Patrick Swayze

Message

Sir_Galahad · #1 Post by **Sir_Galahad** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:03 pm

Well, not exactly. But this is not good news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335210,00.html

ghostjmf · #2 Post by **ghostjmf** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:14 pm

Don't do that. I'd already read the story on the ever-helpful local TV station site. The one that no longer gives you its TV schedule. I thought maybe you had new bad news, but in fact you don't.

ulysses5019 · #3 Post by **ulysses5019** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:16 pm

By coincidence, I saw this article a couple of hours ago:

http://www.news.com/8301-13579_3-988607 ... g=nefd.pop

a1mamacat · #4 Post by **a1mamacat** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:19 pm

Sir_Galahad wrote:Well, not exactly. But this is not good news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335210,00.html

Damnit, don't DO that, Sirgy

VAdame · #5 Post by **VAdame** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 5:20 pm

Aw, holy shit, don't scare people like that!

You're right; that's a very bad disease. But don't count Patrick out yet! We saw a patient for follow-up this past Monday. We treated his pancreatic cancer three years ago this month -- & he's still alive, feeling well, and looks like a million bucks! We're all pretty impressed.

BTW, it's not this guy, although Keith knows him through work:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/

This is Dr. Pausch's latest update, dated yesterday:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~pausch/news/index.html

We've learned a long time ago not to tell a patient "you've got such-and-such weeks or months to live"........because they often surprise us!

tlynn78 · #6 Post by **tlynn78** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:06 pm

I saw this too, and it makes me sad. Pancreatic cancer is bad news, generally, but apparently they got his really early, so there is more reason for hope than in the cases I'm familiar with. I adore that man.

t.

silvercamaro · #7 Post by **silvercamaro** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:10 pm

If I am ever diagnosed with cancer -- any kind, any stage -- nobody had better be ready to bury me before I've had a chance to put up a fight. I would be outraged if someone pronounced me as good as dead on the day the disease was revealed!

kayrharris · #8 Post by **kayrharris** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 6:22 pm

What SC said. I hate tabloids. Leave the man alone.

Ritterskoop · #9 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:56 am

Did the header get changed?

#10 Post by **littlebeast13** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:02 am

Ritterskoop wrote:Did the header get changed?

After some thought, I finally removed the RIP from the header.

I am absolutely against censorship, but I think had Sir G saw the stir his header caused, he would have changed it himself....

lb13

Ritterskoop · #11 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:48 am

One of my favorite bloggers deliberately writes a word or two and then draws a line through it, replacing it with something funny. That would be a way to censor without complete removal. but I don't think we have it here.

I would also have resented being misled by the original header. You can't do everything in print you can do when there are facial expressions and body language to give clues. It is mean if you do this stuff on purpose, and selfish if you never consider how your words will be read by others.

#12 Post by **littlebeast13** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:10 am

Ritterskoop wrote:One of my favorite bloggers deliberately writes a word or two and then draws a line through it, replacing it with something funny. That would be a way to censor without complete removal. but I don't think we have it here.

I would also have resented being misled by the original header. You can't do everything in print you can do when there are facial expressions and body language to give clues. It is mean if you do this stuff on purpose, and selfish if you never consider how your words will be read by others.

I wish we had that here too (We have it over in the BBBL, it's the (s) html tag), but I have a feeling that still wouldn't have gone over well. I'd have almost certainly left that alone, though....

lb13

Ritterskoop · #13 Post by **Ritterskoop** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:52 am

littlebeast13 wrote:
I wish we had that here too (We have it over in the BBBL, it's the (s) html tag), but I have a feeling that still wouldn't have gone over well. I'd have almost certainly left that alone, though....

lb13

I meant you could have altered the original without removing it. That would be a better censorship.

#14 Post by **littlebeast13** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:11 am

Ritterskoop wrote:
littlebeast13 wrote:
I wish we had that here too (We have it over in the BBBL, it's the (s) html tag), but I have a feeling that still wouldn't have gone over well. I'd have almost certainly left that alone, though....

lb13
I meant you could have altered the original without removing it. That would be a better censorship.

Sounds like the same tactics they use to black out classified stuff in government documents!

Where's my Sharpie®.....?

lb13

peacock2121 · #15 Post by **peacock2121** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:12 am

What Uday said.

Not sure how I feel about lb changing the header rather than altering it.

No biggie, given I now know it did say RIP.

minimetoo26 · #16 Post by **minimetoo26** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:04 am

I had just seen the news about the cancer, then came over here and saw the header and thought "That was fast!"

I can't presume to speak for sirge but I think he would have done what beast did if he had seen the reaction.

PlacentiaSoccerMom · #17 Post by **PlacentiaSoccerMom** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:25 am

minimetoo26 wrote:I had just seen the news about the cancer, then came over here and saw the header and thought "That was fast!"

Ditto for me.

themanintheseersuckersuit · #18 Post by **themanintheseersuckersuit** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:30 am

The original header wasn't very chivalrous, the fix is good.

WWTBAM Bored

Patrick Swayze

Patrick Swayze

No, he's not dead

Re: RIP Patrick Swayze