Janet, your response to this e-mail makes me feel like I want to submit your
name to the Pope for "canonization". Of course there are those times when I
think "Janet, you little devil, you". LOL :-)  :-), Guess you are just human
after all.

This might be a good time to remind list members that you can send an offsets
mail to the 'From' address in the message header (In most cases).
Bob Chapman

janet paterson wrote:

> hi all
>
> At 21:52 1999/11/10 EST, linda wrote to me, in part:
> >Janet, You are providing a marvelous, invaluable service to
> >thousands of people and your efforts do not go unrecognized...
>
> credit for the list's existence goes to barb patterson
> list-mom and founding-mother [!]
> i've been helping her with the nerdish stuff only since july this year
> when she took her first holiday away from 'da list' in
> six count'em six years
>
> i agree it's a marvellous if not miraculous resource
> and cannot imagine coping without it
> i.e. without all of you
>
> >I must just be missing something about the way this list runs,
> >as opposed to other listservs, no criticism or disrespect
> >intended. To each his own....
>
> each list develops its own 'personality' i suppose
> there are lots of different ways the software can be set up
> and which affect the list activity in a very direct way
>
> in this case, since 'exchange' is the name of the game
> the default setting for any replies to postings on the list
> is set to 'reply to the list' rather than 'to the individual sender'
>
> we tried it the other way for a few months at the beginning of the year
> but switched back to 'reply to the list' so as to retain
> the maximum benefit from 'sharing'
>
> which is why i tend to answer non-confidential messages
> like this one via the list
> i figure someone out there might benefit from eavesdropping
> if not now, maybe later, while digging in the archives
>
> there is an 'over-ride' feature which i have activated
> so that the 'reply to' is consistent through all e-mail software
> [some of them follow the internet rules and some sort of do]
>
> >Sorry. I did not realize AOL has a different set-up than
> >other e-mail  headings. Interestingly enough, I had no
> >intentions of putting the response back to the list,
> >but only to the sender. Somehow it still got sent to the whole
> >list...which was exactly the point the sender was making...
>
> i was an AOLian for a little more than a year
> after having been 'etherized' on the net for a few years
> that experience was an eye-opener
>
> there are a lot of internet and e-mail 'conventions'
> which don't seem to be written down anywhere
> [i guess one is supposed to know them by osmosis]
> which i didn't understand until they went
> astray or askew with my AOL mail
>
> >It's not the postings on the list that are annoying, in fact,
> >for the most part they're quite beneficial and it's both
> >reassuring and thought-provoking  to hear what others have to
> >say. Within 24 hours of signing up, I've learned much and been
> >personally contacted with helpful offers and information....
>
> good
>
> >But, being new to the list, it's frustrating  to open a number
> >of the e-mails and  have no way of knowing ahead of time that
> >they're pieces of an ongoing personal conversation. I felt like
> >I was intruding...
>
> yes
> it is like jumping into the middle of several conversations at once
> but it's not called 'intruding'
> listening in while you get your bearings is called 'lurking'!
>
> i don't mean to sound patronising so ignore the following if it's old news
> but it may be new news to some newbies:
>
> E-MAIL CONVENTION NUMBER 202:
> If a message subject header line has a Re: at the front of it,
> it means that the message is a REply to a previous message;
> i.e. part of a subject 'thread' of messages.
> If there is no RE: in the subject header line,
> that message is the start of a newly introduced subject.
>
> >Regarding my ties to PD....
> >My 79 year old mother has PD and lives quite a distance from me,
> >so there is no way I can look in on her or go to the doctor with her.
> >She tries to protect me by not giving me the whole story. For years,
> >she actually lied to me about her apparent PD, because she didn't want
> >me to worry...
>
> i will play amateur psych here and wonder out loud
> if she is 'ashamed' to show her true pd condition to anyone?
> it isn't a rare attitude; i even know about it myself [!]
>
> >I had no way of knowing what she was telling doctors and
> >visa-versa. And she admits, herself, that she doesn't ask
> >questions of doctors...
>
> if she won't or can't, then someone has to, in my humble opinion.
> there is still too much ignorance out there in all fields
> about how to deal with it
>
> >She is coming to visit me for three weeks-soon- because her
> >companion-"caretaker" (also 79) is going on vacation. Since her
> >condition is advancing quickly and she is finding it difficult
> >to find the right balance of meds, and her falls are increasing...
>
> oops
> alarm bells are ringing
>
> when did her condition start 'advancing quickly'?
> this is not normal for pd
> especially when it has been progressing more slowly previously
>
> the speed-up has to be caused by something;
> what change was made then
> in her meds, her diet, her lifestyle, her stress level etc?
>
> >I felt the best thing to do was sign up and find out
> >everything I could. I just joined the CARE list and I have
> >started to surf websites of major orgs. for research....
>
> that is the best thing you could do
> knowledge is power
>
> >Her companion is a sweetheart and I'm extremely grateful
> >that he lives near her and looks after her, but I can't
> >expect him to take full responsiblity.  I must become the
> >educated one in the family. There is no-one else. I can't
> >possibly be a good caretaker if I don't learn all I can...
>
> yep
> she's lucky to have you
>
> >Already, having been on the list only a few days, I learned
> >enough about the meds to at least ask my mom specific questions
> >about what she is taking. It was the first intelligent conversation
> >we had about her condition in all the years since the diagnosis....
>
> that's good news!
> the med regimen details of 'how much' and 'how often' are critical
>
> timing is all
> just like tuning up a powerful engine
>
> >so I really do appreciate the list.
> >Peace.  Linda
>
> ditto and ditto!
>
> janet
>
> janet paterson
> 52 now / 41 dx / 37 onset
> e-mail - [log in to unmask]
> web-site -  http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/6263/