 |
 |
You criticize the people who criticize others for criticizing MJF. I believe your criticisms should apply also those who would criticize the critisizers of the critisizers of mjf as well. Eh? Why comment at all on the motivations for others' posts? Just adds clutter to this List, which is getting overloaded again. I'm a junkie, have to read all. What I really hate are the 3 or 4 more posts we will now see who will forward back to us your entire post with, "I agree, " stuck on the bottom. NO ONE CARES! So please don't do it. No one should repost someone else's message unless it's days old. WE Just READ OT. 199 posts yesterday - toooo many. There are a lot of important discussions going on - we need some restraint. Officer Bruce -----Original Message----- From: janet paterson <[log in to unmask]> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN <[log in to unmask]> Date: Sunday, December 06, 1998 7:45 AM Subject: Re: ...Cast the first stone / applies to all of us >hi len and hilary > >At 12:21 1998/12/05 -0800, you wrote: >>Dear List Friends, >>We're appalled at the lack of compassion and quick, negative >>judgments shown by a number of members on this list. Who are >>we to sit in judgment of Michael J. Fox? We tell the world >>that each case of Parkinsons is unique. We, more than other >>people, should understand this. Each of us faces this challenge >>in our own way, in our own time. Together we have the power to >>do much good, but not when we undermine one another. We support >>the thoughtful and informed sharing of opinions, but let's do so >>with our hearts open. If we thought that Michael J. Fox and his >>wife were reading this list, we'd be embarrassed to be on it. >>Does anyone else feel this way? Len (62/4) and Hilary Zunin > >it seems that you are upset by some of >the other listmembers' reactions to the mjf situation? > >i don't mean to sound condescending or anything negative at all; >i am just seeking clarity... > >there have been many different opinions voiced here >in response to mjf-et-al > >are we not each of us individuals >entitled to express our own opinions? >even though they may not agree with yours or mine? > >this 'casting the first stone' issue >resembles the old 'chicken/egg' riddle/paradox: > >who are the 'others' to sit in judgment of mjf? >who are you to sit in judgment of 'others' >who am i to sit in judgment of you? > >when [not if] 'others' express opinions different than mine >i do not have to react in anger [=fear?] > >their opinion does nothing to invalidate mine >my opinion does nothing to invalidate theirs > >the opinions of 'others' >although radically different than mine >have roots and sources which are very similar to mine > >we are all, >each one of us, >unique products of >our own unique experiences and outlook and skills > >>...we tell the world that each case of parkinson's is unique. >>We, more than other people, should understand this. Each of >>us faces this challenge in our own way, in our own time... > >this is exactly my point! > >those 'others' are reacting to the present circumstances >based on their own unique experiences to date >and with the skills that they have developed to date >and within their 'own comfort-time-frame' > >no one has the right to tell me >i 'should' or 'shouldn't' be doing/saying/thinking/smelling something > >i do not have the right to tell anyone else >they 'should' or 'shouldn't' be doing/saying/thinking/smelling something > >>Together we have the power to do much good, >>but not when we undermine one another. > >are you not 'undermining' others >when you criticize them for their 'lack of compassion'? >is that not your own judgment on their behaviour? > >>We support the thoughtful and informed sharing >>of opinions, but let's do so with our hearts open. > >if you suggest that 'your way' of expression is the best way >have you not closed your heart to 'others'? > >>If we thought that Michael J. Fox and his wife were >>reading this list, we'd be embarrassed to be on it. > >why? >does their opinion matter more than yours? >or the 'others'? >or mine? > >flashback: >'family atmosphere' posted in july 97 > > i'm glad that our sibling ron > felt safe enough with us to express his frustration > > this isn't a public forum > > it's a group of people > brought together by an uncommon condition > which is progressive, incurable, and degenerative > > we are not the average joe or jane on the street > > we and the people we care about > have been through and are still going through > a test by fire > > at times we need to share what we are really feeling > because this may be our only outlet > > this may be the only group we have access to > who might understand > > being a family doesn't mean 'happy days' > being a family doesn't necessarily mean being 'polite' > being a family doesn't mean we're 'on the prowl' or 'lookin fer luv' > > it means facing ups and downs together for the long haul > knowing that we can just be us, no act, no pretense > knowing we're not alone > > and if that's not a miracle > i'll eat my hat > >envy anger etc >are 'deadly sins' >not because of how we appear to others >but because of how we appear to ourselves > >compassion begins at home > >janet > >janet paterson - 51 now /41 dx /37 onset - almonte/ontario/canada >[log in to unmask]