Whew!  I was gone for a couple days and it looks as tho' all heck broke
loose.  I still haven't caught up on all the digests I've received in the
past couple days.  I don't even think I got beyond the first one yet and I
saw total chaos!  That wasn't my original intent when I posted my response
to Janet's policing of "snake-oil salesmen", etc.  That's why in part I
suggested keeping some of this off list, as that sort of behavior and
flaming should not be occurring on the public list.  I really doubt anyone
is too interested in hearing name-calling, etc.

Altho' when I first posted my concerns over this whole issue, it hadn't yet
totally degraded to the level it is now, but  I sensed that sort of thing
coming.  I think everyone agrees that we can disagree and even challenge
another, but when it crosses the line into personal attacks, it's starting
to go too far.  That's why I spoke up before, because I sensed some of that
in Janet's questioning, whether that  was her intent or not.

Janet, like I've said, it wasn't that I didn't appreciate your checking into
things like this for us, but I was disturbed by what you were then doing
with the info.  I felt anyway, that  your lines of questioning were straying
far from your stated intent of questioning the person's motives or whether
they were perhaps hiding something regarding personal financial interests.
When you would question them, they gave what to me sounded like reasonable
answers, particularly since I had seen no evidence of them trying to sell
anything in the first place.  You said that you didn't presuppose guilt, but
in this last case, it seemed to me that you definitely did.  Once you found
the web site, you seemed to me to have already made up your mind that this
then automatically conferred guilt upon the accused.  In our country's legal
system, it's up to the government/accuser to prove guilt, the onus is not on
the individual to prove their innocence.  A subtle difference, but very
significant.  The second scenario presupposes guilt.  Like this comment
about his posting, that you made after finding his web page:

since his lengthy introductory message mentions everything but
the profits he would make from such sales

Maybe, he never mentioned it, nor his web page, simply because he had no
intent of trying to profit from our list.  He may sell that stuff elsewhere,
but that doesn't automatically mean that also includes here.  I'm not being
naive, cuz maybe he intended to and maybe he didn't,  but obviously you've
already drawn your conclusions prior to your first round of questioning.

I personally felt David's first round of answers to your questioning to be
very reasonable.  One of the things you said, in particular, to one of his
answers, offended me, due to its sarcastic and rude tone.  It was this:

(David) Now if you think I could watch
>three of my family die of Parkinsons,

(Janet)  that is so sad...
who were they?
how long did they have pd?
what treatments did they undergo?
please share with us

Was I wrong in labelling your method of questiong as being rude and
offensive?  I don't think so, and this is only one example, but one that
particularly bothered me.  You are no longer addressing his profit motives,
but belittling his feelings and experiences regarding deceased family
members.  I find that very insulting and irrelevant to your purported
purpose here.  This is not stating your opinion, nor is it questioning that
is any of your, nor our, business.  I've related many times on this list the
story of my youngest brother who died of cancer and how it has affected
every area of my life.  You have absoluely no idea how angry I would become
were someone to question my sincerity on that and to use such sarcasm.
Janet, that is a personal attack, and of the sort which I personally would
rather not see on this list.  Your whole tone and attitude here is far from
one of objective questioning of the relevant evidence.  That's also why I
said that it seems that altho' you say you want to be proven wrong,
statements like this above leave me with a very different opinion.

Also, when I complained that I didn't particularly want someone else
speaking or drawing conclusions on my behalf, you said that you had only
been speaking for yourself and your own opinions.  Then why do you post he
following each time you catch a 'huckster':

as i have stated loud and clear to other internet hucksters
who have used this same shameful sales method
of deliberate concealment of motives
by preying on my cyber-family
and our shared condition

Not that I mind being a part of your cyber-family, but this implies some
sort of big-sister protection that I never asked for.  The comment on our
"shared condition" implies to me also that you are protecting us from
becoming victims again of some huckster, as perhaps we were already first
made victims by pd.  I have problems with the implication that I'm a victim
of any sort, and even more so potentially thanks to pd.  I want to be
exposed to any and all info that I can get my hands on.  That includes both
pro and con info, that I can use to make up my own mind.  I am not, nor will
I ever be a victim of any sort who needs another's protection.  I don't mean
to offend by this, as the oldest sister in my family myself, I am very
protective of my brother, however, he doesn't necessarily always want or
need my protection either.  That's why I finally suggested that you post the
web site address so that we could go and decide for ourselves.  I wouldn't
have minded either had you stated your opinion that you considered this to
be damning evidence, and leave it at that.  Like I mention above, I feel
that your opinion went too far into almost abusive questioning.

Janet, I'm not trying to pick on you, nor am I unappreciative of your
efforts.  Quite the opposite.  For the record, should David's profit motives
be truly shady and purposely concealed, then and only then, may he deserve
that sort of response that you gave him already.  I just felt it to be way
premature, especially as I didn't believe him to be guilty of anything, yet,
and who knows, maybe not ever.  I don't necssarily condone the name-calling
and flaming that's now started, but I have to say that I'm not surprised.
No person, guilty or not, likes to have every aspect of their integrity
challenged.  There are ways to question and to challenge another without the
sarcasm, personal attacks, and irrelevant questions.

Well, I'm not really sure whether I should even post this, as like I said, I
only started  going thru one digest and couldn't believe the chaos myself.
I would've posted this message privately, to save everyone else the hassle
of seeing yet another posting on this subject, but as it seems that Janet
will post it publically anyway, I won't bother.

I too hope, that once these flames die down, that we can resume being a
"cyber-family" and supporting each other.  Sometimes tho', it's families
that have the worst fights too.  So, in closing I'll just say that I respect
Janet's, David's, and everyone else's opinions, and that I love seeing
differing opinions and even controversy at times.  I do not, however, enjoy
personal attacks, and that's really what most of my objections and comments
boiled down to.

Wendy Tebay