c4countdown

Very sad news about her apparent suicide following the hoax call from 2 Aussie DJs pretending to be the Queen and Prince Philip.

According to the BBC site she leaves 2 kids. I wonder if she was any relation to former Countdown great Allan and his bro Richard?

Yes very sad news. But I think some people's reaction to this is bizarre. People who couldn't have cared less before she died are now condemning the actions of the Australian DJs. Their actions at the time aren't suddenly morally worse because this woman has now killed herself. They couldn't have predicted it. It's not their fault.

The same people lamenting her sad passing were castigating her for being an idiot of the highest order the day before.

I'm just waiting for the conspiracy theory nuts who follow David Icke and the like to suggest she was actually bumped off by the reptilian Queen for divulging intimate details of the Royal family and the suicide is just a cover up.

Everything in this thread so far is true. The media is more responsible for her death than those DJs.

Jon O'Neill wrote:Everything in this thread so far is true. The media is more responsible for her death than those DJs.

Agree.

Sorry to sound harsh but only one person is responsible for her death, and the clue is in the cause of death: suicide!
She had two kids FFS, why kill herself over this?

Because she felt she needed to. And that's a feeling we mustn't wish on, or exacerbate in, anyone.

I feel many needs but I put my son and wife first, always!

I strongly doubt you have been in a comparable situation to this.

Rachel Riley on a plate v. The potential end to my marriage and loss of my family/son.

(OK it wasn't Rach, but she was fit AND good with numbers!) But I chose my family.

Ironically I felt suicidal about passing on the above chance, but again, I chose my family!

Like I said, I strongly doubt you have been in a comparable situation to this.

Seriously, that was my situation. GladI made the correct choice and wasn't selfish with the ones I love!

I kind of want to try and explain the difference in enormity between your situation and Saldanha's, but I sense I won't be able to do so in a way that you will truly acknowledge, so I don't think I'll bother. What I am interested is why you saw fit to mention that you would never have done such a thing, when no one asked, and you had to make a concerted effort to bump an old thread to do so.

I was trying to point out that she was very selfish – in my opinion – in taking her own life over such a silly prank (think of her kids FFS). I didn't make any such effort to bump an old topic back up; as I wasn't on these boards back then and I am still reading though very interesting topics like his. Seriously, am I not allowed an opinion Mark?

Sure you are, but that doesn't mean they always need expressing.

Dave Preece wrote:I was trying to point out that she was very selfish – in my opinion – in taking her own life over such a silly prank (think of her kids FFS).

Are you her doctor? Did you know her? How do you know that was the whole reason? How do you know she didn't have an underlying mental illness? The idea that suicide is selfish is mostly bullshit. You have to be in a serious state of mental anguish to take your own life. The vast majority of studies of people who survive suicide attempts show that their mental state clouds their judgement and that most who fail at killing themselves are glad that they weren't successful. During an attempt you can even realise you've made a mistake but have passed the point of no return.

Mark James wrote:The vast majority of studies of people who survive suicide attempts show that their mental state clouds their judgement and that most who fail at killing themselves are glad that they weren't successful.

That second point is an interesting claim - source(s)? Not trying to be a smart-arse, I'd just be interested to see how they accommodate the pretty obvious issues of a) case selection, and ii) selection bias.

Dave Preece wrote:Sorry to sound harsh but

It doesn't sound harsh. It just sounds retarded.

Mark James wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:I was trying to point out that she was very selfish – in my opinion – in taking her own life over such a silly prank (think of her kids FFS).

Are you her doctor? Did you know her? How do you know that was the whole reason? How do you know she didn't have an underlying mental illness? The idea that suicide is selfish is mostly bullshit. You have to be in a serious state of mental anguish to take your own life. The vast majority of studies of people who survive suicide attempts show that their mental state clouds their judgement and that most who fail at killing themselves are glad that they weren't successful. During an attempt you can even realise you've made a mistake but have passed the point of no return.

Interesting, very interesting.

Mark Deeks wrote:Sure you are, but that doesn't mean they always need expressing.

