Chickadeesingingonthewrongplanet wrote:
I think the original post was, if not trolling, at the least provocative, negative, and not fully substantiated.
And I don't really think the title should be allowed to stand.
It's blatantly inaccurate and imprecise. Is it an average, mean, median, etc. What country and region was the sample taken from? What sample controls were there? Where is the epidemiology in it? Yes, I know I have a choice whether to
log in, and whether to read it.
But I really wish there was some moderating--it seems to me that the thread titles is rehashing some
questionable research in a very catastrophizing reductionist way. I would avoid someone who used that
as a conversational gambit. Really, I shouldn't have looked at the thread.
I'm offended by your taking offense to the original poster in this thread. First, he is a "veteran" with much more service to this community than you have had. Second, people who accuse others of trolling are often trolls themselves. Third, he is offering something for discussion and did not do the research himself, but it's a valid observation and we shouldn't stick our heads in the sand rather than acknowledging the very real threats to our wellbeing. Fourth, he might be forgiven for a preoccupation with death given that he is facing a very serious cancer threat himself.
You're a newcomer to this forum. If you don't like what our more senior members offer, you can always go somewhere else, or you can do what all newcomers anywhere are advised to do - sit and watch quietly until you catch on to the culture of the place.
_________________
A finger in every pie.