Dr Podiatrist?

:good:
WELL SAID!!!!! Lets stick together, stand strong, and make some changes!!!!!!
I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE, LL!!!!!!
Cheers,

 

100% agreed, and I hope you are right. I am just being realistic and I think it is important not to inflate the hopes of many this early in the piece when so little is actually known about how it will all pan out in 2 years. All that glitters is not gold - but it damn well should be!!!

 

All that glitters is not gold - but it damn well should be!!![/QUOTE]

Wouldn't it be good!!!!

 

Have had such pleasure reading all the differing opinions on this very important subject.:drinks I have great respect for all the pods willing to declare there position, especially Dr Sal !:hammer:
Just a thought, but I was wondering what the opinion is from the british point of view ? I have declared my position before, and make no bones about the fact that I advertise myself as a foot doctor, and have done so for a few years.
Would love to hear any opinions from this side of the world:dizzy:

 

"Bigger Issues"...a masterful understatement !

If and when the "Dr" title becomes common practice, I think we'll come under increasing attack from groups like the AMA. Not that that in itself should prevent us, just so we are prepared for some 'digs' at Pods.

:drinks

 

As the Podiatrists Registration Board is a legislated body within the State of Vic. , who have given us the approval to use this title, then it is not up to us to question that legal right. We simply have the option to use this if we so desire.
Those who are priviledged to have obtained a Phd, I commend them for that, They are the REAL doctors, others such as your GP and us podiatrists simply have the opportunity to use it as an honorary title. Then why are we running polls to discuss it when it is our legal right to use it.
Most GP,s welcome us to use it. Get with it guys. The more that use it the more professional we will be. Don't sit on the fence , GO FOR IT! Good Luck.

Dr. Bill Mackieson Podiatrist

 

Bill, I agree completely.

 

"Dr" Bill, I'd love to see your references for this one!
Also, concerning pts using the term, I, like most pod's I imagine, get called "Dr" by some patients. I quickly correct them. Then I had the patient who continued with but "Dr ***** is a doctor", to which I replied "No, he isn't, he just calls himself one".
Mark C

 

If that is the case, why at a recent Division of GP's meeting in which all the local Podiatrists were invited to attend (which is a bit of a breakthrough) did they go out of there way to NOT invite a particular "dr" podiatrist?

Given the poll results so far the clear majority do not agree. In politics that would be called a landslide.

 

Bill,

The registration board have not given approval for use of the title Dr. And there is no "right" to the title, it is just not disallowed.

For the title to gain wide acceptance the whole profession needs to be on board before we can start convincing those outside the profession.

 

Hi DaVinci,
The fact that a particular Podiatrist was NOT invited does not mean it was because he/she was using the title! There could be several reasons why they chose not to invite that Podiatrist.
Secondly, the poll results indicate that 49 of the thousands of Podiatrists across the country (And world) have voted and of those 49 the majority say no. That does not go without saying that 19 of the 49 are for the use of the title!
There should also be an "undecided" option on this poll for those who are yet to make their minds up.
Happy posting,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Sal,
How many thousand podiatrists do you think there are in Australia?

 

Although there is no study to support this claim at this point, there is some anecdotal evidence.
Those of us who use the title have dealt with GP's and other health professions. If anyone can gauge the response it is the Pod's who are using the title.
I have been using the title for some time now and i haven't had one complaint from a GP or other health profession. Not one issue has been raised with regards to me using it. The only complaint came from someone within OUR profession.

You're right to say that this particular Podiatrist isn't a DOCTOR!!! Because he isn't! No one claims to be a medical practitioner and if anyone is or does they are doing it illegally. Using the title is very different from calling oneself a Doctor and not clarifying that they are a Pod!

Just some thoughts,
Cheers
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Hi Tuckersm,
The Podiatry labour force survey, conducted in 2003 (5 years ago), estimated that there are 2361 employed Podiatrists across the country (excluding NT and 134 Pod's not in the labour force) (Podiatry Labour Force 2003. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/index.cfm/title/10324)

The poll above represents 2.07% of all Podiatrists in Australia (BASED UPON THE 2003 LABOUR FORCE SURVEY), which i imagine would be an even smaller percentage if we had the 2007/08 numbers.


Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Yep, not likely to be either, I think enough time has been wasted on a very insignificant matter already.

