 |
 |
Janet, Perhaps I misunderstood John, but I take the sentence > >Dennis, in many (if not most) cases, the knowledge > >that one has clinical depression (CD) comes well > >before the diagnoses of of PD. to mean that "in most" cases of PD, CD is present prior to the diagnosis of PD. There is a world of difference between "in many (if not most) cases, the knowledge that one has clinical depression (CD) comes well before the diagnoses of PD. " and "in many (if not most) cases where CD is a factor, the knowledge that one has clinical depression (CD) comes well before the diagnoses of of PD." The first says that CD is already present in many (if not most) cases of diagnosed PD. The latter makes the point that where CD is present it often predates the diagnosis of PD. Perhaps I'm being pedantic. In another posting you say: >>JP >> the responses (to CD postings) i have received have been >> 99.9% positive and reinforcing DG >which ties in with my perception that most CD related postings >speak as if PD and CD are inseperable. JP >whew >is it my brain cells or what? >i can't recall any postings about cd that have spoken that way Of course no one makes the statement that the two are inseperable, but it is my "perception" that most postings discussing CD carry that implication in exactly the way I have discussed above. Once more, perhaps I am being pedantic. But I do wonder what response I would get should I ever make the statement "in many (if not most) cases, CD is not a factor in PD" as opposed to the more accurate "in many cases, CD is not a factor in PD" Dennis ************************************************* Dennis Greene 48/10 [log in to unmask] http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/ **************************************************