "Abyssus swears, which is unacceptable," followed by someone feeling personally insulted—all through these comparisons, which honestly just shows how much we've all picked up that particular rhetorical style here at Social Science. It seems like every critic feels slighted, and suddenly the entire conversation pivots toward the state of the forum, yet whenever I try to pin down specific instances, I'm met with a polite "we won't discuss it that way," or claims that the moderator is deleting posts, or conversely, that they aren't deleting them enough. It's all quite circular, really. But, I shall set that aside; you seem to be attempting to express deep dissatisfaction, yet you're doing so in such broad strokes without offering a single concrete example to ground your argument.

If you ask me, the whole situation seems to stem from a deeply personal grudge against Abyssus, which is actually quite easy to verify if one looks closely. I ended up deleting an entire string of posts where, despite the thread being titled around linguistics, the conversation focused entirely on Abyssus. For now, those messages are only visible to the admins, super-moderators, and myself, but there is absolutely nothing stopping me from restoring them so everyone can see exactly what triggered this mess and the claims regarding the supposed "chaos" within the Social Science community.

The root causes of this mess, as usual, lie elsewhere. To start, there’s this pervasive misconception that linguistics isn't a rigorous academic discipline, but rather something anyone can just dabble in because we all speak a language every day. It’s an illusion of expertise—since we use language constantly, people mistakenly assume they've mastered its complexities. This attitude has unfortunately diluted the purpose of the Language Advisor; I didn't fragment it into different sections myself, which is a total misconception, as it remains largely intact. Everyone was encouraged to post questions under its specific thread and offer answers there, leaving the actual discussions and opinions to the Lingy-cup, which was designed specifically for that kind of dialogue. Yet, within just a few posts, that space was hijacked by a debate about Abyssus. I honestly find it quite improper to air private grievances on a public forum—that’s exactly what private messages are for—and it's particularly frustrating when those disputes are dragged through the Social Science sub-forum and dumped right on my shoulders. The flow of conversation in the Language Advisor usually follows one of two annoying patterns. First, someone asks a question, Stitch provides an answer, and then a third party jumps in to say, "I disagree, that makes no sense, or that sounds silly," all without offering a single shred of actual evidence. Second, someone asks a question while Stitch is away, another user steps in to help, and then Stitch returns with a different perspective, triggering a baseless shouting match. You could swap Stitch out for Abyssus, bluerider2, Sarah Garcia46, steelskipper5, or Cptar, and the scenario would play out exactly the same way. Of course, it’s all seasoned with ridiculous remarks like comparing things to other languages or making nonsensical claims about the "spirit of a verb." It would be fascinating to see someone walk into a physics, chemistry, or math forum, receive a correct answer, and then have a group of people attack the expert with "arguments" like "the spirit of a mathematical formula" or claiming "it's true in math, but not in physics." Not to mention the sheer repetition of asking the exact same question a hundred times, only to be told to use the search function and respond with, "I don't feel like it." We once had a situation where the same question was asked three times on a single page. You have to admit, navigating this requires an incredible amount of patience and nerves of steel. I possess that patience, and as a moderator, I certainly need it, but please remember that no one here is obligated to provide it for you.

I have this nagging suspicion—though I won't go out of my way to investigate since it would be far too easy to verify—that Abyssus has been consistently placing the same individual on the ignore list, which seems to have triggered a cycle of constant cloning just to bypass that restriction. Perhaps a sub-moderator will eventually step in to put an end to this little game. I honestly couldn't say who that should be, and frankly, I don't feel it's my place to decide, but if I may offer one small thought, I think we need someone who aligns perfectly with what Enchantress once suggested: "Maybe the sub-forum could benefit from another, stricter moderator who isn't afraid to hand out penalties more frequently, if that's what the community feels is necessary." To be perfectly honest, I find myself wishing for someone like Adriatic or someone with his particular style; if Adriatic were serving as a sub-moderator over in Social Science, I truly believe we wouldn't see nearly as many deceptive nicknames cluttering things up.