If folk didn't express opinions, these type of forums/sub-forums and general conversation would be incredibly boring, wouldn't it?

Dave Preece wrote:

Mark James wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:I was trying to point out that she was very selfish – in my opinion – in taking her own life over such a silly prank (think of her kids FFS).

Are you her doctor? Did you know her? How do you know that was the whole reason? How do you know she didn't have an underlying mental illness? The idea that suicide is selfish is mostly bullshit. You have to be in a serious state of mental anguish to take your own life. The vast majority of studies of people who survive suicide attempts show that their mental state clouds their judgement and that most who fail at killing themselves are glad that they weren't successful. During an attempt you can even realise you've made a mistake but have passed the point of no return.

Interesting, very interesting.

PS

Were you her doctor?

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:Sorry to sound harsh but

It doesn't sound harsh. It just sounds retarded.

Jon, please, explain?

Dave Preece wrote:

Mark Deeks wrote:Sure you are, but that doesn't mean they always need expressing.

If folk didn't express opinions, these type of forums/sub-forums and general conversation would be incredibly boring, wouldn't it?

When that opinion is essentially "hey guys, I am WAY better than this dead chick!", it's a valid question as to which would be better.

Michael Wallace wrote:

Mark James wrote:The vast majority of studies of people who survive suicide attempts show that their mental state clouds their judgement and that most who fail at killing themselves are glad that they weren't successful.

That second point is an interesting claim - source(s)? Not trying to be a smart-arse, I'd just be interested to see how they accommodate the pretty obvious issues of a) case selection, and ii) selection bias.

Sorry Michael, you're right. I wish I could quote a source. To be honest I heard that fact in a talk about depression and suicide at my college. At the time I was as flippant about suicide as Dave appears to be and the talk changed my perspective somewhat. In one sense I'm still all for suicide (obviously for want of a better phrase, and I do think if people have had enough of living I think it is more selfish to want them to stick around just for your benefit) but clearly there are huge mental issues surrounding the issue that unless you have direct experience in dealing with these you have less to contribute to the argument and I will place my self in this bracket. So yeah. I don't claim to be an expert and that may be a cop out but from the experts in the field I have heard from (again unfortunately without being able to provide a direct source) the consensus seems to be it is a volatile mental state that leads to suicide. To claim selfishness is a knee jerk reaction as far as I'm concerned. Justifiable sure, but on consideration I would wager it's more complex. Dave is entitled to his opinion but I baulk at the suggestion that he was genuinely suicidal because he turned down the opportunity to cheat on his wife. I've contemplated suicide at times but I wonder how serious I was that I would ever do it? To me it seems like at times you can say you were suicidal but only mean it in the way you might say you're hungry enough to eat a horse. It's not literally true that you would eat a horse and also it may not be literally true that you were suicidal but you can say it for effect.

It must be 'an age thing' on this website?

Dave Preece wrote:It must be 'an age thing' on this website?

Or it could be just a you thing, Dave.

Urgh, part of me wants really wants to go through definite personal experience to lambast/confirm various points in this thread, but part of me really doesn't.

I'll just say that Dave, your inability to grasp a simple truth of mental health is bordering on offensive to those who it's been relevant to. It's not a statement on yourself as a person, but in this situation I can assure you that you really clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Zarte Siempre wrote:Urgh, part of me wants really wants to go through definite personal experience to lambast/confirm various points in this thread, but part of me really doesn't.

Me too.

Zarte Siempre wrote:I'll just say that Dave, your inability to grasp a simple truth of mental health is bordering on offensive to those who it's been relevant to. It's not a statement on yourself as a person, but in this situation I can assure you that you really clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Exactly. He sounds like the kind of person who probably also thinks people with depression should 'just lighten up a bit.'

Having said that, I'd swap my personal experience for his naivety anyday.
Must be great to go through life where deciding whether or not to shag some bird is your biggest problem.

Oh dear...

Listen, the main point I'm making is: mental health problems or not, you should NEVER let your children own, NEVER!

I'm not as ignorant or as thick as you think, honest!

I'm assuming not many of you have kids?

