New Surgeon General

[Verb]

Nurse Replaces Surgeon General After Obama Appointee Resigns

Since, the discussion was cut off in the FDA director thread, post any thoughts here.

I like conversations that flows in a natural way. Facilitating communication is the purpose of a board. I wonder how well the new SG will communicate.

Edit: rules

 

[Lessifer]

I'm not going to hold my breath for a new more favorable report on vaping. I wouldn't mind being pleasantly surprised though.

 

[sofarsogood]

Nurse Replaces Surgeon General After Obama Appointee Resigns

Since, the discussion was cut off in the FDA director thread, post any thoughts here.

You'd think in some of the less visited subforums conversation would be permitted to flow in a more natural way. Facilitating communication is the purpose of a board. Many thread closings seem counter to that objective.

I think it's a hopeful sign that he was asked to resign. May be if he'd left his name off the CDC report it wouldn't have happened. What other controversial thing has he done?

Could someone post some quotes from the article. Apparently I've used up my 10 free reads at the NY Times.

Edit,so I read some press about the SG. Apparently he said gun injuries are a public health issue. I happen to agree with him on that and don't see what's controversial about it. When a doc is treating a gun shot wound it's sort of irrelevent how it happened. But that might not sit well with the new guys in washington.

 

[zoiDman]

Unfortunately, the position of the Surgeon General has become more of a Spokesman for the Administration, than an Spokesman for Health and Medicine.

Will be curious to see what the New Surgeon General's views are on e-Cigarettes.

BTW - Here is an Interesting Article about e-Cigarettes and a former Surgeon General.

A Former Surgeon General Lends His Support to E-Cigarettes | Science

 

[zoiDman]

...

You'd think in some of the less visited subforums conversation would be permitted to flow in a more natural way. Facilitating communication is the purpose of a board. Many thread closings seem counter to that objective.

And BTW, I agree 100%

 

[Lessifer]

And BTW, I agree 100%

I agree about 60%. In this particular case I don't see why that thread needed to be closed, but I could see someone starting a new thread, like this one, and then posting a link in the other thread saying let's continue this wholly separate discussion in a new thread.

If I came on wanting to discuss the new Surgeon General, I'm much more likely to come to this thread than one about the new FDA director.

 

[zoiDman]

I agree about 60%. In this particular case I don't see why that thread needed to be closed, but I could see someone starting a new thread, like this one, and then posting a link in the other thread saying let's continue this wholly separate discussion in a new thread.

If I came on wanting to discuss the new Surgeon General, I'm much more likely to come to this thread than one about the new FDA director.

Yeah... Closing a Thread does Stop people from Discussing Semi-Related Topics. Problem is, it Also Stops people from Discussing the Thread Topic.

 

[LoveVanilla]

FYI

Anti-Vaping Surgeon General Has Been Abruptly Replaced

http://gizmodo.com/anti-vaping-
surgeon-general-has-been-abruptly-replaced-1794560893

[link broken as precaution; didn't finish read...]

 

[retired1]

Nurse Replaces Surgeon General After Obama Appointee Resigns

Since, the discussion was cut off in the FDA director thread, post any thoughts here.

You'd think in some of the less visited subforums conversation would be permitted to flow in a more natural way. Facilitating communication is the purpose of a board. Many thread closings seem counter to that objective.

When the membership ignores a previous caution to keep it on topic, guess what happens?

Complaining publicly about it isn't permitted, either.

 

[sofarsogood]

I agree about 60%. In this particular case I don't see why that thread needed to be closed, but I could see someone starting a new thread, like this one, and then posting a link in the other thread saying let's continue this wholly separate discussion in a new thread.

If I came on wanting to discuss the new Surgeon General, I'm much more likely to come to this thread than one about the new FDA director.

I have years of previous experience with online situations where there is an effort to regulate speech. It's a very difficult thing to do without making mistakes. View the forum as a community with "controls". There have to be some or there would be pandimonium but how they are structured and applied, for better or worse, eventually sets the tone. Once upon a time, long long ago, the internet had community voice chat that was civil and productive (anyone remember Firetalk?). Me and a couple of other guys started a PC help room called PCTech that helped many thousands of people with Windows and hardware issues. Imagine 50 people listening in while they are doing what ever they do in the rest of life. Somebody comes in with a problem. Somebody listening in knows the answer. It was amazing. Nobody could "own" a rooom in Firetak. We could create them, congregate, and give trusted people ad hoc moderator status. PCTech belonged to all of us, together,, by mutual consent. It was a beautiful thing.

 

[retired1]

Last time.

Forum Rules

10. Misconduct
a. These are not permitted -

• Flaming (insults).
• Criticising or complaining about a Moderator, or how the site is run, except via PM (private message).
• Discussion or mention of illegal/illicit drugs or sexual content.
• Posting of vulgar videos.
• Obscene or vulgar language.
• Trying to place offensive text in a post by evading the forum's built-in word censor, using symbols or alternative letters for example.
• Multiple identities/accounts: each member is allowed only one account on the ECF Forums. This also applies to Facebookers (one account only on ECF).
• Spamming for post count (placing meaningless posts) is against the rules.

b. Posting photos or pictures that some may find offensive or unacceptable is not permitted. Naked or semi-naked pictures of people are not permitted. As matters of taste cannot have a hard definition, Moderators will determine what is or is not acceptable - if you are unsure, then do not post the material.
c. Links to offensive materials of this type are prohibited.
d. Improper solicitation of goods, services, or monies from suppliers or other members; and/or giving instructions to others on how to solicit products. ECF is a 'no begging zone'.
e. Posting affiliate links or tracking links is not allowed.

13. Message conventions
Posts made by members must accord with certain conventions.
a. Posts must be in English, except in the International Language boards.
b. Off-topic digression: Stick to the topic. Do not deviate from the subject discussed in a thread as this is called off-topic (OT) posting. Open a new thread if a new issue arises from the discussion so others can always see by the title what the thread is about. Do not post the same topic in several forums (no double-posting / cross-posting).
c. Post titles: The title of a post should accurately refer to the content of the message.
d. Do not place links in the title. Example: " Find good resources at www.vaping.com ".
e. Do not place domain names in a post title. Example: " Vaping.com is a great site ".

15. Freedom of speech
Your contribution to this forum is not a right but a privilege. As this is a private website there is no public right to freedom of speech. The rules we have in place are to protect the site, and to provide a convivial environment for our Members. In short: we decide what is permissible or not permissible.

When you are asked to keep it on topic, we expect just that. Continuing to veer off topic will result in a thread closure.

 

[Verb]

When the membership ignores a previous caution to keep it on topic, guess what happens?

Complaining publicly about it isn't permitted, either.

I never complained. I edited my criticism.