Well hey, if the chiro can get you mobile enough to go see the PT, that's useful, i'nn'it?
Bonus points if the chiro suggests stretches and exercises to help speed the process, and lifestyle changes that actually keep you from needing to come back until you revert to your old ways and injure yourself again.
If you're going to a chiropractor who isn't doing those things, you're being taken by quackery. The only reason I went back to the guy I started seeing last year is that I got a little overconfident and overexerted myself after 6 months of not needing his services. Had I followed his advice, likely the same advice a PT would have given me, I'd likely never have been back.
If the calibre of you argument is, "ask the people it helped," then it is just as easily refuted by, "ask the people it has hurt and/or killed." There's plenty of those.
The same can be said of western medicine, as well. Not everything works for everyone. Of course, it all comes down to treating the right problem with the right treatment; you don't fix a slipped disc with Vicodin just like you don't cure cancer by cracking a few joints in your back. Any doctor who prescribes Vicodin for a slipped disc is a quack, just as any chiropractor who claims they can cure cancer is a wacko.
Hell, they didn't take the pain away or get me high. Well, Dilaudid did, but they only gave me a shot of that in the ER. As a result, I never became addicted; there was just nothing in them for me.
Glad to hear you beat it, though. I've seen what those addictions do to people, as well as their friends and families.
When I was in the ER with a slipped disc, they gave me a shot of Dilaudid straight to the nerve and it did nothing for the pain. It didn't even do that good of a job making me not care about the pain, but it did make me loopy as fuck. Norco didn't help with the pain, either; nor did Tramadol, Hydrocodone, or Vicodin.
I suppose I could try Heroine, right?
Nah, I'm good, I've tried enough to know that shit doesn't work for me.
Yes, and the problem comes from the belief that they're anything more than that. The ones who try to tell you they can cure disease are the ones to avoid. The ones who tell you they can help with joint, muscle, and nerve pain, but to put ice on it and take a couple Aleve first and only come to see them if that doesn't work after a couple days are the ones you want to see.
My wife has jaw problems, likely partly my fault, or so she likes to say:) It's not, really, as she's dealt with it for half her life, until relatively recently, but I appreciate the compliment when she says it.
She's been to doctors who referred her to massage therapists who referred her to dentists who referred her to orthopedic surgeons who said the only way to fix her problem is to break and realign her jaw, but they'd only do so under the advice of a dentist; and it was the dentist who referred her to the guy in the first place because a dentist can't make that recommendation.
I finally got her to go to my chiropractor and when she mentioned the jaw problem, he popped it to the side a bit (it was more than that, but that's what it looked like from the sidelines) and she hasn't had jaw pain since.
Yeah, jaw fixed in one visit; he's still working on her back problems, which aren't as bad as mine but I've been seeing him for 9 months and she's been seeing him for only a month. But, really, years of doctors telling her they can't do anything for her jaw, or that they could but won't, practically every excuse in the book and common advice being "just live with it", and i could have been (and was) fixed in 20 seconds.
Actually, it's disingenuous for me to say I've been seeing him for 9 months, there were 6 months starting in November when I didn't need his services, then a combination of stress and physical overexertion put me in pain again.
There's good ones and bad ones, and I've been to both. The guy I go to now doesn't try to claim chiropratic care can fix and and every thing that might go wrong and he's very straightforward about the limitations of the treatment he provides. The guy I used to see, on the other hand, I could have come in with a hole in my aorta and he'd have tried to massage it out.
One thing that a good chiropractor will do for you that a massage therapist typically won't (in my experience) is provide wellness counseling in the form of stretches and exercises you can do to speed along the healing process and behavioral changes to keep the pain away once it's gone. My experience has borne out that the pain will go away if I don't do the stretches and exercises or incorporate any of the behavioral changes; but, it does take longer without the stretches and exercises; and it's only as permanent as my willingness to adopt the behavioral changes.
The danger comes from incorporating chiropractic care with other forms of "alt medicine", rather than using it as an additional form of treatment on top of proper medical care. Yes, a lot of people do this, and a lot of chiropractors not only allow, but encourage, them to do so. That's how people die under a chiropractor's care.
