manolok
Forum Elite
Topics: 74
Posts: 236
|
doc clotaire, thanks for you response to this agonizing litany between myself and an emotional overeactive poster/member. I choose not to clarify my post because I felt that this individual had no basis and honestly blew things out of proportion.
But your response elicited me to write an explanation
To set the record straight. This is what I wrote and what I intended to get across.
"So just wondering why some recent exam takers feel it's not. Perhaps, they didnt master the UW concepts thoroughly and just sour graping"
*If you dissect this text and take it in the context of WHO it came from you would interpet the statement differently. I was merely implying that if a person fails or doesn't do well on an exam then perhaps they didnt grasp the concepts to a level in which her or she could apply their knowledge in a question with a time limit of 72 seconds. That was my problem with step 1 multiple times, I learned the hard way, and I thought any member on this website would not take that personally given MY history. If this came from someone that repeatedly scored in the 90's first attempts on all the steps, I could see where this could be misconstrued as a pompous and extremely condescending comment. But its not. It's coming from someone with multliple attempts with a low score. In fact one member MYTIME was familiar with my story and gave me some kind words.. and discredited the frank language I used.
*Lastly, how many posts can you find here about exam experiences writing "what I wouldve done differently?" "Or things I should have read" Isn't that a form of sour graping or crying over spilled milk. I did that with step 1 countless times and maybe In a few days, I will be sourgraping too. But it is what it is. And regardless of whether you pass or fail, people still feel this way.
My only mistake is that I failed to choose my language carefully knowing that this is a website that is predominantly FMG's. I am an IMG raised here in the US of Asian descent and was educated here and abroad so I am familar with the ongoing struggle to find a balance between the east and west cultures. However, I do subscribe to other websites and I have to say they are very different in the way they post, the language is frank and edgy and sometimes just downright offensive. Which at times is especially unpalatable to individuals who did not grow up here in the US. If you check out studentdoctor.net, which is a website for predominantly AMG's the language there is very different or USMLE.net which is a mixed bag of AMG's and IMG's. In fact, I put the same post in that website, and NO one responded in the manner that DaddyO did.
But I'm not discrediting Prep4usmle.com, this is an amazing diverse forum. The one thing that is preserved here until my recent exchanges with DaddyO is respect for others.
Again, I hope no one misinterprets what I wrote. But my point being that I did not mean to offend anyone. My arguement with DaddyO has become personal because he has made it that way. I sleuthed or researched his posts and realized that there were inconsistencies in what he wrote. In fact I find some of his previous posts to other members to be rude and overly aggressive. But that is his problem not mine. I just wont take it sitting down when someone attacks me without knowing the "big picture"
But you are perferctly correct in saying that this is the last week and i need to focus. My study breaks should be spent relaxing and not focusing on this trivial arguement.
Again, good luck to all. Wish me luck! :-)
|
| doc_clotaire
Forum Guru
Topics: 159
Posts: 1,265
|
Good Luck to you buddy 
___________________
The elevator to succes is broke ,you must take the stairs
|
| DaddyO
Forum Newbie
Topics: 2
Posts: 27
|
Hey doc clotaire...thanks for providing good advice over the months. I want to respond to you doc clotaire and clarify the strange things that manolok said about me when he defended what he said about people sharing their testing experiences. He again told some twisted lies as if he has any idea who I am.
First, manolok said he did some "sleuthing" and researched all of my posts and said that I was "rude and overly aggressive". Well, he is entitled to his opinion but I would love for anyone to look at all of the other posts that I have made outside of the ones responding to manolok and see if any of them were "rude". I can promise you that they were not, and that is because I'm not rude...I'm a kind hearted, gentle soul. In fact, before I responded to manolok's attacking, insulting comments I had only posted 9 times in this forum and now it is up to 18. So, I haven't posted that much. And the only time I posted was to console someone who had just reported that they had a difficult exam and I shared my experience with them to show them compassion and let them know they weren't alone. I also posted to ask about opinions if the kaplan simulated exam or the usmle cd was good and to gather opinions about taking the exam with back pain; but I did this after I had retaken my exam, long after I had taken my exam and I was posting on here because my dear friend also is getting ready to take the exam and has very bad back pain so she wanted me to see if others thought it was a good idea to just take it if you're ready and she wanted me to ask in this forum if others had benefited from it. Manolok just assumed that I was asking those things for me and manolok thinks that he knows who I am.