That's the problem, patients misconception about a clinician, patients thinking they are a 'medical practitioner'.

And cheers back to you, beautiful day up here in Canberra (though stuck indoors), Mark (Podiatrist)

 

Misconceptions are easily corrected by making sure 'Podiatrist' is used after one's name. Why don't people thinK Dentists are medical practitioners? We are in exactly the same boat and they seem to have very little trouble. I haven't had any trouble with it.
Lovely day here in Vic too (also stuck inside)!
Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Its is worrying to me when other podiatrists use words such as 'ego tripping' and 'pompus when describing a move towards establishing the DR podiatrist title.

Using the DR. title, as a professional body, does promote a more medical based image amongst the public. That =is exactly what I endeavour to educate my patients on everyday. There is still a huge public perseption that sees a podiatrist as a glorified 'nail cutter' or chiropodist. Steps like adopting the DR title move our profession out of these dated cpncepts and towards promoting podiatrists as the best physician for treatment of foot and ankle alliaments.

As podiatrists we should be embracing any change that sees our professional image elevated to a medical physician tag. I have recently begun using the DR podiatrist title and have great pride in informing patients about the developments in our scope of practice and why I adopted the title. I have had an overwhelmingly positive response.

stace

 

I agree, BUT I remember that earlier in this thread a post (sorry there is too many to look through for it) from someone saying that there was overwhelming support for Podiatrists using the Dr title because of the number of posts from those who support it. Why did you not criticise that post as it was based on an unrepresentative small sample, just as the poll is? You can't have it both way"s!

 

Wasn't this how Bolshevism started?

Completely ridiculous behaviour for such a frivolous result.

I unreservedly apologise on behalf of those that actually respect the 'Arena' for the actions of what are hopefully an embarrassed minority.

Jair

 

I AGREE!! It really is not proper!
How are we to get a true representation of what people think?
I hope it stops.
Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

The ApodA (Vic) has adopted the same position on this matter also Stephen in that, as you mentioned, the association board has not approved its use – but merely forwarded the Registration boards policy to members and is neither encouraging or discouraging members at this stage.

We've directly chosen to inform members of the board's policy on this matter and as such registered podiatrists can make their own decision on using Dr as a prefix to 'insert name here' (Podiatrist), without breaching any policies/restrictions.

If we are going to debate using the title to propel the image of podiatry as a specialist physician, then why don't we also tackle the issue of 'chirpodists' who still soak Mrs Smith's feet for an hour, have their cat bounce off your lap as you get treated, and pay $16.50 for an hour and a half treatment!!

I've seen some dodgy practices with 'qualified podiatrists', setting up in beauty clinics/hairdressers etc - which begs the question for some form of standardised/accredited practice standards to clean up the bottom end.

Eventually a national decision will need to be made about the adoption of the title, however in the meantime (in Victoria) there is absolutely nothing restricting its use as long as PODIATRIST is CLEARLY specified in the title.

I've been using the title for months now and have not suffered any negative reactions within my local medical community, including the GP's. My chirporactor also has the title 'Dr' - what does he do that I don't/can't in my area of expertise?? Regardless of the period of time he has spent at university for his chiropractic degree, I'm certain he can't breach skin? Or debride necrotic ulcers with bone fragments and sinusing to deep tissues?? Do we want invasive nail/cutaneous procedures done by anyone other than a 'Dr'??
When was the last time a dentist dealt with saving part of someone's anatomy??

Above all, with other professions making the advancement in "Dr' titles we will either be left behind - or accept its future use as defining someone expert in their medical/anatomical field of study and practice.
There will come a time (hopefully) where a professional with 'Dr' in front of their name will signify they have completed the relevant study and meet the criteria to practice as a THE ONLY specialist in their field.
With the advent of 'tidy toes' and the like who seem to think looking after toenails can be done by anybody - the recognition would be most welcome!
*** Insert deep breath here***:wacko:


cheers all :drinks

Dr Matt Keating (Podiatrist)
Board member

 

:good:

:good:
Hi Matt,
Brilliantly said!!!! I couldn't agree with your spot on logic more!!! And whats more, its from a board member. Much needed!! Brilliant post!!!
Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