At the end of the day, it's up to each and every one of us to use a little bit of common sense every once in a while and realize that you probably can't trust the guy who tells you to take a couple drops of some homeopathic "tincture" to get the vibrations from whatever was at one point in that water, and you should probably seek care from someone who hasn't jumped off the deep end.
Unfortunately, my experience is that most chiropractors have done just that, and it makes it difficult, if not dangerous, to try and find a good one.
If they pull out in front of you by less than your stopping distance, well, there's one example of them causing the accident. Likewise if they cut you off without signaling and brake suddenly.
In the flow of traffic, though, I do agree; there is no excuse for you to hit the guy already on the road and in your lane in front of you. If you do, you were driving too close or too fast.
This is, indeed, true in almost every situation. Even on the road; you brake and the guy behind you hits you instead of you hitting whatever was in front of you; at the end of the day you still got in an accident. The difference is, if you brake, the asshole who actually caused the accident gets to keep driving like nothing happened.
In that scenario, you could either floor it and swerve around or, if that's not a possibility, let go of the wheel, relax your body, and prepare for impact (tensing up and grabbing on is what leads to severe injury). Don't brake and get rear-ended, letting the idiot who caused the accident in the first place avoid consequences; he'll probably laugh with his friends about "the idiot he made cause an accident" if you let him off.
Of course, if there's nobody behind you, you should brake until you're almost out of room to take evasive measures, then get off the brakes and swerve for avoidance. If braking is not an option (because someone is behind you or you're going too fast to safely decelerate over a short distance), floor it and go around.
Take the above text with a grain of salt, as it's really something that needs to be demonstrated rather than explained.
You don't accelerate from 70 to 100, you floor the pedal to jerk the car forward and straighten out the trailer, then you GET OFF THE GAS and coast down to a speed lower than you were originally going. Yes, you'll probably be okay just coasting and, if you wait too long to react, you have to take that chance as the acceleration trick doesn't work once the trailer is jumping around behind you; but, by that point, you're taking just as big of a risk trying to coast.
A quick tap on the gas to pull it straight before letting off the gas to slow yourself (without braking, of course) is actually more effective. What you don't want to do, of course, is floor it and then maintain that speed, as the next event that triggers the swerve will be worse if you're going faster.
Huh, well, I'll have to call my mom, tell her I'm calling back to test something and NOT to answer, then call her back, let her ringback tone play for a second, and see if it shows up as a connected call on my bill.
I don't pay for them, but I do see them. Your claim can and will be verified. If you're right, I'll see two calls on my bill.
Your decision to include so many superfluous details, however, strikes me as an attempt at misdirection, so I'm guessing I'll only see one entry in my call log. Hell, I don't even have to wait for my bill, my phone can tell whether a call connected or not, so I'll know as soon as I hang up.
Yet, and I repeat myself because I apparently have to on this site anymore, they didn't define "aid" or "comfort", which leaves the wiggle room I'm pointing out.
Indeed. Now, what I would have paid for is the ability to specify what I heard when calling others; bonus points if I could provide a custom WAV or MP3 and specify them on a per-number basis, as well as a "standard" for numbers I didn't specify one for.
Think of the possibilities... If you have a gambling problem, you set your bookie's number to ring with "WHAT ARE YOU DOING, DUMBASS?!" In fact, you could do the same for your ex, or anyone else you probably shouldn't call but might be tempted to at some point.
Oh, and Comcast would get "After this call, remember to look for a new name on your next bill." That would have been my actual use case.
Actually, no, it replaced the standard ringing and did not count as a call completion. What does count as a call completion is companies that have their PBX auto-answer and play hold music while they connect you.
Also, it's a billed service; at $2.99/mo your phone could be ringing 24/7 and not cost them enough in royalties that they actually lose any money on the deal.
And my 56 year old non-techy mother has one on Verizon, so I wouldn't say they've exactly swept them under the rug.
A ringtone you could hear when someone else called him, or a ringback tone you heard in place of the ringing when you called him? I only ask because ringback tones are a carrier feature and you only get to pick from a limited selection that the carrier has decided to offer; YouTube "stars" don't typically make that cut.
