 |
 |
Barbara - Wonder how the word , "lurker" got started in the first place. Whatever, it sure caught on in a hurry. However, I agree with you, maybe a "reader" would be appropriate. Hope you are doing much better and our thoughts are with you. Bet to you. Jo Ann On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:28:27 -0500 Barbara Patterson <[log in to unmask]> writes: > I resent the word 'lurker'. Webster defines 'lurk' as: "to lie in > wait > in a place of concealment esp. for an evil purpose" and its > synonyms > as: "skulk, slink, sneak". > > Surely, there must be a better term to identify those of us who do > not > post messages to the list because 'lurker' does NOT fit. How about > 'the > silent majority'. How about the fact that many of our members are > not > physically able to type messages; or that many people don't feel the > need to contribute their 2 cents worth as often as others. > > This list exists solely and completely for the support and sharing > of > information about Parkinson's. Information on medications, > surgeries, > research, political activisim, quality of life, and, most of all, > first-hand experience for all pwp's and their loved ones and > caregivers. There is no obligation to contribute. Those who do are > greatly appreciated for their time and effort (Murray, you're one!). > Those who do not, are also appreciated for their interest in the > list > and for their interest in learning about Parkinson's in this unique > way. Some of us are born 'talkers'; some are born 'listeners'. > There > is a need for both. > > This list is unmoderated because John Cottingham and I feel it > should be > open. Neither of us wishes to impose our viewpoints as the only > viewpoints which is what could (and does) happen on moderated lists. > Sort of 'toe the party line' and you're in' attitude. Well, that's > not > us. We like freedom. We like openness. We only keep the focus > directed towards Parkinson's and avert/divert list wars. Other than > that, we are all adults who have an interest in Parkinson's and, > having > read and understood and agreed to the list Charter, chose to join > PIEN. > > This topic pops up so regularly that it really does feel like 'deja > vu > all over again'. :) > > Concern about identities on the internet is valid. Just because I > say I > am someone, doesn't necessarily make it true. Just as we don't > automatically accept that someone who knocks on our door asking for > help, donations, etc. is who he says he is. We take precautions. > We > offer to make a phone call for them. We don't let them walk into > our > homes. Giving out one's home phone number on the internet to prove > one's identity is not really the greatest idea. Some folks who make > a > big deal of this consistently refuse to answer or return calls. > What is > the point? > > In case any one has any concerns about the Parkinsn Information > Exchange > Network, and does not want to use email to contact me, my home phone > number is 905-627-1832. I will answer the calls. I do NOT advise > anyone else to post their home phone numbers in the interests of > safety. > > This message has covered many topics. Here's one more: To Margaret > Tuchman and the Parkinson Alliance, thank you very much for your > prompt > and willing support. It makes us know we are appreciated. > > Barbara Patterson > PIEN List Owner, > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: > mailto:[log in to unmask] > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn