A friend of mine today asked who soon a pregnancy test can give an accurate answer. I had no idea... anyone know?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Usually, about the first day of a missed period (assuming regularity). Sometimes, as soon as 5 days prior -- but with far less reliability.
A blood test (done only by doctors, AFAIK), can accurately detect pregnancy at about 8-10 days after conception.
This test claims one week after conception. But I'm willing to bet money the accuracy is < 70% Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
You mean the kind you buy in the store and do at home? I think they're most accurate after a month or later, though I could be mistaken.
Not sure how soon you can tell if you go to the doctor though, might be faster.
Edit: well nevermind .
*concerned* everything okay Paul?
[ November 10, 2003, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: ladyday ]
Posted by MaydayDesiax (Member # 5012) on :
About a day or two after the first missed period is right, although sometimes it takes up to a week, depending on the last time she put herself in the position to get pregnant. (It can take up to ten days after to get pregnant)
The at-home ones are actually quite accurate (I've looked it up o/l), although the tests given at the doctor's office are moreso than the others.
And blood tests are WAY more accurate than the at-home and urine tests--I read a study about them, and some women who show up negative on urine tests are positive on the blood tests.
If she gets tested, do what one of my friends did: Test yourself at home, then go get tested at the doctors for peace of mind. If it comes up negative, wait a week and if she's still waiting, do it again. After that if it's still negative, she should be fine. My friend came up negative on the first test, but positive a week after. Either way, I'd go to the doctor, if only to put yourself at ease.
[ November 10, 2003, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: MaydayDesiax ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Like everyone said, pretty darned close to the missed period.
Personally, however, I think it's easier to tell (and in my case, more accurate) just by how I feel. I could tell I was pregnant about a week or so after conception, even with my first one. I had to wait 2-3 weeks to have it verified by the doctor. And in one case, the home test showed positive, but the doctor's showed negative. The doc's test was wrong. Two weeks later, it came out positive, like I knew it should.
But that's just me. YMMV
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: When should I begin testing with home urine tests? Most home pregnancy tests that check urine beta-HCG are sensitive to 20-25 mIU/ml of HCG. The general rule-of thumb is to test at the time when you are a day late for your menses or about 15 days after ovulation. The test can be positive anywhere from about 2-3 days prior to a missed menses to 4-5 days after.
Testing really does depend upon how regular your menses are or in other words how regular ovulation occurs. If you tend to be late (longer than 28 days) with your periods or the timing of menses varies by several days each cycle, then it is better not to waste pregnancy tests by testing at day 28-29 after the last period starts.
quote: Using Early Pregnancy Tests Whether you are late for your cycle or you are a compulsive tester, there is a good time and an unnecessary time to take an early pregnancy test. Implantation of an embryo can occur as early as 6 days past conception and as late as 12 days past conception, 9 days being the average. Once implantation has occurred, it takes 24-48 hours for hCG (human chorionic gonadotropin) to reach detectable levels. This said, hCG is detectible in urine by 8-14 days past conception by a sensitive hCG test. The average being 11 days past ovulation. So taking a test prior to 8 days past ovulation will most likely give you a negative regardless of your pregnancy status. Every woman's body is different. Although this is rare, some women never register a positive during pregnancy. I have gotten a positive as 8 days past ovulation, but my last pregnancy registered positive in the evening of 9 days ovulation. A blood test at 11dpo reveal 51miU of hCG, so it was probably somewhere around 20miu on 9dpo.
Trying to plan for getting as early an abortion as possible?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Uncool, John.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Considering the girl in question is, well, far too young to go to the PROM, much less have a kid...yeah, early abortion is probably the best of many bad available options.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Is this a woman who knows when her period should happen or a man worried about a contraceptive failure event? because conception can occur up to 5 days after ovulation (but usually not more than one day before, I think because the egg lives longer than the sperm). Menses follows pretty reliably 14 days later.
| Yes, Kayla, it appears your analysis makes more sense v
Which is why we use contraception for more than the minimal time calculated. :removes incogruous humorous reference:
[ November 11, 2003, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Oh, and by the way John, you can shove it.