It does change it, though. How, exactly, do you count 3 "rings" when you don't hear "ring --- ring --- ring", but get "I would walk 5000 miles and I would walk 500 more just to be the man who walked 1000 miles to fall down at your door" instead?
The difference is that long distance and mobile callers would have been billed to listen to that shit, while a ringback tone is literally the sound they head while it's ringing, before it connects and starts billing them.
Same exact thing plus the user being billed for long distance while your phone is ringing... Ringbacks are the ring, they don't count against usage, as the line hasn't been answered while you're listening to them.
I prefer it's pronounced "e-pike", as in an electronic pike on which they wish to mount Intel's head; in that case, they would have chosen that spelling knowing that most people would think it was to be pronounced "epic", thereby completely hiding their intentions.
Or I just say that for a laugh because yeah they're going for "epic".
This argument is made time and time again and, well, some would say the NSA gave aid (in attacking us) and comfort (in knowing which vulnerabilities we can attack and how to defend against them) to enemies of this country by not disclosing vulnerabilities to vendors to have them fixed and by allowing them to be leaked to the greater public, which includes enemies of this country.
It's funny, you say Treason is explicitly defined in The Constitution, but it fails to define "aid" and ""comfort". All it takes is for someone to successfully argue the above and Treason suddenly becomes a much broader offense. Providing means of attack and means of defense from attack sure seems like something that could be twisted into "aid" and "comfort" by more than a handful of the more lawyerly types, does it not?
In short, it's not something I'd want to take a gamble on, even if I think it's unlikely the argument would be made successfully (see above, where I said "good luck getting that to stick").
Put another way, I never said I thought it was Treason, I merely implied that someone might; and now I've gone so far as to explain how.
Slashdot Mirror
I've run into a few of them, they're out there (and boy are they out there). If you've found a good one, do not let them go!
Well hey, if the chiro can get you mobile enough to go see the PT, that's useful, i'nn'it?
Bonus points if the chiro suggests stretches and exercises to help speed the process, and lifestyle changes that actually keep you from needing to come back until you revert to your old ways and injure yourself again.
If you're going to a chiropractor who isn't doing those things, you're being taken by quackery. The only reason I went back to the guy I started seeing last year is that I got a little overconfident and overexerted myself after 6 months of not needing his services. Had I followed his advice, likely the same advice a PT would have given me, I'd likely never have been back.
If the calibre of you argument is, "ask the people it helped," then it is just as easily refuted by, "ask the people it has hurt and/or killed." There's plenty of those.
The same can be said of western medicine, as well. Not everything works for everyone. Of course, it all comes down to treating the right problem with the right treatment; you don't fix a slipped disc with Vicodin just like you don't cure cancer by cracking a few joints in your back. Any doctor who prescribes Vicodin for a slipped disc is a quack, just as any chiropractor who claims they can cure cancer is a wacko.
Hell, they didn't take the pain away or get me high. Well, Dilaudid did, but they only gave me a shot of that in the ER. As a result, I never became addicted; there was just nothing in them for me.
Glad to hear you beat it, though. I've seen what those addictions do to people, as well as their friends and families.
No. It's not.
When I was in the ER with a slipped disc, they gave me a shot of Dilaudid straight to the nerve and it did nothing for the pain. It didn't even do that good of a job making me not care about the pain, but it did make me loopy as fuck. Norco didn't help with the pain, either; nor did Tramadol, Hydrocodone, or Vicodin.
I suppose I could try Heroine, right?
Nah, I'm good, I've tried enough to know that shit doesn't work for me.
Yes, and the problem comes from the belief that they're anything more than that. The ones who try to tell you they can cure disease are the ones to avoid. The ones who tell you they can help with joint, muscle, and nerve pain, but to put ice on it and take a couple Aleve first and only come to see them if that doesn't work after a couple days are the ones you want to see.
My wife has jaw problems, likely partly my fault, or so she likes to say :) It's not, really, as she's dealt with it for half her life, until relatively recently, but I appreciate the compliment when she says it.