One good dig a heard from a Sports Physician colleague when he observed a Podiatric Surgeon calling himself Dr- 'I bet he doesn't call himself Dr when there is an announcement asking if there is one on the plane'
I do see some irony that Pod Surgeons call themselves Doctor, but Surgeons call themselves Mister... althought from my experience here that is an Australian thing... perhaps also UK?
I work with Doctors and Surgeons from all over the world- they are all called Doctor here.
Most patients here call me Doctor, but that is usually a language thing as they cannot remember my name- I describe myself as a Foot Doctor for ease of understanding, but do not use the title. Initially I was listed on an electronic sign as Dr Craig Tanner (I was not consulted at all) and I am told that one of the European Surgeons was not impressed and demanded that is was changed. On the other hand, the American Surgeon has had trouble understanding that I am not a Doctor (ie DPM) as he is used to. Just some interesting observations...
(by the way, I am a La Trobe graduate from 1994 and was working in a sports medicine centre in Melbourne until 2 years ago- that is why I am looking at this Aussie thread)

 

WOW - can I say what an amazing thread this has been and a credit to everyone involved.
Having keenly observed this thought provoking forum I must say it is great to see such healthy debate on a potentially divisive and contentious issue.

What has prompted me to finally join this thread were comments made by Stace that deserve recognition. Good on you for having enough pride in what you do and the skills you possess to feel strongly enough to educate your clients as such and more importantly to put them into practice on a daily basis. Congratulations for finding yourself in a work environment that cultivates the application of these skills.

Having worked in the profession for almost 15 years my observations of our profession are one that sadly suggests we suffer from sever lack of self esteem and an over abundance of modesty and feelings of "unworthiness" compared to our counterparts. This has been reinforced many times over the years via discussions with my peers. Sure we "only' work on feet but why is that not enough?

I am also surprised at the somewhat God-like reverence that many posters and podiatrists seem to hold medical practitioners (who are historically referred to as Doctors). My experience has taught me that on the whole this is hardly deserved. Having trained and taught many "doctors" how to perform a nail wedge resections (which interestingly recent research has found happens to be the most common surgical procedure they perform by a long way) and having helped many distinguish the difference between a wart and corn - I long ago gave up my GP worshipping (some of whom are close friends I must say)and now see them more as patient/client managers who have been extremely good at lobbying the government over many years to control the health system (and good luck to them)- anyone who has any understanding of the MEDICARE PLUS and EPCP system will surely agree?

Now in 2008 where Podiatrists all but have as many diagnostic rights (only Medicare rebates generally prevent many of us from requesting) it saddens me that we still have Podiatrists happily working from and setting up in HAIRDRESSING Salons etc and either content or not strong enough to walk away from high paid positions which offer little challenges to improving their professional skills and development. Surely we must aspire to the highest level.

Maybe some Podiatrists out working in environments rarely performing invasive procedures, treating high risk patients and SAVING LIVES (yes healing an ulcer on a foot that Doctors have ignored for several months can save and importantly prolong life - anyone attending the recent Surgical Symposium in Melbourne would have seen this) who don't feel comfortable using the tile - and in my opinion shouldn't - may in fact be encouraged to reach such levels. If they do not that is fine then they can choose NOT to use the Dr Title. Why hold back the rest of the profession pioneering the way!

As physicians - yes physicians -at undergraduate levels we are trained to administer LA's and blocks , surgically excise or remove cutaneous skin lesions, diagnose and provide primary foot care. For years our professional bodies spend time promoting the logo "FIRST IN FOOT HEALTH"

As for sending mixed messages to the public - come on guys - ask yourself how many times you have replied to the question "What is a Podiatrist" and provided the simplest and easiest answer "a Foot Doctor". Can it be any clearer? I would argue (and this is in no way suggesting those with a PhD are not entitled or being irreverent towards them) that Podiatrists with PhD's working in private settings using their earned title, that is often obtained by doing research on VERY SPECIFIC aspect are more misleading of their skills and expertise - especially if they have spent very little time in a clinical environment. It could be hardly argued that most of the general public rightly or wrongly associate the title of "Dr" with medical health care services -rather than rightfully obtaining a PhD. So who is potentially misleading or confusing the public more here - those with a PhD or not - I think is a valid point and question to ask?