No, I did NOT make a mistake.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
I didn't mean to imply it was in any way YOURS. However, the only time people ask those kinds of questions is in one of two situations: a) they are trying to get pregnant and want the good news as soon as humanly possible, or b) they want to be sure to get an abortion as soon as they can to make sure they are not denied one. Considering you are young, Paul, it was pretty much a logical progression that your friend would also be young (+ or - 5 years). With few exceptions, twenty-somethings aren't normally in a great hurry to have kids.
So, I can shove it for obviously being correct in my guess? Yeah, I knew saying the big "a" word when talking about pregnancy would be uncomfortable, but I felt that a realistic look at the situation would be helpful to both sides of that hot-topic coin. The questions in the thread take on a different light when looking at them in context. Very uncool, I'm sure. I guess that's why I didn't get a "shove it" response until you had a clue that I was John, the guy you have a grudge against anyway.
[I have now gone back and BOLDED where I already made clear that I DID NOT MEAN TO OR DIRECTLY IMPLY that Paul had ANYTHING to do with it. I made that clear as soon as I read it, first thing in the morning before I went about my day, to make it clear that was never my intent. So, do me the freaking favor of not trying to put words in my damn mouth, `k?]
[ November 11, 2003, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: GreNME ]
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
You're not helping anything, John. You really need to chill.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Pooka, I think you have that backward.
quote: Background The timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation strongly influences the chance of conception, although the actual number of fertile days in a woman's menstrual cycle is uncertain. The timing of intercourse may also be associated with the sex of the baby.
Methods We recruited 221 healthy women who were planning to become pregnant. At the same time the women stopped using birth-control methods, they began collecting daily urine specimens and keeping daily records of whether they had sexual intercourse. We measured estrogen and progesterone metabolites in urine to estimate the day of ovulation.
Results In a total of 625 menstrual cycles for which the dates of ovulation could be estimated, 192 pregnancies were initiated, as indicated by increases in the urinary concentration of human chorionic gonadotropin around the expected time of implantation. Two thirds (n = 129) ended in live births. Conception occurred only when intercourse took place during a six-day period that ended on the estimated day of ovulation. The probability of conception ranged from 0.10 when intercourse occurred five days before ovulation to 0.33 when it occurred on the day of ovulation itself. There was no evident relation between the age of sperm and the viability of the conceptus, although only 6 percent of the pregnancies could be firmly attributed to sperm that were three or more days old. Cycles producing male and female babies had similar patterns of intercourse in relation to ovulation.
Conclusions Among healthy women trying to conceive, nearly all pregnancies can be attributed to intercourse during a six-day period ending on the day of ovulation. For practical purposes, the timing of sexual intercourse in relation to ovulation has no influence on the sex of the baby.
You can get pregnant if you have uprotected sex up to 5 days before ovulation and the day of ovulation.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
It wasn't bringing up abortion that made it uncool, John. It was the tone.
It's one think to have derisive and insulting thoughts towards an individual, and it's another to voice them in a place where openmindedness and acceptance of the views of others is essential to building the community.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Umm, I'm VERY aware that grenme is your handle over here. I have been since you created it, since at the time I had you on my contact list.
Yes, I have a grudge against you... you're almost as caustic as Baldar, and I hated the wey HE treated people.
Interestingly enough, I asked another member of hatrack if it would be appropriate to tell you to shove it before I posted... she called you an asshole for that post. SO... I don't think I'm out of line.
Note that three other posters on this thread also thought you were out of line.
[ November 11, 2003, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Here's one poster who didn't think he was out of line. He didn't word it the way I would, but he thought of what I didn't....I didn't even think of abortion when you were asking your question, Paul. And no matter how old this girl is, even if she's just 12, abortion is never the best of a bunch of bad options.
And yes, I'd say the same thing if it was my own daughter.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
yes, so let's turn what's probably a horribly traumatic situation for your young friend into a hatrack battle. Paul, you've got your information....and John, you shouldn't have posted if you had nothing constructive to contribute. you know i love you, but you have got to get your social barometer tweaked.