She's been to doctors who referred her to massage therapists who referred her to dentists who referred her to orthopedic surgeons who said the only way to fix her problem is to break and realign her jaw, but they'd only do so under the advice of a dentist; and it was the dentist who referred her to the guy in the first place because a dentist can't make that recommendation.
I finally got her to go to my chiropractor and when she mentioned the jaw problem, he popped it to the side a bit (it was more than that, but that's what it looked like from the sidelines) and she hasn't had jaw pain since.
Yeah, jaw fixed in one visit; he's still working on her back problems, which aren't as bad as mine but I've been seeing him for 9 months and she's been seeing him for only a month. But, really, years of doctors telling her they can't do anything for her jaw, or that they could but won't, practically every excuse in the book and common advice being "just live with it", and i could have been (and was) fixed in 20 seconds.
Actually, it's disingenuous for me to say I've been seeing him for 9 months, there were 6 months starting in November when I didn't need his services, then a combination of stress and physical overexertion put me in pain again.
There's good ones and bad ones, and I've been to both. The guy I go to now doesn't try to claim chiropratic care can fix and and every thing that might go wrong and he's very straightforward about the limitations of the treatment he provides. The guy I used to see, on the other hand, I could have come in with a hole in my aorta and he'd have tried to massage it out.
One thing that a good chiropractor will do for you that a massage therapist typically won't (in my experience) is provide wellness counseling in the form of stretches and exercises you can do to speed along the healing process and behavioral changes to keep the pain away once it's gone. My experience has borne out that the pain will go away if I don't do the stretches and exercises or incorporate any of the behavioral changes; but, it does take longer without the stretches and exercises; and it's only as permanent as my willingness to adopt the behavioral changes.
The danger comes from incorporating chiropractic care with other forms of "alt medicine", rather than using it as an additional form of treatment on top of proper medical care. Yes, a lot of people do this, and a lot of chiropractors not only allow, but encourage, them to do so. That's how people die under a chiropractor's care.
At the end of the day, it's up to each and every one of us to use a little bit of common sense every once in a while and realize that you probably can't trust the guy who tells you to take a couple drops of some homeopathic "tincture" to get the vibrations from whatever was at one point in that water, and you should probably seek care from someone who hasn't jumped off the deep end.
Unfortunately, my experience is that most chiropractors have done just that, and it makes it difficult, if not dangerous, to try and find a good one.
If they pull out in front of you by less than your stopping distance, well, there's one example of them causing the accident. Likewise if they cut you off without signaling and brake suddenly.
In the flow of traffic, though, I do agree; there is no excuse for you to hit the guy already on the road and in your lane in front of you. If you do, you were driving too close or too fast.
This is, indeed, true in almost every situation. Even on the road; you brake and the guy behind you hits you instead of you hitting whatever was in front of you; at the end of the day you still got in an accident. The difference is, if you brake, the asshole who actually caused the accident gets to keep driving like nothing happened.
In that scenario, you could either floor it and swerve around or, if that's not a possibility, let go of the wheel, relax your body, and prepare for impact (tensing up and grabbing on is what leads to severe injury). Don't brake and get rear-ended, letting the idiot who caused the accident in the first place avoid consequences; he'll probably laugh with his friends about "the idiot he made cause an accident" if you let him off.
Of course, if there's nobody behind you, you should brake until you're almost out of room to take evasive measures, then get off the brakes and swerve for avoidance. If braking is not an option (because someone is behind you or you're going too fast to safely decelerate over a short distance), floor it and go around.
Take the above text with a grain of salt, as it's really something that needs to be demonstrated rather than explained.
You don't accelerate from 70 to 100, you floor the pedal to jerk the car forward and straighten out the trailer, then you GET OFF THE GAS and coast down to a speed lower than you were originally going. Yes, you'll probably be okay just coasting and, if you wait too long to react, you have to take that chance as the acceleration trick doesn't work once the trailer is jumping around behind you; but, by that point, you're taking just as big of a risk trying to coast.