Seems like you want it to be an "age thing".

Dave Preece wrote: mental health problems or not,

You're still not getting it, Dave. They don't "think about the kids" in the way you think they should because they can't think straight. That's pretty much what mental illness IS.

Fair enough, I'll concede I know nothing about this...

Still a real shame for the kids, who have to not only grown up without their Mum (if they think like normal – as ignorant as I may seem – laymen like me), their dead mum has also been very selfish, which is a double blow kids should NEVER have to cope with...

So now that you finally concede you know nothing about this, tell me again why you're seeking to disparage this dead woman, of whose situation you admittedly know nothing?

Mark Deeks wrote:Seems like you want it to be an "age thing".

Whether it seems like an age thing, or I want it to be an age thing, I can't help saying it as I see it, nor can you!

Honestly, if this is how easily you feel victimised, I can see why you think (thought) you could equate to her situation.

Mark Deeks wrote:So now that you finally concede you know nothing about this, tell me again why you're seeking to disparage this dead woman, of whose situation you admittedly know nothing?

If you read my second paragraph and understood it, that's why I posted my feelings, I definitely didn't disparaged Mrs Saldanha?

I think it's more important to value the feelings of the innocent kids, before I value the worth of Mrs Saldanha or her actions or mental state.

Victimised???

I don't feel victimised at all!

You're whining about your right to give an opinion and then citing the "age thing". Sounds like you're playing a victim to me. Also, when your first five posts in a topic are "Sorry to sound harsh but", I'm pretty sure you're leading with some disparaging.

Dave Preece wrote:I think it's more important to value the feelings of the innocent kids, before I value the worth of Mrs Saldanha or her actions or mental state.

So a mentally ill woman a) is not innocent and b) 's life is not as valuable as those of her children?! Adults' lives are worth something too!

Even acute depression can totally warp your perception of things. Minor things can be exaggerated in your mind to major things, and vice versa. It doesn't make the person selfish - they're not in control of their thoughts, and aren't able to get things into rational perspective like you think they ought to be able to.

Several other posters have made it clear that this is an extremely sensitive topic due to personal experiences. I don't want to be patronising, but please do some research before posting controversial views on such a delicate topic.

I'm not whining.

I'm not playing a victim.

I'm not disparaging anyone.

Are you normally this far off the mark, Mark?

PS. aren't you being a little obsessive with chasing all I say in this thread, I've made my point, it's my opinion, you have your opinion, thats great... Think you need to leave it now, I'm feeling a little stalked.

Jennifer Steadman wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:I think it's more important to value the feelings of the innocent kids, before I value the worth of Mrs Saldanha or her actions or mental state.

So a mentally ill woman a) is not innocent and b) 's life is not as valuable as those of her children?! Adults' lives are worth something too!

Even acute depression can totally warp your perception of things. Minor things can be exaggerated in your mind to major things, and vice versa. It doesn't make the person selfish - they're not in control of their thoughts, and aren't able to get things into rational perspective like you think they ought to be able to.

Several other posters have made it clear that this is an extremely sensitive topic due to personal experiences. I don't want to be patronising, but please do some research before posting controversial views on such a delicate topic.

Do you not feel or her kids and her family?

Why am I the only one who has mentioned this, why is it more important to feel sorry for Mrs Saldanha?

Dave Preece wrote:

Jennifer Steadman wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:I think it's more important to value the feelings of the innocent kids, before I value the worth of Mrs Saldanha or her actions or mental state.

So a mentally ill woman a) is not innocent and b) 's life is not as valuable as those of her children?! Adults' lives are worth something too!

Even acute depression can totally warp your perception of things. Minor things can be exaggerated in your mind to major things, and vice versa. It doesn't make the person selfish - they're not in control of their thoughts, and aren't able to get things into rational perspective like you think they ought to be able to.

Several other posters have made it clear that this is an extremely sensitive topic due to personal experiences. I don't want to be patronising, but please do some research before posting controversial views on such a delicate topic.

Do you not feel or her kids and her family?

