Text 8897, 90 rader
Skriven 2008-06-13 23:32:55 av Nancy Backus (1:3634/12.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Ruth Haffly
Ärende: fresh milk   [1]
========================
-=> Quoting Ruth Haffly to Nancy Backus on 06-10-08 10:43 <=-

 RH> I ripped out (not a simple tear like most athletes do to theirs) the
 RH> ACL and Medial ligaments in the knee, as well as chipping off the bone
 RH> sections that held them in place.  Due to Strong's mis diagnosis, it
 RH> was another 3 days before an orthopedic surgeon looked at it--and then
 RH> operated the next morning. He was skeptical I would ever walk on it
 RH> again but I have, and I've skiied on it as well (when I was younger).
 RH> I can't bend the knee more than 90 degrees nor kneel on it but I CAN
 RH> walk on it.  Yes, it gives me trouble now andagain, but I've banged up
 RH> enough other joints that (most of the time) I don't really ntice it.

It appears you were very blessed... and/or stubborn.  (G)  And, yes,
I've also noticed that if other parts of the body are also complaining,
it's less likely that one will notice any particular one over the
others...  ;0

 NB>> injury (to right leg, and secondarily to left knee) was more recent,
 NB>> but the residuals don't seem likely to totally go away ever.
 RH> They usually don't, especially if you've injured a joint.  A weight
 RH> bearing one like the knee or one that gets a lot of use (like Sean's
 RH> wrist) will probably never recover 100% of what it was, pre injury.
 RH> That's why you see a lot of athletes using braces on joints that have
 RH> been injured.

The more I know of injury first-hand, the more it amazes me how fast
athletes get back into the game after theirs...  I suppose it could
explain why they have often more problems down the road with things
never completely healing properly, though...  But it also appears that
braces and more elaborate surgeries, as well, are more the rule for
athletes than for us.  I know that sometimes they are using braces on
joints that are merely susceptible to injury than necessarily already
injured, too. 

 RH> It's sort of like what we're doing in the military with the Family
 RH> Readyness Groups (FRGs). There's a battalion wide one but also each
 RH> company has one.  We had a battalion wide picnic in May; other events
 RH> are planned thru out the year for the group as a whole and each company
 RH> does various things. It builds a sense of cohesiveness or "family"
 RH> which, since most soldiers and family are far away from mom, dad,
 RH> siblings, etc, can be very good.
 
A family-away-from-family.  :) 

 RH> And ths is now. Kodak still employs lots of folks but it's just not
 RH> the same.  Are the other big union places as good (Xerox, Bausch &
 RH> Lomb) or are they drifitng down like Kodak, bringing the Rochester area
 RH> economy down?

Xerox has been laying off as many or more, just quieter... as have all
the big industries locally.  What's kept the economy from tanking
altogether here has been that there have been a number of laid-off
workers becoming entrepreneurs and starting their own businesses.  The
small and medium size businesses are still managing to hold their own
pretty much...  there's a lot of creativity and innovation in the area. 
And the colleges are taking over as the areas' largest employers,
particularly U of R, with its Medical School and connection to Strong
Hospital (which now also has Highland Hospital afflilated with it).  I
think UR is the top of the list, followed by Wegmans.  If I remember
correctly, Kodak is still (at least) #3, but it is much reduced from
what it used to be.  And, BTW, Kodak still isn't union, although the
talks about the possibility have more listeners now... 

 NB>> The powers-that-were-once understood the reason, rationale and
 NB>> importance of research and innovation... then those in charge lost
 NB>> short-sighted.  And that was really the beginning of the decline.
 RH> Concentrating on the bottoom line will bring most places down.  Over
 RH> research can kill as well, as it did with Kodak--they should have come
 RH> out with an inexpensive digital while developing other, fancier ones.

I don't think it was over-research at Kodak, as much as not paying
attention to all the research that was or could have been going on...
they stopped encouraging the research that was producing the good stuff
for down the road, as they didn't see anything in it for the short run. 
A lot of the very good inexpensive products that Kodak came out with in
the past were from the same research that was also producing their
high-end stuff.

 RH> The loss of the instant developing camera lawsuit brought by Polariod
 RH> crippled them too.

And that was a lawsuit they should have won... they were using a totally
different technology to produce similar (but superior) results.  But
technology isn't always the easiest thing to explain to courts, etc. 

ttyl     neb

... It wasn't broke 'til I fixed it a little...

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)