Can we ring the bell and declare the round over?
[ November 11, 2003, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Leonide ]
Posted by monteverdi (Member # 2896) on :
There is nothing in a young man's life quite like a take-home pregnancy test. You buy it, go home and wait. Then she will get up from the couch or chair or bed and walk into the bathroom, close the door and you will sit there -as yourself, as you have known yourself, for the last time. Your life flashes before your eyes. You live two possible futures simultaneously, you look around at once familiar surroundings, your lamp, the table, the unfinished book - unbearable heaviness, heaven and hell. You will consider cause and effect, the science of fate, and abandon their logic to an absurd hope - you will pray. The banality of fate, the toilet flushes, the door opens: welcome to your life. If only there were a smiley for the expression on the face of an expectant mother. Or -
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
My question went right along the lines jeniwren was talking about. I'm not trying to make any kind of example or pick a fight. I'm clarifying the context of the rather vague question posed in the beginning. Call me caustic if you like, but I'm not going to go making suggestions without proper context, especially if a real person's well being is on the line. It's far too easy to make judgement calls or come up with ideas when they are in the ephemeral realm of the hypothetical, and I firmly believe that everyone's view of the questions is placed in a different light once the question is put into perspective. Some may stand by their original idea, some may change how they approach such things.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
I accidentally hit reply there. I was going to say accusing me of being the same as a currently banned bogeyman may be nice to blow off steam, but my question was both an honest one and a pertinent one. In this case, considering both the age and the situation, I would firmly suggest going to a doctor before making any decisions in haste. I happen to not be one of the people with a firm stance on issues like abortion, but I do have a pretty good idea of how it affects people involved. I've never been in such a situation myself, but I've both counseled and had to support family and friends both ways on such a decision, which is why I'd prefer a little context before I suggest a course of action. Hence, my constructive suggestion on the matter would be to make it imperative that she visit a doctor and get sound medical advice and options.
The girl has obviously got a lot going on right now, especially if she is very young. Friend and family support are crucial right now, but a separate party (preferably in the medical field) giving her an honest run-down of options is what she needs.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Frankly no matter how close some of this board is, thats not what he wanted to know. And there is no way that you can bring that up, any of you, being basically some random stranger on the internet without being offensive. It might not be the best choice, but thats none of your business.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
If it's not a question you want asked, then you don't ask personal questions to begin with. Quid pro quo.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
If it was really a question you wanted an answer to, you could've asked, "Is he planning on having an abortion, or is she going to keep it?" It's probably more personal than most people would answer, on or offline, but it's less likely to provoke the "Shove it" reply.
Instead, you come up with a mocking, sarcastic, insulting question.
Attack the idea if you must, just lay off the person. Start a thread on it, and offer solutions. We're not preventing any abortions by scorning people via computer.
[ November 11, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
I didn't attack anything. I surmised that the person was aiming for an early abortion, and I asked if that was the case. Maybe people should stop reading into what I say so much.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Maybe you should learn to write in a less caustic manner?
*mutter*
Form matters as much as content in communication.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Subtle John is no John at all.
But I agree with Kayla that John's statement was uncool. And it wasn't immediately apparent that it was Paul's "genetic material" involved. I'm still not sure if it is or isn't.
There is emergency contraception, but that has to be pretty well immediate. I think. Hence it is really important for the female involved to seek medical attention.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
Excuse me?
quote:Trying to plan for getting as early an abortion as possible?
