 |
 |
Whew! I was gone for a couple days and it looks as tho' all heck broke loose. I still haven't caught up on all the digests I've received in the past couple days. I don't even think I got beyond the first one yet and I saw total chaos! That wasn't my original intent when I posted my response to Janet's policing of "snake-oil salesmen", etc. That's why in part I suggested keeping some of this off list, as that sort of behavior and flaming should not be occurring on the public list. I really doubt anyone is too interested in hearing name-calling, etc. Altho' when I first posted my concerns over this whole issue, it hadn't yet totally degraded to the level it is now, but I sensed that sort of thing coming. I think everyone agrees that we can disagree and even challenge another, but when it crosses the line into personal attacks, it's starting to go too far. That's why I spoke up before, because I sensed some of that in Janet's questioning, whether that was her intent or not. Janet, like I've said, it wasn't that I didn't appreciate your checking into things like this for us, but I was disturbed by what you were then doing with the info. I felt anyway, that your lines of questioning were straying far from your stated intent of questioning the person's motives or whether they were perhaps hiding something regarding personal financial interests. When you would question them, they gave what to me sounded like reasonable answers, particularly since I had seen no evidence of them trying to sell anything in the first place. You said that you didn't presuppose guilt, but in this last case, it seemed to me that you definitely did. Once you found the web site, you seemed to me to have already made up your mind that this then automatically conferred guilt upon the accused. In our country's legal system, it's up to the government/accuser to prove guilt, the onus is not on the individual to prove their innocence. A subtle difference, but very significant. The second scenario presupposes guilt. Like this comment about his posting, that you made after finding his web page: since his lengthy introductory message mentions everything but the profits he would make from such sales Maybe, he never mentioned it, nor his web page, simply because he had no intent of trying to profit from our list. He may sell that stuff elsewhere, but that doesn't automatically mean that also includes here. I'm not being naive, cuz maybe he intended to and maybe he didn't, but obviously you've already drawn your conclusions prior to your first round of questioning. I personally felt David's first round of answers to your questioning to be very reasonable. One of the things you said, in particular, to one of his answers, offended me, due to its sarcastic and rude tone. It was this: (David) Now if you think I could watch >three of my family die of Parkinsons, (Janet) that is so sad... who were they? how long did they have pd? what treatments did they undergo? please share with us Was I wrong in labelling your method of questiong as being rude and offensive? I don't think so, and this is only one example, but one that particularly bothered me. You are no longer addressing his profit motives, but belittling his feelings and experiences regarding deceased family members. I find that very insulting and irrelevant to your purported purpose here. This is not stating your opinion, nor is it questioning that is any of your, nor our, business. I've related many times on this list the story of my youngest brother who died of cancer and how it has affected every area of my life. You have absoluely no idea how angry I would become were someone to question my sincerity on that and to use such sarcasm. Janet, that is a personal attack, and of the sort which I personally would rather not see on this list. Your whole tone and attitude here is far from one of objective questioning of the relevant evidence. That's also why I said that it seems that altho' you say you want to be proven wrong, statements like this above leave me with a very different opinion. Also, when I complained that I didn't particularly want someone else speaking or drawing conclusions on my behalf, you said that you had only been speaking for yourself and your own opinions. Then why do you post he following each time you catch a 'huckster': as i have stated loud and clear to other internet hucksters who have used this same shameful sales method of deliberate concealment of motives by preying on my cyber-family and our shared condition Not that I mind being a part of your cyber-family, but this implies some sort of big-sister protection that I never asked for. The comment on our "shared condition" implies to me also that you are protecting us from becoming victims again of some huckster, as perhaps we were already first made victims by pd. I have problems with the implication that I'm a victim of any sort, and even more so potentially thanks to pd. I want to be exposed to any and all info that I can get my hands on. That includes both pro and con info, that I can use to make up my own mind. I am not, nor will I ever be a victim of any sort who needs another's protection. I don't mean to offend by this, as the oldest sister in my family myself, I am very protective of my brother, however, he doesn't necessarily always want or need my protection either. That's why I finally suggested that you post the web site address so that we could go and decide for ourselves. I wouldn't have minded either had you stated your opinion that you considered this to be damning evidence, and leave it at that. Like I mention above, I feel that your opinion went too far into almost abusive questioning. Janet, I'm not trying to pick on you, nor am I unappreciative of your efforts. Quite the opposite. For the record, should David's profit motives be truly shady and purposely concealed, then and only then, may he deserve that sort of response that you gave him already. I just felt it to be way premature, especially as I didn't believe him to be guilty of anything, yet, and who knows, maybe not ever. I don't necssarily condone the name-calling and flaming that's now started, but I have to say that I'm not surprised. No person, guilty or not, likes to have every aspect of their integrity challenged. There are ways to question and to challenge another without the sarcasm, personal attacks, and irrelevant questions. Well, I'm not really sure whether I should even post this, as like I said, I only started going thru one digest and couldn't believe the chaos myself. I would've posted this message privately, to save everyone else the hassle of seeing yet another posting on this subject, but as it seems that Janet will post it publically anyway, I won't bother. I too hope, that once these flames die down, that we can resume being a "cyber-family" and supporting each other. Sometimes tho', it's families that have the worst fights too. So, in closing I'll just say that I respect Janet's, David's, and everyone else's opinions, and that I love seeing differing opinions and even controversy at times. I do not, however, enjoy personal attacks, and that's really what most of my objections and comments boiled down to. Wendy Tebay