 |
 |
Dear Listmembers: A few weeks or so ago, tired of reading about flamingos, magnets, mangos attaboys, attagirls, and the like, I had the audacity to write to the list in what I thought was a light, conversational way, that perhaps such subjects better belonged to the SPARKLE list. I received some mild support, but in general, most (not all) of the writers of the posts I was objecting to wrote to excoriate me for my audacity and a few good natured souls even suggested that I sign off the list if I didn't like it. My (so-called) interesting observation is that again, in the main, those complaining about Janet's posts are the same people who told me to zip it up about theirs. In other words, when the subject is pleasing to the writer, nothing is prohibited. If it makes them laugh or holds their interest, it is better. If the opposite is true, then it doesn't belong on the list simply because it doesn't please them. Somebody wrote (to buttress their position) that they get depressed when reading about CD but laugh when reading about flamingos. Perfectly understandable! But how about those who don't mind reading about CD since it is a possible element of Parkinson's and get upset when only 1 out of every 20 messages (more or less, I didn't do an actual tally) is about PD, their sole reason for subscribing in the first place. I am trying to point out to those who tend to post 3, 4, 5, 6, consecutive non-pd one line messages written less than one minute apart that it appears to be only a matter of whose ox is being gored at any point in time. I did not write this to reiterate my previous post on the subject, nor to belittle or mock anyone else's writing style or opinion. Any appearance of same was to illustrate the point I was trying to make. It is not my style and would also be in any event, counterproductive. I write it to ask for truce on everyone's part with the realization that what comes around, goes around and every thread eventually runs it course. Paul H. Lauer