Can someone point out to me what is caustic about that sentence? It was a quick question, straight to the point. Is it because it implies that a person may be in a rush to have the procedure (which you said they are)? Is it because the "a" word was actually used instead of implied like in the original post? Or, is it just because it was me asking it? Can someone logically point out the caustic nature of the question, without trying to throw their personal opinion of me into it? I didn't write more than just that question because I hadn't made up my mind what to think of the situation, so I asked if that was the context. How the bloody hell was what I asked caustic? As far as I can tell, people's reaction to the question have been based on that I was the one to ask it or that I was so up front about asking it. What the hell was so offensive or caustic about it? I notice that squat has been noted about me actually giving an actual opinion after my simple question was answered (many hours later, because I had no net access). What's up with the dogpile? Remember—I'm not the one with a personal grudge here, I just pointed out that the response to me was based on the grudge (correctly, I might add). I didn't imply anything (pejoratively) personal about it—towards Paul or his friend—and as soon as I saw that it could have been mistaken that I implied Paul had anything to do with it, I made clear that was not my intent. What the heck, people? I haven't even called anyone a name in this thread, despite being called an asshole and the equivalent of Baldar. Once again, I think some people are reading a little too much into what I say—trying to find something between the lines where there is nothing—than actually taking what I said quite literally.
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
John, I don't know exactly why your question was interpretted as caustic but here's my guess: You dropped your subject pronoun and first verb. I know it sounds silly but... Well, when I'm talking to people I'll only use that form either 1) very very casually or 2) bitingly. I mean... correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a simple "are you/is she trying..." may have been just a little less easilly taken offensively.
The point is, intended or not, that's simply how your question was taken. It happened, yes; but it seems not to have been intended, so can we please move on?
[ November 11, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Pixie ]
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
Thanks, Pixie. That makes a little more sense. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Actually, planning an abortion isn't really an emergency thing. I don't know why anyone would need to know less than a week after actually getting pregnant, other than just wanting to know. Planning the abortion would take all of about 30 minutes of surfing the web. One could take pills up to about 9 weeks of pregnancy and have a surgical abortion between 9 and 24 weeks. It's not like there is a very small window of opportunity.
However, John, the reason Paul asked is really none of your business. The reasons could be many. Maybe your the only one who jumped to the conclusion that Paul knocked someone up and wanted her to get an abortion as soon as possible because you're the one who thinks that way. It is quite possible, considering that Paul goes to college, that one of his female acquaintances was date raped and is terrified and wants to know as soon as possible. Maybe his room mates little brother called and is concerned about a homecoming "accident." Maybe a fraternity brother is writing an anti-abortion essay. Really, did you immediately jump to "heheh, Paul, who'd you get pregnant?" Really?
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
Kayla, did you not read the multiple times I made it clear I was not incriminating Paul? Once again, did you NOT read where I made it clear I wasn't incriminating Paul? How many times do I have to point this out until it becomes clear that people were placing motives and meanings into what I said that simply were not there? Seriously, Kayla, I expect that kind of reaction from someone like Paul, who openly dislikes me, but I'm a bit surprised to see that even after I made clear I wasn't trying to say he had anything to do with it, that you would still assume otherwise.
People need to seriously freaking chill before reading anything I post. This is bullshit.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
Oh, and:
quote:Really, did you immediately jump to "heheh, Paul, who'd you get pregnant?"
THAT'S NOT WHAT I FREAKING SAID! WHY DO YOU PEOPLE INSIST ON BELIEVING IT WAS? Meanwhile, it's perfectly goddamn fine to sit and call me names while what I said was TOTALLY misinterpreted. Meanwhile, it's perfectly fine to berate me without clarification (which is ironic, because my question was for clarification purposes). Meanwhile, it's fine and dandy to put words, motives, and attitudes in my posts that were not there.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Y'know, more than half the time I think John is a dickhead.
Observe: John, I think you're a dickhead.
But, he really didn't imply that it was Paul's fault. Note the lack of "you're" at the beginning of the sentance. And then he goes on to offer some advice. Which, so far, is more than some others have done (other than "shut up, John" of course). The fact is, people really *do* look for reasons why they should be mad at him. Although, he does himself no favors by sinking down with them.
But that's neither here nor there. I'm derailing the thread myself, which is what I spend 90% of my posts telling people not to do (I think I need a new hobby).
All that aside, I agree with what has been said so far. Don't trust the pregnancy test, go to the doctor. It's the only way she'll get piece of mind. And, along those lines, make sure she asks how she can deal with this emotionally as well as physically. Not necessarily with a professional, but with someone she's comfortable with.