In any case given that this exists already and Pods with PhD's are already using the title in such instances then what difference will it make to the public perception if those wanting to use the title (as is their right) wish to also - I hardly think the public are going to be confused any more of our qualifications than they are now. Or should we simply ask everyone (those with PhD's included) to stop using the title in private practice settings.

Alternatively, in an effort to reduce confusion and not mislead the public as to the skills and expertise of these practitioners maybe those with PhD's working in private practice settings should be made to be more specific about the exact nature of their PhD they obtained when using the title. The same can be said about those with any other qualifications they use under or before their names if we want to get really technical.

In any case I can say that thanks to the Victorian Registration Board taking the time to revisit this issue and the subsequent recent rewording of the Dr Title Policy (which I believe was prompted by member enquiry and research) I have gladly used the title for some time in the manner the policy stipulates and have not had any adverse reaction - other than from within our own profession sadly. As such I feel I am qualified more than most to share with you the fact the I have noticed a distinct difference between the way Patients react to my treatment advice and recommendations (where once they may have been less respectful or more cynical especially when it came down to costs). This is not just with patients - but other professions and organisations such as Work Safe, TAC and Health professionals. Yes, I am proud to introduce myself as "Dr." and hope one day that we all feel the same way. I challenge any of you who feel otherwise to give it a try first before you knock it - otherwise how else would you know?? Even those in Public environments may be pleasantly surpirsed at the diffrence in attitutde towards them from their colleagues both admistratviely and with colleageus from other allied health professions - eve nif this currently does not concern them.

As far other states are concerned, as far as I am aware in most states (and correct me if I am wrong) it would be simply a case of the registration boards re-wording their policy on the use of the title - a policy many registration boards may only need to be prompted to re visit (as Victoria's was) by either their respective associations or registered Podiatrists. I am not 100% certain but if I am not mistaken I believe in many states the law does not prevent the use (unless the AMA has made/lobbied it that way - as I think is the case in Q'land) - only the registration boards policy which in most cases has probably not been reviewed for MANY years.

I hope it may be seen that Victoria has set a precedent that is followed and paves the way for other states to adopt such a wonderful opportunity that we are fortunate to have.

Regarding NATIONAL REGISTRATION - by all accounts most discussions I have had suggest that it is more than likely they will adopt the "highest common denominator approach". Again I could be wrong, but I hardly imagine they are going to turn around to all the professions that had already set the precedent adopting the honorary title (Dentists, Chiro's and the others) and tell them they have to stop using it after all these years. Furthermore I think we would be foolish to sit around and be reactive rather than pro-active to this issue as it may be to late and there is a strong risk that a strong professional body such as the AMA can lobby to change laws and prevent its use for professions in the process of adopting it - especially if there is the consensus amongst most of that profession that they "DON'T WANT IT".

In which case when those of you either sitting on the fence or who don't yet feel comfortable enough with the level of education or skills you think will ultimately make you/us worthy of adopting the honorary title, when you do it will be too late and an opportunity potentially lost forever! Wouldn't that be sad?

Either way thank goodness we live in a democratic society. I have no problems with Podiatrists who choose not to use the honorary title (though I struggle to understand why - is it just admirable modesty maybe?) - though I ask that they respect my self-confidence and belief in my services and skills that makes me feel comfortable using the title.

One other comment - it was mentioned by one contributor who boasted that he is so busy that "he is beating them off with a stick" - so in other words why bother continuing to advance the profession. A word of advice - beware of complacency as it may not always be this way. A question - I wonder if you are subseqeuntly happy or satisfied with the type, variety and challenges that you get with the clients you are treating (and what percentage of NEW PATIENTS do you actually treat if you are so backed up all the time in which case all potentially intersting and NEW PATIENTS ultimately find themselves elsewhere)- as if you are busy all day cutting nails or giving out mundane diabetic information I would argue that this is hardly challenging or worth boasting about.

Finally (sorry if I am boring everyone) can I just remind everyone out there who continually refer to MEDICAL PRACTIONERS as being the ones entitled to use the title of "DR" that they once decided themselves as a profession to adopt the "honorary title" of Dr many years ago. Possibly lead by a group of renagades that started a "debate like this one" who paved the way.

We have to start somewhere and maybe this is where it all begins. I have already seen many colleagues who have been previously critical of those using the title in recent times (often tongue in cheek) who have ironically now jumped on board. Good on them!

