At 13:59 1999/08/18 +0800, you wrote:
>Janet,
>
>I am perplexed.  I wrote a letter to the list concerning a trend I have
>noticed on the list. I deliberately kept it general in the spirit of
>discussing ideas and not attacking individuals (an approach you have
>recently insisted on in your capacity as list administrator),

just following house rules is all
my being honoured with the responsibilities of co-list-mom
is totally dependent on barb patterson's agreement

an attack or a challenge directly at me and my ideas is debate
"janet, your ideas strike me as insensitive and ego-centric"

an attack or a challenge at my character is a slur or a 'flame'
"janet, you are an insensitive egomaniac"

i can and may and no doubt will change my mind about my ideas

i cannot change my character as given to me

>and you
>responded to it with a letter that not only insists on personalising the
>exchange but with the repeated use of the phrase "if you mean me and my
>reply to joan snyder" introduced a note of totally unnecessary belligerence.

i didn't intend belligerence, just a degree of aggressiveness maybe
our perception is our choice

>I am even more perplexed why, if your posting contained none of the
>attitudes mine commented on, you should assume that I was referring to it?

i didn't - that's why i kept qualifying my statements

>I wrote PCPD in response  to a trend I have been thinking about for some
>time. The recent exchange of letters initiated by the Samuelson comments, an
>exchange which, among others, included your reply to Joan Snyder, brought my
>thinking on the subject into focus.  That I am not the only person to
>perceive this trend is made evident by the responses my posting has drawn.
>So - yes I did, and still do, include your posting among those I commented
>on.

so you were referring to my comments
so now i am perplexed by your perplexion

>And as you insist on raising the issue, please see below my signature
>group.
>you wrote:
>
>    "just what "case" is joan quoted as making?
>
>    I do believe that her words are pulled
>    ***** by the print medium involved *****
>    out of an impassioned plea she made re funding pd research"
>
>my translation (no doubt shaded by being male)
>
>    Jane (Samuelson) cannot  possibly have meant what she is reported as
>saying (why not - is it untrue, or just unpalatable) therefore she is being
>misquoted. And anyway what she said was said in the context of asking for
>funds and so was exaggerated for effect. [In other words Stage V only exists
>to frighten Congress]

this is your interpretation
i don't understand how you arrived at it
that was not my meaning at all

>you wrote:
>
>despite the "failings" and the "weaknesses" that you exhibit
>you've had options and benefits that past parkies have not had
>viz moe udall
>
>my translation
>
>    Stop whinging, we've never had it so good.

this is your interpretation
i don't understand how you arrived at it
that was not my meaning at all

>[Janet - I have no idea how advanced your PD is but I know how advanced Joan
>Snyder's is and you would need to be Stage VI to say what you said with any
>authority. At the very least I'd say you owe her an apology. Incidentally I
>would see your comments here as getting close to a personal attack]

this is your interpretation
i don't understand how you arrived at it
that was not my meaning at all

>Joan said:
>
>    I've become a realist with optimistic attitudes.
>
>to which you replied:
>
>    the word REALIST is not a synomym for PESSIMIST
>    at least not the last time I looked
>
>my comment:
>
>if this statement doesn't mean you look on Joan's posting and or attitude as
>pessimistic I'm not sure what it means, particularly considering that you
>have chosen to ignore Joan's own assessment of herself.

not ignored at all
certainly not put down
maybe pushy teasing of a loved friend who has whirling dervish tendencies
in between spells on the couch

>you  wrote:
>
>if we ourselves fall for the headline seeking traps and ploys
>of the fear-mongering-exaggeration-prone-awfulizing-style of the media
>how can we hope to turn pd awareness around?
>
>my translation:
>
>we must not let the media convince us that (late stage) PD is a bad thing
>[why not - is it not true?], because if they do how can we hope to change
>the rest of the worlds awareness of PD.

not my meaning or intent at all
i am still flabbergasted at your 'take' on my words

janet

janet paterson
52 now / 41 dx / 37 onset
snail-mail: PO Box 171  Almonte  Ontario  K0A 1A0  Canada
website: a new voice <http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/6263/>
e-mail: <[log in to unmask]>