Why am I the only one who has mentioned this, why is it more important to feel sorry for Mrs Saldanha?

I think you're the only one who's mentioned it because it goes without saying that people pity her family. However, what isn't so obvious is how to care for people with depression and prevent them from ending their lives. Certainly widespread press condemnation isn't exactly going to help with that. That was the discussion here, not whether people felt bad for her children. Of course they do. Part of the implication of saying how sad it is is that her family will be affected by it. That's why the conversation about mental health and stopping the press from going to town on individuals needs to be had: so that more lives aren't lost, and more families' lives aren't affected. They're both as important as each other. Blaming people with depression will only compound the problem.

I'm afraid Dave has been inducted to the c4c style of argument all too quickly and may be wholly put off discussing Countdown in the other threads. There's a big difference between "I respectfully disagree" and "I c4cfully disagree". It's one thing to make a perfectly logical and sensible case, it's another thing to use that as a vehicle to bully a new member of this forum. I strongly disagree with Dave's opinion on the subject of this thread, but I do agree with him that people have been overly aggressive in making that case. I've seen this time and time again on this forum, whether it be the vindictive posts I was subjected to as a new member or the hounding of other people for having an unpopular view or for being overenthusiastic. I don't use any other online forums, so they may all be like this or worse, but as far as I'm concerned this is not the way to go about an argument.

You are completely and totally wrong, Adam. Dave has been civilly yet emphatically disagreed with, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Deliberately and consciously crafted controversial opinions were only going to bring about passionate responses, and if he didn't want that, he wouldn't have sought them. Heat, kitchen, etc.

Civilly?

Civilly.

Actually, what has happened here has indeed happened a lot of times on this forum. You come and present a ridiculous view, you get shot down emphatically by several people who all vehemently disagree with you. Sometimes (for my part) you can't add anything more to the arguments of your co-arguees (or don't feel that it would be a worthwhile exercise), but still feel it's necessary to point out just how much you disagree with the person.

Adam Gillard wrote:I don't use any other online forums, so they may all be like this or worse, but as far as I'm concerned this is not the way to go about an argument.

Most of them are far worse, Adam, both because others are effectively anonymous, and because so often arguments simply fail to be real logical arguments, and turn into ad hominem shouting. Given that there's a pretty highly intellectual cast on c4c, I'm not surprised that pleasantries are forgone when a poorly thought-out opinion is posted. I guess you've come across enough intellectual debates in various places to know that they can be bruising affairs: two heavyweight academics slugging it out with their versions of logic can be a very entertaining spectacle. As long as it stays civil and the subject is directly addressed, even if it is forceful, I don't have a problem with that. I'd rather that than forums where people will post any old drivel seeping out of their brains and get away with it.

Brian Moore wrote:

Adam Gillard wrote:I don't use any other online forums, so they may all be like this or worse, but as far as I'm concerned this is not the way to go about an argument.

Most of them are far worse, Adam, both because others are effectively anonymous, and because so often arguments simply fail to be real logical arguments, and turn into ad hominem shouting. Given that there's a pretty highly intellectual cast on c4c, I'm not surprised that pleasantries are forgone when a poorly thought-out opinion is posted. I guess you've come across enough intellectual debates in various places to know that they can be bruising affairs: two heavyweight academics slugging it out with their versions of logic can be a very entertaining spectacle. As long as it stays civil and the subject is directly addressed, even if it is forceful, I don't have a problem with that. I'd rather that than forums where people will post any old drivel seeping out of their brains and get away with it.

"there's a pretty highly intellectual cast on c4c"

"poorly thought-out opinion"

"intellectual debates"

"two heavyweight academics"

"people will post any old drivel seeping out of their brains"

FIVE examples of BASICALLY saying: 'unless you have BIG BRAINS like all of us lot on c4c, STAY AWAY!'

Sorry, but I'm no better than you and you're no better than me. We all have our opinions, and whether you've been educated at Oxford or Cambridge or, (like me) South Cheshire, it matters not, well, not to me anyway.

It's a real shame quite a few on here think they are better than most; simply because they know how to spell a few nine letter words!

