 |
 |
christine said in part: > It was when I re-subscribed after I got back that I noticed the huge volume > of mail, and the large numbers of unnecessary letters. My letter actually > took me 4 hours to compose. I never considered myself in a role of > "Official List Police", and I hope not many others of you saw me that way. > They were just what I considered to be sensible, helpful suggestions, to > keep the list relevant to as many as possible. I never considered myself as unpatriotic and unaware of what is happening in the world outside of Parkinson's research agenda. Yet, when I hastily replied to Ivan's message re:anger at the ease of leadership to spend on national defense in comparison to the struggle to get funding for Parkinson's research, some interpreted my focus on pd research as perhaps not being aware of the condition of the world and the necessity of defending the USA. I chose to explain my intent of message to those individuals offlist. It is interesting how the e-mail medium does lend itself to misinterpretation by the receiver. Without the feedback of facial expressions, vocal emphasis, or the opportunity to ask, "Am I understanding you to say .........?" other list receivers can and do respond to our messages in ways we as senders never thought or meant the message to be received. Maybe this is an area where replies to messages could be phrased, "Do I understand you to mean....?" > I never suggested, or intended to suggest, that "HUMOUR" or "NON PD" should > be excluded from the list - only that it be APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFIED. I think labeling is helpful to the list membership. Thanks for your suggestions for the list, Christine. Jeanette Fuhr 47/10mo. <[log in to unmask]>