Barbara - Wonder how the word , "lurker" got started in the first place.
Whatever, it sure caught on in a hurry.  However, I agree with you, maybe
a "reader" would be appropriate.  Hope you are doing much better and our
thoughts are with you.  Bet to you.  Jo Ann

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:28:27 -0500 Barbara Patterson
<[log in to unmask]> writes:
> I resent the word 'lurker'.  Webster defines 'lurk' as:  "to lie in
> wait
> in a place of concealment esp. for an evil purpose"  and its
> synonyms
> as: "skulk, slink, sneak".
>
> Surely, there must be a better term to identify those of us who do
> not
> post messages to the list because 'lurker' does NOT fit.  How about
> 'the
> silent majority'.  How about the fact that many of our members are
> not
> physically able to type messages; or that many people don't feel the
> need to contribute their 2 cents worth as often as others.
>
> This list exists solely and completely for the support and sharing
> of
> information about Parkinson's.  Information on medications,
> surgeries,
> research, political activisim, quality of life, and, most of all,
> first-hand experience for all pwp's and their loved ones and
> caregivers.  There is no obligation to contribute. Those who do are
> greatly appreciated for their time and effort (Murray, you're one!).
> Those who do not, are also appreciated for their interest in the
> list
> and for their interest in learning about Parkinson's in this unique
> way.  Some of us are born 'talkers'; some are born 'listeners'.
> There
> is a need for both.
>
> This list is unmoderated because John Cottingham and I feel it
> should be
> open.  Neither of us wishes to impose our viewpoints as the only
> viewpoints which is what could (and does) happen on moderated lists.
> Sort of 'toe the party line' and you're in' attitude.  Well, that's
> not
> us.  We like freedom.  We like openness.  We only keep the focus
> directed towards Parkinson's and avert/divert list wars.  Other than
> that, we are all adults who have an interest in Parkinson's and,
> having
> read and understood and agreed to the list Charter, chose to join
> PIEN.
>
> This topic pops up so regularly that it really does feel like 'deja
> vu
> all over again'.  :)
>
> Concern about identities on the internet is valid.  Just because I
> say I
> am someone, doesn't necessarily make it true.  Just as we don't
> automatically accept that someone who knocks on our door asking for
> help, donations, etc. is who he says he is.  We take precautions.
> We
> offer to make a phone call for them.  We don't let them walk into
> our
> homes.  Giving out one's home phone number on the internet to prove
> one's identity is not really the greatest idea.  Some folks who make
> a
> big deal of this consistently refuse to answer or return calls.
> What is
> the point?
>
> In case any one has any concerns about the Parkinsn Information
> Exchange
> Network, and does not want to use email to contact me, my home phone
> number is 905-627-1832.  I will answer the calls.  I do NOT advise
> anyone else to post their home phone numbers in the interests of
> safety.
>
> This message has covered many topics.  Here's one more:  To Margaret
> Tuchman and the Parkinson Alliance, thank you very much for your
> prompt
> and willing support.  It makes us know we are appreciated.
>
> Barbara Patterson
> PIEN List Owner,
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn