 |
 |
For a bunch of educated people some of you don't read so hot! BETTY, Nita, Judy, don, Nancy M, Hilary. I am not trying to be a wise guy. But please reread my post. I am the last one around here to want to put a kabash on the chit chat. I love the chit chat. It's just that I don't have time to read it all. I have 2 complaints - still unaddressed - no NOT PD if isn't, and using the same subject heading long after its demise. I was not picking on dogs or cats or anything in particular. This has been a topic before and it has been clearly settled. The vast majority of the 50+ or so of us active members want the NON PD stuff. Don't pick on Ken and Gina for me, Betty. I always read Ken and Gina. Ken is my favorite Liberal in the whole world! But I am absolutely certain that that we are in danger of losing some extremely valuable contributors to this list if we can't at least TRY to maintain a bit of labeling discipline. That's all - LABELING discipline. I have heard from one of these folks, who told me of others (one of them, an MD, helped me personally once) who aren't pleased with opening a post & having it say......... I can personally think of half a dozen list members we don't hear enough from any longer. And I am not talking about Udall experts. I now add a third complaint. People who don't read so hot! -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Anderson <[log in to unmask]> To: A. Parkinson List <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sunday, August 09, 1998 11:10 AM Subject: PD vs NOT PD >Does anyone else out there on this list wish that we could all PLEASE label >posts NOT PD that have have nothing whatever to do with Parkinson's Disease? >Or am I the only one? > >And does anyone else out there hope that we could all get away from the >practice of not changing the Subject heading until it is so far removed from >he original post that it no longer even involves the human race? > >It seems to me that it used to be easier to stick to reading the pertinent >posts than it is now. Deleting individuals rather than subjects is a poor >and unfortunate substitute. > >If I AM the only one - well excuse me and go to it! >Bruce Anderson (52,4) >