 |
 |
Wendy, I have appreciated your letters, and want to thank you. The only other thing is that I want to apologize to Janet for the obvious derogatory remarks I made to here. David > -----Original Message----- > From: Parkinson's Information Exchange > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Tebay, Wendy M > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 11:44 PM > To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN > Subject: chaos and flames > > > 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 >