Michael Phelps and a bong? Is there any truth to this?

Former Member
Former Member
are we sure that's Phelps? If true, he seems to have a habit of screwing up in the very next Novembers after Olympics... anyone here from the UK? How reputable is "news of the world"? How could he be so careless?
Parents
  • I don't have a lot of experience at other fora -- none, actually -- but I have the impression that this one is fairly reasonable in its tone compared to many others (and useful besides). Neverthelss, I have definitely had my share of "email arguments" -- always with university administrators, I think -- that got a little too heated, and I think that the communication medium was a huge factor in the escalation. So I found the following commentary (from my favorite movie critic) thoughtful, though there was not necessarily anything I hadn't heard before. www.reelviews.net/php_reelthoughts_template.php (My own advice, which I try to keep: nevery type a message when angry.) Sorry for straying off-topic; take it away. This reminds me of a thought experiment wherein a person can save X number of people by killing a person/baby. Test subjects are more likely to kill the necessary individual if they can press a button to do it and don't actually see the result than if they have to physically kill someone. There're no such dire choices or consequences in the critic's article, but the idea that distance from the consequence of the action makes it much less real is the same. A similar line of thinking could go for driving. How many people interact with others in their automobiles in a way that they would not interact with people on a face-to-face basis? I've been guilty there, for sure, but am mellowing with age. As far as writing angry emails, I'm in favor of using that energy to get my thoughts out. I just don't send the email right away. I'll write a response in a text editor and set it aside for an hour. Then I revise and take out anything that gets too personal, any ad hominem stuff. Sometimes, I have to revise several times :).
Reply
  • I don't have a lot of experience at other fora -- none, actually -- but I have the impression that this one is fairly reasonable in its tone compared to many others (and useful besides). Neverthelss, I have definitely had my share of "email arguments" -- always with university administrators, I think -- that got a little too heated, and I think that the communication medium was a huge factor in the escalation. So I found the following commentary (from my favorite movie critic) thoughtful, though there was not necessarily anything I hadn't heard before. www.reelviews.net/php_reelthoughts_template.php (My own advice, which I try to keep: nevery type a message when angry.) Sorry for straying off-topic; take it away. This reminds me of a thought experiment wherein a person can save X number of people by killing a person/baby. Test subjects are more likely to kill the necessary individual if they can press a button to do it and don't actually see the result than if they have to physically kill someone. There're no such dire choices or consequences in the critic's article, but the idea that distance from the consequence of the action makes it much less real is the same. A similar line of thinking could go for driving. How many people interact with others in their automobiles in a way that they would not interact with people on a face-to-face basis? I've been guilty there, for sure, but am mellowing with age. As far as writing angry emails, I'm in favor of using that energy to get my thoughts out. I just don't send the email right away. I'll write a response in a text editor and set it aside for an hour. Then I revise and take out anything that gets too personal, any ad hominem stuff. Sometimes, I have to revise several times :).
Children
No Data