 |
 |
At 11:24 1998/12/03 -0800, barb m. wrote: >For what it's worth. I plan on continuing to use two numbers: The >first indicating my age, and the second indicating when I initially >noticed PD symptoms Period. hey barb whaddya mean 'continuing' !?! i don't remmber ever seeing you use the 'numbers' !?! [no criticism intended - just 'rattling your cage!] i thought about the numbers for some time before settling on the 'three ages of parkinson's' when i found myself writing down 51-41-37 i almost did a double-take - "say, 37 is pretty young, isn't it?" maybe it's just me but seeing it in black and white like that so frequently recently has done something to me in re my awareness and maybe my further acceptance of my situation [maybe this is to do with my going 'seriously' public i.e. my application for disability?] i know a lot of us have had difficulty with either wanting to ignore the symptoms as long as possible or getting an accurate diagnosis so the time delay between the -41- and the -37- [e.g.] can be of some significance in my case, the -37- is not at all vague i distinctly remember how 'unlimber' i felt when 'trying' to dance at tipitina's in new orleans! the middle figure -41- , i.e. age when diagnosed, can be significant given the frequent delays i mention above since in a lot of cases it marks the beginning of med therapy just my two cdn cents' worth janet ps in re your publicity opportunities: you-go-grrrrrl! janet paterson - 51 now /41 dx /37 onset - almonte/ontario/canada [log in to unmask]