 |
 |
Ivan, your quesrtion was does anyone want to comment, wasn't it? It was not does anyone not want to comment, right? Well, here is mine. Are we too quiet? I don't know, are we? It seems to me that PAN and NPF and the other one should be TELLING us if we are being too quiet, we should not have to be asking them. Are we their constituency or is it the other way around? Or neither, I don't even know. Ivan, you say you got a machine. MAYBE WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE QUIET - PERHAPS EVERYONE IS ON VACATION, OR SILENCE IS PART OF THE STRATEGY. WHERE ARE OUR ADVISORS ON THIS? OR DO WE HAVE ANY? HOW ABOUT ALL THE LIST MEMBERS(FORMER?) WHO WERE NAMED TO SOME ADVISORY GROUP SOME TIME AGO (JIM GORBY?) (I just looked up. All these caps are unintentional & typing is such a chore that - please forgive me. You wouddl no believe how bad y ttyoin lookds inis raw rform - i'll leave thsisoyou do. ths all hap ened over the ap pst 4-5 monhs.). Are they still well enough to give some advice to us too? It just seems to me you're operating somewhat in the dark these days..... -----Original Message----- From: Ivan M Suzman <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Cc: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wednesday, July 29, 1998 5:50 AM Subject: Re: A 10th Question/we are too QUIET!!! >> Hi Darwin and listfriends, >> >>If we are not PUSH-y, remember, folks, we will not get our slice of the >>pie. >> >>PLEASE keep developing the dialogue about the Udall LAW. >> >>What Darwin says below, especially, >> >>"let's hold their feet to the fire" >> >>is SO important!! >> >>The politicians listen to NUMBERS and NOISE. We are too QUIET right >>now!! >> >>They don't listen to complacency. This list is TOO complacent. I >>called the P.A.N., and all I got was an answering machine. We MUST be >>more NOISY--or the Udall LAW will be a hollow victory. >> >>Sorry to ruffle everyone's feathers--we CANNOT slide into sleep right >>now! Too much money is at stake!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >>Ivan (sometimes , as Camilla F. teases, the gadfly of the list) >> >>^^^^^^WARM GREETINGS FROM^^^^^^^^^^ >>Ivan Suzman 48/11 [log in to unmask] >>Portland, Maine land of lighthouses deg. F >>*********************************************************** >> >>On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 13:53:18 -0500 "Hawkins, Darwin" >><[log in to unmask]> writes: >>> Ivan, et. al, >>> >>> Here's a 10th question/comment to add to your list of 9 >>>questions previously posted. >>> >>>> > The Committee requests NINDS to report on its progress in >>>> > implementing the Act at its fiscal year 2000 appropriations >>>> > hearing. >>>> >>>Is it going to take a year to show any "progress" in "implementing" >>>the >>>Act? How long does it take to get started? (Whoops, two questions!) >>>i.e., When a law is put on the books, usually the police start issuing >>>tickets immediately. The requirements of the Udall Act are pretty >>>clear. >>> >>>Nowhere in the report does it say that $100,000,000 is to be >>>appropriated and used exclusively toward Parkinson's research. The >>>ball >>>is in the committee's court to properly fund the Act. Until that is >>>accomplished, the progress reports are only going to be so much "hot >>>air". I would think that the Committee and the NINDS would be in >>>violation of the act if they did anything other than what it >>>specifies. >>>Let's hold their feet to the fire. >>> >>> >>>darwin hawkins >