See, manolok told me that he did some "sleuthing" into who I am by reading all of the posts that I have made, which is a grand total of 18, and he said he found inconsistencies with them so assumed that I was a liar and told me many times that I was a liar and accused me many times of a lot of things and never apologized.
Personally, anyone who takes the time to read all of your posts and uses that as the reasoning behind calling you a liar and accusing you of wrongdoing is just a very sketchy individual and is obviously struggling with a lot of things. And after thinking about some of the things that manolok said about me and insulted me while knowing little about me I really started to pray for this person manolok. He really used what he read from my posts to sum me up as a person and thought that he could sum me up as an individual enough to call me a liar and accuse me of numerous things such as not taking the CK and not studying for Step 3 and for lying to the people that I am posting to.
Point is I have NEVER started a forum on here and have ever used it as a launch pad to complain about the exam. I have only responded to people to console them after they felt bad about their exam. And he said I was rude to people but look at the few posts that I have made and you will see when I expressed how my exam experience went there were numerous people posting a follow up saying, "thanks for what you said" and "I agree with you totally" and "my exam was exactly like yours". Not one person responded and EVER called me rude or overly aggressive. I just want to set the story straight. My response to manolok is the only one of its kind basically cause his comment was the only time I have heard such nonsense.
Also, manolok said he was responding because I was "attacking" him when it was completely the other way around...manolok commented on a lot of us that shared our tough exam experience by saying "perhaps they didn't master the UW, and are just sour graping, and they are pessimists and are lamenting". I responded to his attacking words and simply because I responded he/she thinks I'm attacking him. The fact is I have never called manolok a liar or accused him of being dishonest or insulted him, I have only responded to the exact words he said. But manolok has participated in all of those disgusting things, has been insulting and has been accusing me of many things without knowing me, all while sleuthing over my previous posts and using that to accuse me, he's been calling me a liar repeatedly as if he knows who I am and what I do with my life.
Manolok also said this in his last post, "was merely implying that if a person fails or doesn't do well on an exam then perhaps they didnt grasp the concepts to a level in which her or she could apply their knowledge in a question with a time limit of 72 seconds."
He used that statement to justify saying that we were "lamenting, sour graping, didn't master the UW material, and are pessimists". But manolok is grossly overlooking the fact that we were just posting our experience and not complaining about failing or not doing well we didn't know how we had done because we hadn't received our scores yet...we were posting about how long the questions were and how vague they were. I never once talked about failing the exam...so manolok never had the information of anyone failing the exam when he said "perhaps they didn't master the material, they are pessimists who are lamenting, and sour graping" He didn't have my results because I hadn't told him or anyone and the other posters were just posting their experience cause they took the exam recently. Me and others were posting the exam exactly as it took place, if my exam was long and if 75% of my questions were over 25 lines long then that doesn't have anything to do with me not mastering the material or me being a pessimist. It is me being honest and telling it like it is. You can't judge someone and say that "perhaps they didn't master the material" just because the questions were long, which was the most difficult part about the exam for me, personally.
Finally, and this is my most important point. Manolok argues that on other forums that he visits, especially the AMG forums, that people weren't as sensitive as I was therefore he understands me being sensitive because I wasn't in the AMG forums and am obviously an IMG , right? Wrong!!! Although manolok likes to believe that the reason I responded to his attack on people that were kind enough to share their experience was because I'm simply an IMG and IMG's do that more often. This just detracts from the fact and the "real" reason that I responded to manoloks words and that real reason rests in that fact that calling people "pessimists, and say they are sour graping and lamenting" when you don't even know who they are is just wrong. He doesn't want to believe that what he said is wrong and that is why he has told you a bunch of nonsense about me. He doesn't own the fact that it is not in your best interest to insult people when you don't know them and assume that just because they are being honest then they are immediate pessimists. Just because it is something that you don't want to hear it isn't pessimistic. I hear things all day that I don't want to hear, I mean just watch the evening news. But just because the news anchor is being honest and telling me about the tornado that destroyed 50 houses I don't immediately say that the news anchor is a pessimist. I guess people that actually had those exam experiences should not be honest because if you're honest and your experience wasn't a completely positive one then you are either "lamenting" or "sour graping" or a "pessimist" or "perhaps didn't master the UW material". And newsflash, I am not an IMG, I was born and raised in the good old USA and this is where I graduated from. So, you can see doc clotaire that me being an AMG really debunks manoloks theory of why I was sensitive to what he said. This is really the only forum I have used for any of my studying.