Edit: fixed a sentance that didn't make sense.
[ November 11, 2003, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Pixie (Member # 4043) on :
quote: So can we please move on?
Seriously, guys, you sound like my parents.
John knows his words could have been and were, from his perspective, misinterpretted. The rest of you know that his perspective is that he was, in fact, misinterpretted. Does it honestly matter beyond that? There's nothing anyone can do to change anything and asking for apologies is useless where no one believes they truly did any harm. Fine, everyone has a point, but the points have been made and acknowledged and anything beyond that is just beating the thing to a point at which it becomes meaningless. Sometimes, not always, but sometimes, it's best simply to acknowledge and let be. To do otherwise just cause ranklings and further conflict.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
John,
quote:Trying to plan for getting as early an abortion as possible?
To me, that read,
quote: [Are you] trying to plan for getting as early an abortion as possible?
(I agree with Pixie here. The dropped pronoun and verb made a ton of difference, and I don't know how you could have possibly not seen that.)
Secondly, Paul didn't say "My girlfriend asked me. . ." He said a friend. Now, that could be his best friend from kindergarten, or it could be some guy who lives down the hall that he knows well enough to say "Hey" to when they pass each other, or someone somewhere in between. Since it was a friend, I don't know why you immediately wondered if that person was trying to plan as early an abortion as possible. Maybe they just wanted to know whether or not they could go out drinking after the basketball game or not. But you immediately jumped to abortion. The fact that you are correct doesn't excuse the tone, nor the insinuation, which, denial aside, did implicate Paul. The fact that you came back and tried to explain that you didn't understand why people were putting words in your mouth is irrelevant to me. They were already out there and you followed it up with "advice." Paul already said that situation didn't involve him, so why are giving advice to some "maybe" pregnant girl who will never read this forum?
I love you, but sometimes, your nasty side annoys me. I called Baldar on it, and I'll call you on it, too. I love Paul to death, too, but I'd call him on it if he did something like this. Besides, Paul does strip teases for me all the time. What a hottie. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Ooh, as long as we're giving advice to a mystical girl, who may or may not be pregnant, I have some of my own to give. If the pregnancy tests turn out positive, even after an abortion, and the doctors diagnose her with some rare form of cancer, she should really, really, have lots of tests done to make sure she has cancer before allowing them to perform a hysterectomy and remove part of her lung.
Pixie, I think John knew exactly how everyone was going to take his words.
I like John. But I don't like that he thinks so little of us here that he thinks that he can convince us that he merely "surmised that the person was aiming for an early abortion, and I asked if that was the case."
I'd rather he went off on a rant on how teenagers are irresponsible and how they use abortion as a substitute for responsibility rather than hear him play it off like an innocent, honest question that he wanted answered. What could one possibly gain by knowing why a person he or she will never meet is inquiring about pregnancy tests?
If we need to conduct a survey on the subject, this is hardly the thread for it.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
I WAS NOT ATTACKING ANYONE. I repeat: I WAS NOT ATTACKING ANYONE. I'm sorry, Kayla, but you jumped all over me for nothing this time. I even made that clear in the very next post. You are attributing a quality to the post that was not freaking there. It was not there. I asked for clarification on the situation, that is all. THAT. IS. ALL. Yet you are still trying to attribute motives there that were not present. Still. Even after I clarified. You are incorrect on this, yet you persist. Why?
The "advice" was given in order to pass on, not to be read. It's the same advice I was going to give to begin with, but I wanted clarification. Hence the question. I left it ambivalent because I didn't care if Paul was involved or not, and didn't want to assume as much. Yet it is immediately assumed I was on the offensive.
This is the kind of bullshit that had me not posting before: all it would take is Kristine deleting my posts and telling me my opinion doesn't matter when I protest again. Really, if everything I will say in the future is going to immediately be taken in the worst possible context right from the start, and name-calling and berating me automagically becomes justified just because it's me, I won't even bother any more. That's not an ultimatum, that's me asking for the same benefit of the doubt that everyone else gets automatically around here.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
et tu, Eddie? What the hell? What planet did I wake up on this morning?