Thanks for the opportunity to have my say - and to eveyone passionate enough in their profession to be involved in this thread. I hope I have not been to controversial or offended anyone as this is not my intention.

Keep up the good work and promoting the wonderful works of Podiatrists!


Dr "TOE JAM"

 

Never felt unworthy compared to 'our counterparts, assuming this includes medical/allied health/nursing professionals. I know what podiatrists can do, what the others do, and what we and them can't do. Maybe you need to move to interact with us 'half-full' pod's.

You're playing this one up, you'd do well as a political spin-merchant on this form. Give me an instance of this in this thread.
That's the problem, historically they are referred to as Doctors by the public, initially very naughty of them, should have called themselves "Medicians", but alas they didn't.

"Pioneering", bless you there's that spin-thing again. I just don't want the podiatrists making a ridiculous situation, ie. dentists, osteopaths etc calling themselves "Doctor", worse. Just because they've got 'chips on their shoulders' doesn't mean we have to 'act the goose' also.

You've got me there, although I never have (in 22 years practice) I can understand its use as an easy way out, we forever trying to get to the relevant pt input..

Yep back to the historical thingy, and yep PhD, of which there 'legendary' examples, as contributors, in this forum, should be the only titleholders.

"Even THOSE in Public ..."

THEM'S FIGHTING WORDS GAL!!! Don't light this fuse, there's been enough of that sh**e in this worthy profession already. Retract now and 'they' may forgive your brief brashness.

Far greater podiatrists than me give me the firm impression they feel very comfortable with education / skills levels, doesn't make them think they're 'unworthy', just don't want to play name games.

I certainly never said they were entitled, not sure many, if any, of the 'nayers' did. "RENEGADES"?, I was thinking of a word beginning with......

Off to bed now, had both knees drained yesterday, and being a wimpy male, those needles and cannula thingys frightened the bejezus out'a'me. Mark C

 

Shame on you markjohconley when is it politically correct to start patronising the opinion of your collegues.
The idea of this forum is to allow everyone a chance to voice their opinions on the issue. I can see now why so many stay away when they are met with such sarcastic slander, if their opinion may differ to your own.

 

:good:
Fantastic Post, Toe Jam. I agree 100%.
Use it or lose it!! You could't have said it better.
And at the end of the day those who want to use the title can and those who don't shouldn't.
Great Post,
Dr Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Hi Mark,
I agree that using the title will not change who we are or what we do. And in your mind it is a very insignificant issue. If it is so insignificant then there is not much to lose!!! And not much to lose means..............a lot to gain. Using the title gives us more than not using it.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers,
Dr. Sal (Podiatrist)

 

Time to shut it down, Admin?

 

In my view, a PhD is not awarded according to privilege (as mentioned in an earlier post). Those in our profession who have pursued the rigours of research at PhD level have invested a very large amount of their personal resources into podiatry, and have worked very hard throughout the process while living on a small stipend (~$19,000 per annum for 3 years plus). They have also been recipients of prestigious funding grants and academic scholarships. In so doing, they have formed the scientific backbone of our profession, without which we may have far less respect and future prospects.

Imagine the plight of our profession if evidence is ever valued lower than title and public image – we would be ‘doctors’ of a non-evidence based profession with little appreciation for scientific rigour. Should this happen, podiatry may join the ranks of the many pseudo-scientific practitioners out there calling themselves ‘doctors’.

My concern is that adoption of the title may not be in the best interests of our profession ...

In my view, the use of the title Dr. by those to whom a PhD has been conferred is unquestionable. If queried on their use of the title, the response is obvious, indisputable, and does much to further the public perception of our profession. However, perhaps the same cannot be said for instances where a PhD is absent…..

Just some ideas !

Andrew

 

Mark,

I am sure most would not have mis-interepreted my use of the wording "even" Public as to suggest nothing other than the fact that their work environment is simply different to those of private Podiatrists in many ways (eg. the financial costs of therapies and their daily exposure to other health professionals etc.) Surely this cannot be argued nor does it suggest in any one is better than the other - I work in a public environment also.
Certainly not intended to invoke or open up any old wounds and I am sorry if it came across that way and the fact that you interpreted it that way or felt the need to make it into an issue and introduce it to this forum.
As for the rest of you comments - I suggest we politely agree that we are worlds apart on this issue and move on. Hope your knees feel better today and wishing you a speedy recovery.

Have a good weekend everyone!
Go the Hawks!!!!
Toe Jam

 

Andrew,

Are you suggesting that only those in our profession who have acheived a PhD have invested large amounts of time, resources and made sacrifices for their profession. Arguably just as many, if not more, who have not acheived a PhD have done the same. Some of whom have raised or contributed significant funds towards the research projects and studies undertaken by these students. Others voluntarily work on boards or committees, and actively lobby for our professions rights and advancements on a daily basis etc.

As I indicated I agree that those with a PhD have earned the right to use the title and rightfully so. However if the argument against the use of the title is the confusion of the public - then that is where I raise the question as to whether we should consider making sure the public is informed as to the exact nature of their PhD when used in a clinical environment. I doubt it could be argued that anyone in the public seeing this would assume it is of a medical nature rather than "research". That is all!
I hope this makes sense.
Toe Jam

 

Apologies if my post was a bit vague, I certainly was not suggesting that, my point was that PhD students are not 'priviledged' as suggested in an earlier post on page 7.

A happy weekend to all

andrew

 

Hi Toe Jam,

Enjoyed reading your post.

It was I Boasting of "...beating them off with a stick". However it was not in the context of boasting nor, suggesting that things are fine as they are.

If you re-read my post it was in answer to a Pod who suggested that using the title may be a form of one-upmanship (i.e I am Dr.Pod, who is better than Mr/Miss Pod);


I suppose it COULD be a form of one-upmanship.

But seriously, who amongst us is crying out for more Business? I'm beating them off with a stick....!

I have copied the post above.

If you read my posts, you'll see that I am very in favour of the debate, and the adoption of the title, even though in my Home state of QLD, it has been protected by the Medical Practitioners/Dentists.

I do understand that we are now over 200 posts , so its hard to remember who is or isn't in favour, but I am slightly peeved that as a significant poster here on this issue, I was taken out of context after spending quite a time organising my thoughts, posting them, and largely in agreement with you Toe Jam and making many of your points 100+ posts ago (self-esteem issues etc) ...!

I am sure I'll get over it....:drinks

Perhaps I am in a minority, maybe most Pods here don't have enough business/patients ?

Just another thought....I note that the votes for No, for the poll by Admin, has been....ahem ahem....adjusted....

Also, well done Admin, 1 poster suggested a closure, but this thread is alive and well, it seems to be an excellent forum for debate.....No particular nastiness...yet.
Fraternally,
Julian

 

Dew, K. (2008). Abuse of the title 'Dr'. N Z Med J. Aug 8;121(1279):114.

The NZ Medical Association has published some material recently on the "abuse of the title ‘Dr’ by alternative therapists: chiropractors, osteopaths, acupuncturists and naturopaths". This hits a nerve.... a concern is that from adopting the title, podiatrists will be associated with alternative and complementary medicine. However, our scope of practice, grounding in medical science, and pursuit of evidence may speak for itself.

It seems that dentists in the UK have had a very similar discussion to ours within the past 10 years. I have pasted below an abstract of a survey conducted in 1996, and a ‘letter to the editor’ from 2000, both published in the British Dental Journal:

An Australian survey involving general podiatrists, medical practitioners, students and patients could be a good idea ?

 

Hi A. McMillan (? Andrew I think),

Thanks for the posting as regards Dentists in the UK. Interesting reading.

As to your suggestion about an Australian survey, I think its a great idea, BUT, was curious why you think Medical Practitioners would or should be involved ?

To clarify, IMHO, the Medico's would probably be against the idea, they are widely known as being very protectionist of the scope of professions known as Allied Health, or the more British term "professions supplementary to medicine". Certainly, their profession is 'top dog' in the Health care landscape, no arguments. As it stands, many of the States Boards have a Medical Practitioner on them, and whilst engagement with the medico's brings benefits, I am unaware of too many of them lobbying for our causes.

Care to expound ?
:drinks

 

Stace, apart from the use of "bless you",

which rightly is condescending, and for which I apologise to Dr Toe Jam, I think you should check up your dictionary before you slander me!
Dr Toe Jam made many comments, most of which needed a reply, yep I WAS VOICING MY OPINION. That's what you do when you disagree.
Mark C