And last point, manolok went on to say "If this came from someone that repeatedly scored in the 90's first attempts on all the steps, I could see where this could be misconstrued as a pompous and extremely condescending comment. But its not. It's coming from someone with multliple attempts with a low score."
So if the person scored 89 on their exams the it wouldn't be pompous but if he scored 90 then what manolok said would be pompous. His rationale is just so far over the edge. First off, how does he think he knows me, from the handful of posts that I made consoling and extending compassion to people cause they had a tough exam so I told them how tough mine was. This is how he knows me! This is his only source and he makes that statement. Well, I can say that I did score in the 90's on Step 1 the first time I took it and passed the CS the first time I took it and I did fail the CK the first time I took it cause I simply wasn't prepared to read 35 questions in every block that were at least 25-40 lines long, it was never the material but the length. It was unfair to be that long, the average person needs much longer than 72 seconds to read anything more than 30 lines long and if you throw in lab values and 5-20 multiple choice answers then it will take much longer than 72 seconds. But when I took the CK the second time the questions were much much shorter, maybe 75% shorter overall. The questions were of the same difficulty level for the most part, maybe a little easier the second time around but I at least got to read them all and because I got to read them all I indeed passed it the second time I took it and again scored in the 90's, well into the 90's actually. And I didn't get to study full time either because I was traveling a lot due to the business that I run. The only reason the exam was hard for me in the end was because of length, and length simply was not a factor on the retake.
So, two 90's and a first time pass on Step 1, Step 2CS and one retake on CK because of not being prepared for the length and manolok is going to say that I had "multiple attempts at a low score"!!!! Are you kidding me!!! Does two exam scores in the 90's sound like a low score to you? I'm not bragging but don't patronize me.
Here is the type of person that we are dealing with doc clotaire. I am consoling people by posting my experience so they know that they aren't alone in the difficulty of their exam and manolok says that I am rude and overly aggressive and says that when I was extending my compassion to others that I was "lamenting, perhaps didn't master the material, sour graping and is a pessimist" and then insults me, accuses me of numerous things and calls me a liar based on my previous 10 posts. He calls me all of these things when he doesn't know me at all. Then he proceeds to tell me how I should get back to studying and should open my books because I have "multiple failures" and then proceeds to refer to me failing the CK one time as having "failures". And then says that me being sensitive to him calling me and other posters "pessimists, lamenting, sour graping, and perhaps not mastering the material" doesn't have any credibility because I didn't pass the steps the first time with scores in the 90's and have had "multiple attempts with a low score." He says this while knowing nothing about me...does he assume that I failed Step 1 and didn't get in the 90's? He doesn't know how good my scores are because he believes what he wants to believe and has no basis for his argument. Him saying that me being insensitive to his insults isn't credible because I didn't score in the 90's is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard.
Well...surprise, I did score in the 90's! Not 99 but the 90's.
I know that you don't care about this doc_clotaire but I said that I wasn't going to respond to this individual again and I'm not. I'm using your kind soul as a means to clarify the fictional things that manolok wrote about me. I really have no idea how someone can actually have the audacity and the hubris to think that they know someone just from a handful of posts on a message board to where you will call them a liar, and accuse them of nonsense, and insult them repeatedly and then indeed use their "sleuthing" of previous 18 posts as the only basis for coming to the conclusion that the person is all of these hateful things you are calling them. For the record, I have only ever responded to manolok's words, his exact words. I was never presumptuous enough to think that I knew him enough do anything more than to respond to his exact words. I would never think that I knew when he took an exam or what he was studying for right now, or how well he did on an exam or would ever be able to accuse him or insult him or call him a liar based on a handful of posts of him sharing his experience with others.
The audacity of someone to think they know me enough to say that I have had multiple "attempts at a low score" and that I've had "many failures".
I will pray for this person repeatedly and I'm hoping that prayer will move some mountains in this case.
God Bless
|
|
| |
| | | |