Sarah Morgan2 said:Look, I'm not playing this game. 🙂 I have no intention of wasting my free time the way you're trying to bait me. Besides, I'm sure there are younger, more ambitious people ready to jump into these endless complaints because, mind you, plenty of users have been complaining about the Social Science sub-forum for ages—all while you systematically delete their posts. (Actually, if you weren't so focused on bickering—or if you actually had good intentions—you'd realize why they're appealing; after all, the forum archives hold everything you've scrubbed regarding visitor dissatisfaction.) Anyway, let them join the discussion. I have zero interest in debating someone who carries themselves the way you do. Sorry, but that's just how it is. 👋

If you want to speak plainly about what's actually happening, then go right ahead. If not, well, I have much more productive things to do than engage in tug-of-war with people who, much like yourself, prefer to make insinuations but conveniently dodge the question whenever asked for a specific example. It’s like that old joke about the parrot: "Oh, you know exactly what I mean." 😍

To put it bluntly, if you'll allow me to say so with a little humility, you don't actually want a debate; you just want to stall and evade. I won't participate in that. For now, you all can enjoy yourselves. It's certainly better here than over in Social Science. At least we might find a little peace and quiet there.

@ Sarah Morgan2

Before you rush ahead and drift away from the actual point of our discussion, I thought I might gently nudge you back toward the essentials.

First off, you haven't actually addressed the two questions I posed, both of which were rooted directly in the claim you made in your opening post. I really think it would be best if we could establish the reasoning behind those claims before we try to move any further along. Honestly, just throwing out empty words doesn't get us much anywhere, and while I've spent years honing my ability to play with language—and believe me, I can certainly hold my own in a battle of wits if I truly felt like trying—I simply don't have the energy for it right now.

Secondly, you don't actually know anything about my professional background; all you know is what I choose to share here on this forum, specifically the bits and pieces I want people to see. Based on everything I've shared thus far, I'm quite certain there isn't enough evidence to support your assumption that I am merely a novelist.

Thirdly, we have been looking for at least one co-moderator for the Social Science section for quite some time now, so while I appreciate the sentiment, please don't feel like you need to worry about the management of this sub-forum.

So, if you wouldn't mind being a bit more direct, please tell me exactly where you see the issue. If you're feeling stuck, by all means, lay it out.

Edit: I wasn't intending to quote anyone, but since Jerry Roberts15 replied in the meantime, I'm adding an "address" here just to make sure there isn't any confusion about who I'm speaking to.

First off, I want to express my sincere gratitude to God and all the saints that we have finally figured out the proper way to open a discussion here. Secondly, because I would hate to present anything in an inaccurate or one-sided manner—regardless of how much that might affect things—I would kindly ask you to precisely

• what actually constitutes poor moderation;
• and what those frequent, uncomfortable situations look like, perhaps by providing some specific examples.

If you listen to what the newspapers have been reporting lately, you’d think we were all about to become immune to even the slightest common cold. 😍 Honestly, I think they might have gotten a little ahead of themselves with all that optimism and those bold forecasts. According to the latest updates from Osiris Therapeutics, we are still looking at Phase II or perhaps even Phase III clinical trials, which suggests it will be quite some time before this treatment actually hits the market. That announcement claiming it would be available here in the States by next year clearly refers to one of the ongoing phases of clinical trials. In the meantime, I’d say there’s no harm in staying vaccinated, sticking to a decent diet, keeping active, and taking the dog for walks—especially since, with today's insulin and antidiabetic options, one can lead a pretty wonderful, high-quality life without any major setbacks.

Jerry Martin19 said:Why can't we just let people be and write in their own native language if that's what they know? 🙂

If we actually implemented that rule, I honestly think we'd struggle to find even a dozen posts on this entire forum every single day. 😍

Honestly, I just transferred what I thought I’d actually need to spend, which is quite a bit more than those $13. It eventually dawned on me that the amount was meant to cover the fees for closing out my account entirely.

