 |
 |
Janet.... Uhhhhhh..... I did TOO add in them dates at the end of a message...... errrrr... a coupla times! <grin> Picky, picky, picky.... <'nother grin> Barb Mallut [log in to unmask] msn.com -----Original Message----- From: janet paterson <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Thursday, December 03, 1998 2:54 AM Subject: Re: Numbers? / the three ages of parkinson's >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] >