A quick tap on the gas to pull it straight before letting off the gas to slow yourself (without braking, of course) is actually more effective. What you don't want to do, of course, is floor it and then maintain that speed, as the next event that triggers the swerve will be worse if you're going faster.
Huh, well, I'll have to call my mom, tell her I'm calling back to test something and NOT to answer, then call her back, let her ringback tone play for a second, and see if it shows up as a connected call on my bill.
I don't pay for them, but I do see them. Your claim can and will be verified. If you're right, I'll see two calls on my bill.
Your decision to include so many superfluous details, however, strikes me as an attempt at misdirection, so I'm guessing I'll only see one entry in my call log. Hell, I don't even have to wait for my bill, my phone can tell whether a call connected or not, so I'll know as soon as I hang up.
Yet, and I repeat myself because I apparently have to on this site anymore, they didn't define "aid" or "comfort", which leaves the wiggle room I'm pointing out.
Or the man who made a typo...
Indeed. Now, what I would have paid for is the ability to specify what I heard when calling others; bonus points if I could provide a custom WAV or MP3 and specify them on a per-number basis, as well as a "standard" for numbers I didn't specify one for.
Think of the possibilities... If you have a gambling problem, you set your bookie's number to ring with "WHAT ARE YOU DOING, DUMBASS?!" In fact, you could do the same for your ex, or anyone else you probably shouldn't call but might be tempted to at some point.
Oh, and Comcast would get "After this call, remember to look for a new name on your next bill." That would have been my actual use case.
You're quite welcome! And, honestly, I wouldn't put it past AMD's marketing department lately, they seem to be on a roll with hidden messages.
Actually, no, it replaced the standard ringing and did not count as a call completion. What does count as a call completion is companies that have their PBX auto-answer and play hold music while they connect you.
Also, it's a billed service; at $2.99/mo your phone could be ringing 24/7 and not cost them enough in royalties that they actually lose any money on the deal.
And my 56 year old non-techy mother has one on Verizon, so I wouldn't say they've exactly swept them under the rug.
A ringtone you could hear when someone else called him, or a ringback tone you heard in place of the ringing when you called him? I only ask because ringback tones are a carrier feature and you only get to pick from a limited selection that the carrier has decided to offer; YouTube "stars" don't typically make that cut.
It does change it, though. How, exactly, do you count 3 "rings" when you don't hear "ring --- ring --- ring", but get "I would walk 5000 miles and I would walk 500 more just to be the man who walked 1000 miles to fall down at your door" instead?
The difference is that long distance and mobile callers would have been billed to listen to that shit, while a ringback tone is literally the sound they head while it's ringing, before it connects and starts billing them.
Same exact thing plus the user being billed for long distance while your phone is ringing... Ringbacks are the ring, they don't count against usage, as the line hasn't been answered while you're listening to them.
So no... not even close to the same thing.
I prefer it's pronounced "e-pike", as in an electronic pike on which they wish to mount Intel's head; in that case, they would have chosen that spelling knowing that most people would think it was to be pronounced "epic", thereby completely hiding their intentions.
Or I just say that for a laugh because yeah they're going for "epic".
This argument is made time and time again and, well, some would say the NSA gave aid (in attacking us) and comfort (in knowing which vulnerabilities we can attack and how to defend against them) to enemies of this country by not disclosing vulnerabilities to vendors to have them fixed and by allowing them to be leaked to the greater public, which includes enemies of this country.
It's funny, you say Treason is explicitly defined in The Constitution, but it fails to define "aid" and ""comfort". All it takes is for someone to successfully argue the above and Treason suddenly becomes a much broader offense. Providing means of attack and means of defense from attack sure seems like something that could be twisted into "aid" and "comfort" by more than a handful of the more lawyerly types, does it not?
In short, it's not something I'd want to take a gamble on, even if I think it's unlikely the argument would be made successfully (see above, where I said "good luck getting that to stick").
Put another way, I never said I thought it was Treason, I merely implied that someone might; and now I've gone so far as to explain how.
Okay, but what is the crime as defined by law? Those may be the acts which comprise the crime that was committed, but what would the actual charge be?
If anything fits, it's treason; good luck getting that to stick, though.