Life's too short, let's just get on hey?

Most of you guys are my heroes from watching Countdown (inc' Mark), please can we get on, even if I have 'uneducated and silly opinions'.

I do feel like this has got more into attacking other people than actually debating the issue *sigh*

I think this might go to prove how much progress needs to be made with discussing mental illness. As someone who has 3 psychological conditions (diagnosed by medical professionals, before someone calls self-diagnosing crackpot) this makes me incredibly sad.

Zarte Siempre wrote:I do feel like this has got more into attacking other people than actually debating the issue *sigh*

I think this might go to prove how much progress needs to be made with discussing mental illness. As someone who has 3 psychological conditions (diagnosed by medical professionals, before someone calls self-diagnosing crackpot) this makes me incredibly sad.

I'm still struggling to see who's attacking who.

Dave Preece wrote:

Brian Moore wrote:Most of them are far worse, Adam, both because others are effectively anonymous, and because so often arguments simply fail to be real logical arguments, and turn into ad hominem shouting. Given that there's a pretty highly intellectual cast on c4c, I'm not surprised that pleasantries are forgone when a poorly thought-out opinion is posted. I guess you've come across enough intellectual debates in various places to know that they can be bruising affairs: two heavyweight academics slugging it out with their versions of logic can be a very entertaining spectacle. As long as it stays civil and the subject is directly addressed, even if it is forceful, I don't have a problem with that. I'd rather that than forums where people will post any old drivel seeping out of their brains and get away with it.

"there's a pretty highly intellectual cast on c4c"

"poorly thought-out opinion"

"intellectual debates"

"two heavyweight academics"

"people will post any old drivel seeping out of their brains"

FIVE examples of BASICALLY saying: 'unless you have BIG BRAINS like all of us lot on c4c, STAY AWAY!'

Sorry, but I'm no better than you and you're no better than me. We all have our opinions, and whether you've been educated at Oxford or Cambridge or, (like me) South Cheshire, it matters not, well, not to me anyway.

It's a real shame quite a few on here think they are better than most; simply because they know how to spell a few nine letter words!

Life's too short, let's just get on hey?

Most of you guys are my heroes from watching Countdown (inc' Mark), please can we get on, even if I have 'uneducated and silly opinions'.

Of your five examples, the latter three weren't referring to c4c at all.

Nobody cares who is good at Countdown or where anybody went to university or didn't. You've imagined that. Nobody has claimed to be more or less intelligent than you. Nobody has told you to stay away. Nobody has implied that they can't get on with you.

All that's been done is to deconstruct your ridiculous, offensive argument.

Jon O'Neill wrote:

Dave Preece wrote:
"there's a pretty highly intellectual cast on c4c"

"poorly thought-out opinion"

"intellectual debates"

"two heavyweight academics"

"people will post any old drivel seeping out of their brains"

FIVE examples of BASICALLY saying: 'unless you have BIG BRAINS like all of us lot on c4c, STAY AWAY!'

Sorry, but I'm no better than you and you're no better than me. We all have our opinions, and whether you've been educated at Oxford or Cambridge or, (like me) South Cheshire, it matters not, well, not to me anyway.

It's a real shame quite a few on here think they are better than most; simply because they know how to spell a few nine letter words!

Life's too short, let's just get on hey?

Most of you guys are my heroes from watching Countdown (inc' Mark), please can we get on, even if I have 'uneducated and silly opinions'.

Of your five examples, the latter three weren't referring to c4c at all.

Nobody cares who is good at Countdown or where anybody went to university or didn't. You've imagined that. Nobody has claimed to be more or less intelligent than you. Nobody has told you to stay away. Nobody has implied that they can't get on with you.

All that's been done is to deconstruct your ridiculous, offensive argument.

In agreement with Jono here - nobody claimed it's brains or nowt here, nobody tried to claim intellectual high ground, and nobody is trying to not get on with anyone! I'd recommend being a bit more dispassionate, it sounds like you're taking the points people are making personally, when they were simply deconstructing your arguments.

No further good can come of this discussion.