Here’s the latest update from Bank of America. It turns out it’s all about $13, though not quite in the way you'd think—it isn't actually for opening a foreign currency account, but rather for closing one, where those $13 or their equivalent value have to remain sitting in the balance at all times. There aren't any monthly maintenance fees to worry about, though I should mention that my card won't be arriving in three weeks like they promised, but rather in four.

That sounds much better. I’m heading out there tomorrow, so I’ll see how things shake out then. If only they hadn't gone and tightened up the deadline on us in the first place...

Brandon Price3 said:$6.75, you're waiting three weeks for a card. You might as well just open the account now, because their cards definitely have a CVV. I use one of theirs and everything runs perfectly fine on PayPal.😬

They told me $13 regarding the account opening process, though I didn't bother asking about the specific timeframe.

Bradley Ramirez5 said:I’m running into the exact same issue on my end. 😢
If anyone happens to ask their banker about this—say, at a Chase or a Bank of America—please let us know what they say. 🙂

There isn't really an option for a replacement because there isn't even anything to replace. I actually went ahead and handed back my High Electron card today and closed out my foreign currency account over at JPMorgan Chase.

The issue with Zaba is that they only offer a High Electron card with a sixteen-digit number printed right on the front, but if you flip it over, there aren't any numbers or even a verification code near the signature. Their version of the Visa Electron just isn't set up for online shopping at all.

I suppose I am feeling a little relieved that they released my funds without trying to charge me a monthly maintenance fee for the ten days I held that account open.

I spoke with someone at Wells Fargo over the phone who assured me that their Visa Electron cards do include a CVV, though I tend to be a bit skeptical until I see it with my own eyes. It seems much more user-friendly over there since they don't charge for account maintenance—you just pay a one-time fee when you first open the account.

granitehawk15 said:If you head online and search for terms like "Core Stability" or "core stabilization training," followed by things like "Back extension with stability ball" or even "Ball crunches" for those abdominal muscles, you’ll find an absolute goldmine of exercises. I'm talking about stuff like the Ball Superman, Ball Hamstring Curl, Ball Russian Twist, Prone Iso-Ab Series, Ball Pullover, or the Ball Arm/Opp. Leg Raise. Honestly, they are all incredibly effective workouts that don't require a massive gym membership since a stability ball is so inexpensive. The real beauty of it is how the ball supports your spine during the movement while its inherent instability forces your body to work much harder, making every rep deeper and more efficient; though, keep in mind, some of these can even be done on the floor without the ball at all.👍

That was just a quick thought from me, so thanks for reading. 🙂

granitehawk15

Does anyone happen to know where I might be able to track down those specific exercises or perhaps find some written instructions for them?

Orthomaks LLC, specialized in mobility aids, located in Washington, D.C., at 14 Valdez St., reachable at (202) 555-0199.

goldengull3 said:It’s an incredibly tough nut to crack when you consider how many citizens, particularly retirees, draw heavily from public funds despite having such limited income.

In my humble opinion, this really just points to the fact that our funds are poorly structured—specifically, we have a major issue with how money is redistributed.

When you think about it, today's seniors spent their entire working lives contributing to both Social Security and Medicare, and if those funds weren't managed efficiently, that certainly isn't a fault of the retirees themselves.

The system is essentially leaking resources everywhere, and a massive chunk of our budget is being flushed away simply due to sheer organizational inefficiency. A perfect example of this absurdity is that annoying administrative fee where the receipt itself probably costs more than the actual payment (those NCR blocks aren't exactly pennies!), not to mention all the wasted hours spent on the paperwork. This whole headache could easily be resolved by setting aside just $10 per month through contributions or supplemental insurance, which would actually net us more revenue since not everyone needs a doctor visit every single month.

But I digress! My main point was simply that while healthcare services naturally carry a price tag, wasting money on unnecessary overhead is what truly drives the costs up.