Health Issues Around Aberdeen

**tikitiboo** · 06-03-2009, 07:26 AM

iBlue, you clearly don't know what you're talking about as I found this thread of my own accord, I just decided to join this website and by coincidence found your horrifically arrogant posts here!

When I say that you need to change, I know that you do, everyone does because nobody when they enter medical school has the character traits that they will need to be a doctor. I also have worked extremely closely with Consultants, and nurses and, oh that vital part of the health-care industry you missed out, the patients and I know that if your attitude towards patients, nurses or other doctors is anything like your attitude (as of your first post) towards the people on this site. Being a medical student (which you are not yet) and having also worked in the health care field, I do, ACTUALLY, know what I'm talking about.

As an aside, your maths and figures are terribly inconsistant do I am disinclined to believe your whole speech about it being your job, because I would have thought you wouldn't have got something so fundamental as that wrong.

Anyway, you really need to grow up and realise what matters: the numbers don't matter because anyone using this site will find out the extent of the drug problem if they come here to work; what does matter is that we don't want people coming to medical school with the absolute wrong attitude towards it, as it comes across that you have - If you don't have an attitude problem then you need to work on not coming across like you do - tess tickles, becca-sarah and I have all met far too many arrogant students whom its horrible to work with.

I am not saying that you will be a crap doctor as you thought, I am saying that you need to recognise that there are aspects of your character that will need to change, as I also have to do.

You'll see, next year you'll hopefully understand our point... I won't really know what to say if you don't.

Seriously though, good luck with Glasgow, good luck with medicine and good luck with becoming a good doctor.

**Tess_Tickles** · 07-03-2009, 01:52 AM

P.S.

Have I hurt your friends/colleagues egos that much by posting my own take on the subject.

Not at all. It's just that this whole thing makes me chuckle. It does make good reading.

**Frank E** · 07-03-2009, 02:18 AM

Nothing wrong with iBlue's attitude.
Some others could do with being a little less sensitive and argumentative, he only corrected a figure FFS.
Perhaps others are coming to Aberdeen with an attitude they need to lose.

**iBlue** · 07-03-2009, 04:39 AM

Originally Posted by tikitiboo

As an aside, your maths and figures are terribly inconsistant....

Please explain? Inconsistent with what?

**Frank E** · 08-03-2009, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by iBlue

Please explain? Inconsistent with what?

Inconsistent with opinions.

PM re arrogant student > arrogant Doctor ignoring statistics > PCT complaint and FTP panel.

**Tess_Tickles** · 08-03-2009, 08:16 PM

Yes. Indeed.

**Mabaza_Ritchie** · 09-03-2009, 04:57 PM

Thank you all for this forum. It has entertained many a medical student. But let's chillax to the max here people. I have a nice sandwich to eat and such rage from certain people here is making me hungry. Good day. Ps mmmmm.

**Mabaza_Ritchie** · 09-03-2009, 07:08 PM

Soi soi soi hi Ross. Aberdeen 08 ftw. People skills own acuuracy LOL hear my roflcopter

**tikitiboo** · 09-03-2009, 07:48 PM

-

You are correct in that the figure previously quoted by Becca-Sarah, is not 100% accurate. It actually misses the mark by +200%. As I said, for someone working in this field, that is a massive overstatement.

Quoted from iBlue

Becca-Sarah initially said 4%, you corrected her with 2% then settled on 2.03% and thats fine, however you proceeded to say she was out by +200%, when she was actually out by +~100% - judging by how meticulous you have been in your previous arguements, I would not have expected such a, quote, "massive overstatement" from someone working in that field... I know it's awfully pedantic of me to pick up on that, but given the nature of your arguements, this really does not add up (excuse the pun) so I'm not sure I believe your claims. Hope that satisfies your question.

**iBlue** · 09-03-2009, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by tikitiboo

-

Becca-Sarah initially said 4%, you corrected her with 2% then settled on 2.03% and thats fine, however you proceeded to say she was out by +200%, when she was actually out by +~100% - judging by how meticulous you have been in your previous arguements, I would not have expected such a, quote, "massive overstatement" from someone working in that field... I know it's awfully pedantic of me to pick up on that, but given the nature of your arguements, this really does not add up (excuse the pun) so I'm not sure I believe your claims. Hope that satisfies your question.

Oh my.

Originally Posted by iBlue

Not quite. The opiate prevalence is around 2% in Aberdeen City.

Please pay special attention to the 'around' part of my original post. 2.03% is around 2%. You see:

2.03 rounded to one decimal place = 2.0

2.0 rounded to zero decimal places = 2.

Also, I think you'll find that 200% of 2 = 4. Although perhaps I should have made this clearer in my previous post.

As for the rest of your post, thankfully it's not necessary for you to believe that I work in this field.