 |
 |
Dear Jeremy, Sorry, but this matter of my having taken issue with Mr. Severance's $100-challenge has clearly gotten out of hand. I was offended, you're offended, and now Mr. Severance (to whom I meant no ill will) is offended, and so are some others, I gather, as well. So, with this note, I shall drop the issue for the moment. Although I believe it inappropriate to make the donating of funds to PAN conditional on the correct answering of riddles (= Mr. Severance's offer at the time), I do credit Mr. Severance with trying something lighthearted and fun and apparently well-meaning; I also believe that Mr. Severance deserves praise as well for his now having offered, as I've read, to donate those funds to PAN outright. I also hope that you recognize, offended as you may feel by my earlier critique, that nobody here (neither you nor I nor anyone else) has a personal lock on affliction, and that we should all, in my opinion, be free to offer fair-minded critique of whatever methodology re: support for PD-research is discussed in the PD Digest. I apologize if my critique offended you or anyone else; I certainly had no intention of causing personal offense, but rather had the goal of raising an issue which I do maintain merits critical attention. And I am surprised -- amazed, really, and chagrined -- that with all that so many of us in this field (PD) have presumably observed, been troubled by, and gained insight from -- regarding what might be termed the *political games* played by various *special interests* and *power elites* and *politicos* in Washington DC vis-a-vis getting *basic* attention paid to funding for PD-research -- that my raising questions about the propriety of a methodology for generating even a modest $100-donation for PD-research has *incensed* some of the very people to whom my observations were intended to be of service. But such is life -- SJS