My Thoughts on Comments

My Thoughts on Comments

Zeratsky, Katherine. "Cholesterol — the controversy continues." 2/20/15 via Mayo Clinic. Noncommercial Personal Use Only License.

Credible

1. Does this commenter seem to be expressing fear/anxiety about something or does s/he seem to be expressing a fantasy/wish about something? How can you tell?

This commenter does not express any fear. He expresses the general fears of the public regarding high cholesterol and heart disease. However, his fantasy is that the "new cholesterol" will be sugar. I can tell because he actually says that he thinks this will happen according how much sugar our society consumes.

2. What kinds beliefs and values do you think this commenter holds? What are you basing this on?

I believe that the commenter believes that society's unhealthy habits will mark the future on health scares. He is not necessarily basing this off of scientific information. However, he is basing it on the fact that many societies consume large amounts of sugar, so they will eventually realize that sugar is the cause of all problems.

3a. Why does this commenter came across as reasonable to you? Try and be specific and detailed here.

He seems reasonable to me because he actually is stating that endocrinologists have said that sugar can ruin tissue. This is reasonable because he is stating information told by someone that specializes in this area. However, he did not state a specific source which makes his resources questionable. Ultimately, he provides enough information on the topic of cholesterol that he deems himself more worthy that a lot of the commenters to be considered as credible.

1. Does this commenter seem to be expressing fear/anxiety about something or does s/he seem to be expressing a fantasy/wish about something? How can you tell?

I would not say that he is expressing any fears/anxiety or fantasy/wish. He merely is informing the public about medication prescribed that is supposed to make cholesterol capable.

2. What kinds beliefs and values do you think this commenter holds? What are you basing this on?

This commenter has a PhD, so I assume that he believes strongly that patients are able to cope with cholesterol is they are not prescribed medication. Also, he states that the medications are not all to blame for pain, but also lack of enzymes cause pain with cholesterol medications. He is firm to state the facts that he knows, so I assume that he is very knowledgeable in the topic.

3a. Why does this commenter came across as reasonable to you? Try and be specific and detailed here.

This commenter came across as reasonable to me because he has a Phd. I am assuming that it has to do with knowledge involving science due to his detailed comment. For example. he states specific enzymes and substances in the body that I have never heard of. Someone with prior medical knowledge is likely to know these terms. Also, he did not vent any of his opinions; he only stated facts.

Lacking Credibility

1. Does this commenter seem to be expressing fear/anxiety about something or does s/he seem to be expressing a fantasy/wish about something? How can you tell?

Jessica does not seem to be expressing much. She is summarizing in a satirical manner the effects of cholesterol. I want to say that she is expressing more of a fear than anything else; she is saying that if you are not health conscience, you will end up in a hospital. A hospital is not a very pleasant or desired place to go to because many people that go in never come out.

2. What kinds beliefs and values do you think this commenter holds? What are you basing this on?

I believe that the commenter feels that it is important to be healthy. I am basing it on the fact that she states that we need to watch our weight, watch sugar intake, or else we will end up in a hospital. It is important to do as much as we can to not end up in the hospital according to her.

3b. Why does this commenter come across as lacking credibility or trustworthiness for you? Try and be specific and detailed here.

They lack credibility because her comment is a huge fragment. She literally just says "cholesterol" and then starts saying what you should not do. She does not give a reason why we need to watch our health. She only throws it out there. It seemed as if she just wanted to reiterate or emphasize what other people had said previous.

1. Does this commenter seem to be expressing fear/anxiety about something or does s/he seem to be expressing a fantasy/wish about something? How can you tell?

I would not say they are too fearful. If anything, they are more thankful to be alive because they did not suffer a stroke. However, she said "I don't know what is next". It could be interpreted that it is a fear or minor anxiety because the future is unknown to her.

2. What kinds beliefs and values do you think this commenter holds? What are you basing this on?

I believe that this commenter thinks that heart problems are based on multiple factors. Therefore, heart issues are not solely based on cholesterol. For example, she mentions the "LDL/HDL etc.". I assume that she is meaning that there are more things acceptable that that impact heart issues with her statement.

3b. Why does this commenter come across as lacking credibility or trustworthiness for you? Try and be specific and detailed here.

She comes across as lacking credibility by her opening statement "LOL". LOL is very informal, and it appears that she is laughing at nothing or maybe at a previous person's ignorant comment. I am unsure on what she is laughing at. Also, questions saturated fats, trans fats, and genetic predisposition with MANY question marks. It is way over exaggerated. Besides her previous experience with having bad cholesterol, she comes across as not very knowledgeable on the topic.

Reflection

Carrie Bell Kent's blog post reminded me that people's comments can be mostly invalid opinions. The racist comments that the first source stated were not right. The other credible commentaries merely had said that the black man was not in the story, but they just remained confused about the movie's decision. However, the first commenter made racist and prejudice comments. In their defense, they could have just been a very upset comic fanatic, but they did not express it properly. Her blog was very well-written in the sense that it was simplistic, but it would have been easier to read if she was more specific in her examples. I value your opinions on the racist comments because it made me upset that someone would voice such a thing to the public. It shocks me that people are still so racist in this day in time.

Betsy Volk's blog post reminded me that some people comment just for the sake of commenting. The not credible sources were miraculously not credible. They stated obvious claims about the correct color of the dress, and used profanity. Capitalizing cuss words is not professional. However, her credible sources seemed very credible for the topic. For example, one source gave statistics and seemed rational in how they were contemplating the actual dress color. I valued her opinion on the first credible source the most because the person gave multiple perspectives on how the dress's color could be seen in different fields.