hi christine

you wrote:
>Don't despair - this letter is not as long as it seems
>because you don't need to read the part under the dotted line
>which contains a few quotes to re-inforce my argument.

whether i read below the line or not
your message is the size that it is
and i rarely, if ever, despair

>My concern is that this list is losing valuable members, the Silent
>Majority, because of the self indulgences of the Vocal Minority. Without
>naming names it seems to me that if these individuals have so much
>spare time to send their idle, and mainly personal, banter back and forth
>so frequently then they should have enough time to send it only to the
>person concerned and not to the whole group.

you may state that your concern is in re losing 'valuable' members
but your entire message speaks volumes to me
of your anger at the chit-chat perpetrators

not naming names,
how do you know how many members are 'lost'?
if they are silent how do they contribute to this list?

>For me and my family PD is a much more serious issue than
>the Vocal Minority of this group would have us believe. I am a
>very busy mother (with four teenagers)  who simply wants to be
>kept abreast of medical developments and any other relevant
>information from other 'parkies', to make my life a little easier.

i appreciate your 'busy-ness' and understand that
you have your specific needs and priorities in re this list

i have my priorities and needs too
how can anyone of us judge whose priorities are 'more' important?

am i going to be 'told'
that i can send in messages about pd and cd
but not about cats?
i don't think so

again, i hear your anger at the chit-chat perpetrators

>The trouble is I simply don't have time to read all the letters.
>The important information is probably ending up in the trash
>unopened (although there are some names that I recognise
>and always open).

are you sure that the problem is
that you don't have 'time' to read all the letters?
i believe that one can always 'make' time to do those things one really wants
to do

i don't believe that your time and lack or abundance thereof
is the real issue here

>Appeals to reason seem to have fallen on deaf ears insofar as the Vocal
>Minority is concerned.  However, before taking the next step (signoff
>parkinsn) I would like to put this simple solution to the Silent Majority.

the chit-chat perps have not changed their ways
as they 'should' have, in your view?
your 'threat' to sign-off if they don't stop
sounds to me like something one might say to a recalcitrant teenager

>Every one of us can make a simple mistake, for which we can
>all expect tolerance.  Poor ol' Ken Becker's errantly sent photo
>was an example of an honest mistake for which he paid dearly.

we may 'expect' tolerance
but i saw a lot of intolerance and anger displayed toward ken
[along with a lot of support and reassurance]
were any of those responses 'right' or 'wrong' ?

>But his mistake highlighted to me just how common it has become
>to reply to any letter by pressing the "Reply To" button.

all of us use different computer hardware and software
i don't think a blanket statement here is applicable

>This has got to stop, or the group will lose all effectiveness.

how would this mailing-list-family lose effectiveness?
for me, the personal caring and sharing is the most important thing
i can obtain technical info about pd in lots of other ways

>My 'solution' is not aimed at those who make a simple mistake,
>but at those who:
>a. persistently clog the system by replying to genuine letters with
>one-line platitudes
>b. initiate their own personal and/or irrelevant letters
>c. masquerade letters as having genuine PD relevance by having
>a misleading title
>d. have no title at all.
>These writers seem to expect all tolerance to flow their way without
>listening to the pleas of others for much less, and more relevantly
>titled, mail.

hmmm
i think it is strangely ironic
that every time this subject comes up [seems to be a 3 to 4 month cycle]
the volume of mail 'clogging' the system from the 'complainers'
equals or exceeds
the volume of mail from the 'complainees'

am i  'supposed' to display tolerance at the volume of complaints?

>If a letter fits the above criteria, and is not a one-off genuine mistake,
>then with the opened letter still on your screen follow these simple steps:
>1. Click "Redirect" (NOT "REPLY TO")
>2. Highlight and Copy the "From" line.
>3. Paste this onto the "To" line.
>4. Press "Queue" then "Delete"
>5. Press "Send Queued Messages" after all mail has
>been 'processed'. (These are the terms 'Eudora' uses
>but every e-mail program will have a similar process)

again, these instructions don't seem particularly useful to me
since they are oriented to a specifc software program
i.e. they mean virtually nothing to us aolians
[and i suspect we are the vast majority]
especially any newbie aolians out there

so, is this an example of a complainer 'clogging' up the system?
once again, am i 'expected' to display tolerance here?

>The effectiveness of this simple procedure should be evident
>in a very short time as those who persist in boring us with
>their own personal trivialities will soon get the 'message' as
>they receive possibly 100s of copies of their own letter back.

this reeks of anger and revenge
and i willl have nothing to do with it

one person's 'triviality' is another person's 'lifeline'
how are we to judge?
who are we to judge?

>I for one will be starting this method of 'processing' my mail
>in a couple of days in order to give a reasonable amount of
>time for the 'message' to get through.

'processing' isn't the right term, in my book, for the type of activity you
are advocating
and 'reasonable' is another perception-type-term that could mean anything

>In light of Bruce Anderson's suggestion (see below)
>please only send negative replies to this suggestion
>in order to keep the volume to a minimum.

one can't demand certain types of responses to one's messages
other list-family-members will [or won't] respond in their own unique way
just as i am
this is the ultimate democratic forum
which means to me [badly paraphrased]
"i may not agree with what you have to say
but i will defend to the death your right to say it"

>My only motivation is to try to preserve this group
>from losing the people who need it the most.

i am at a loss here
your motivation is whatever it is
i see it as anger and frustration at the chit-chat perps

i don't understand where you get the idea that people are going to be 'lost'
and in re these 'lost' folk
are they the ones who need the list most [as you state here] ?
or
are they 'valuable' members [as you state at the beginning of your message] ?

>Over the last two years I have seen it slowly but
>surely degenerating into yet another "chat" line.

your perception astonishes me
my perception is quite the opposite
since october 1995, this list-family has grown and matured delightfully, in my
eyes

>A number of those who used to contribute really helpful
>information no longer do so and, as stated above,  the
>important info that is there is easily lost amongst the unimportant.

again, your perception amazes me
i've seen a steady growth of valuable contributors
as newbies have become more confident and comfortable with the medium

i'll give everyone a break and not duplicate your litany of 'proof'
but i will refer back to my quote yesterday
in re looking at the negatives as 'realistic'

in my perception, you have taken a negative view of the latest 'list-kefuffle'
and selectively chosen those negative messages which support your view
and have deliberately ignored those positive messages which don't

which sounds to me like distorted negative thought processes
as described in dr. burns' books on cognitive therapy

which begs the question
am i reacting to your message negatively?
i hope not

i disagree with most of the points you've made
does that make my reply 'trivial' or 'irrelevant' ?
does that mean my right to be heard is more or less important than yours?

rather than re-post it yet again
i refer you to my message called 'family atmosphere' on my web-site
it strikes me as particularly relevant here

the idea that i am having this discussion/argument/debate
over the internet with a sister-parkie in new zealand
in full view of 1600 other cyber-siblings
world-wide fills me with awe
which leaves little room
for much else!


with love from your cyber-sibling in cyber-family-land

janet

a new voice: http://www.newcountry.nu/pd/members/janet/index.htm
51/10 - almonte/ontario/canada - [log in to unmask]
janet paterson