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Sigh.
I hate threads that devolve like this, and I usually just quit reading them, but I have to say that I understood why John posted what he did (especially after his very next clarifying post), and I didn't find it caustic until people started attributing motive to him.
Let's move on, please.
And my advice to the friend who might be pregnant (on topic!): Go to the doctor. If pregnant, get counseling. If deciding to have an abortion, get more counseling. I don't know what state she is in, but some states allow underage pregnant girls confidentiality in such matters. Try Planned Parenthood.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Hey, I tried to change the topic. Nobody biting on the strip teases I get from Paul? He's really good at it. Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Ok, just so I can settle what happened here...
I have an almost cousin (complicated story itself) who is 17 who lives in california (I live in boston for those who don't know). She messaged me on AIM, because one of her younger friends (13 year old girl) had come to my almost cousin, asking questions about the effectiveness of condoms, pregnancy tests, when you can tell with a pregnancy test, and a lot of other stuff. My friend didn't know, and she didn't know who she could ask who wouldn't automatically assume my friend herself might be pregnant. So she asked me. I know a lot about condoms, but not very much aboug pregnancy tests, cause, frankly, I've never been in a position where I might need to know anything about them. So, I asked here knowing a lot of people who post here know a lot about a variety of things, including child-bearing/rearing, and figured someone knew something about these from experience.
So... long story short, a 13 year old friend of one of my friends probably had sex and now is scared that she might be pregnant. I have no idea who this person is, what she might do if she is pregnant, or if she's just curious and didn't actually have sex.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
And my advice doesn't change: ask a doctor. A famliy doctor is the best choice, because they are trusted and are confidential (now required by law).
Posted by jexx (Member # 3450) on :
Okay, Paul, to address your actual question:
I lived in CA, and there was a Planned Parenthood in every town (yes, they need one in every town, really) just about, and they don't require parental consent for birth control. I don't know about parental consent for abortion, or even how they handle it, but I do know that they have counselors and medical doctors and nurses who can answer your cousin's friend's questions. I strongly recommend that she make an appointment for a pregnancy test (which they can do there), and if she is not pregnant (crossing fingers) that she get some counseling about birth control options. Obviously she is sexually active, and if we haven't closed the barn door after the horse has left (so to speak), she might as well get some BC for herself while she's there.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sorry. Can't resist.
quote: I hate threads that devolve like this..
Wonder what the common factor is in so many of them?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Man, I hope it's not me. Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Kayla: They ARE.
And I will take the blame.
Look. My first thought when reading this thread was: Did paul make a mistake?!
And Paul asked if John was being an a-hole. I said yes, because that's my standard answer (and I love John. And he IS an a-hole, if a warm and fuzzy a-hole. Actually, I've realized that the people I like most are a-holes in my own terms. o_O).
Anyway.
Blame me.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
**** you, Storm.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
It's probably not worth anything at all that I say this, and I know I probably shouldn't get involved because I don't know the half of it. I missed John when he wasn't here, and I'm glad he's back. His opinions on things are generally well informed and more human (if that makes any sense) than other people's. I've read plenty of perfectly civil threads on topics that easily get heated in which he was a major player. Sure, he is caustic sometimes, though this really wasn't one of those times until people started accusing him. Overall though, I think his contributions to the community more than make up for his temper. I don't know him or anyone else outside of hatrack, I just know that I'm glad he's here, and I hope he won't go way again.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Some of us disagree with you blacwolve, but all the same, it's sad that this whole thing became the point of an entire thread. I'm glad the original question was answered at least.
[ November 12, 2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
So well answered, in fact, that this thread can be left to sink to the never-never-land of the second page.
Posted by GreNME (Member # 3401) on :
Paul, and everyone else who totally misinterpreted what I said, I apologize for having written the sentence in such a form that it was taken as it did. I did not mean it.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)