 |
 |
hi again charlie At 11:05 1998/12/18 -0600, you wrote, in part: >Well here it is- the results of the survey... >A few words of caution. This is Not a Scientific survey. >It is reflective of the opinions of only those that answered >it. It is reasonable data for what it is. It is not a vote >and carries no authority. i am not a survey expert but i suspect that your 'results' are skewed and do not reflect the list as a whole - only those motivated to answer your call 50 out of 1600 members = 3% of the total membership can hardly constitute a basis for anything since the vast majority of members did not respond can we conclude from the 'silent majority' that they think your survey a waste of time? we are 1600 people with 1600 opinions however, the 'exploded' numbers have never been explored i.e. the off-line individuals and pd support groups that are 'fed' info from this list by generous sharing members >Barb is the final authority and I suspect that >she has no stomach or desire for censorship. i don't see how there can be any 'suspicion' about it barb patterson stated very clearly recently: -------------------------------- Once again the issue of rules /protocols /appropriate /inappropriate messages has arisen on the list. There is NO requirement to put any identifying numbers on one's messages. There are no "list-rules" other than an expectation of an adult, considerate sharing of information about Parkinson's which would include NO selling and NO flaming. Please keep off-topic messages to a minimum. Remember that the University of Toronto is allowing us to provide the Parkinson list at NO cost to us. My time is volunteered as is Janet's, Camilla's, Joe's and everyone else who helps to keep the list working. -------------------------------- >But what I would like to see it used for is for us >to develop a consensus as what the list is and what we >want it to be. The consensus should take into account >the legitimate needs of the largest number of PWP's >and Caregivers that are interested and in my view >should be inclusive rather than exclusive.... charlie i have to ask why did you leave the list? and why did you come back? we are all here for specific personal reasons we come and go for specific personal reasons we are free to do so we are free to post what we wish [within barb patterson's gudieline] the internet may be an ultimate democracy this list may be an ultimate democracy but only to a point i feel strongly that all this focus on 'what's wrong with the list' constitutes looking a 'gift horse in the mouth' [sorry barb!] i would never dream of criticizing such a gift and find it difficult to understand those who do if we feel the need to 'do something' can we not find ways to assist barb patterson in her selfless work rather than analysing ways that it 'should be' changed? i have an alternate survey suggestion: 1. what do we love about the list? why? 2. what do we hate about the list? why? 3. what are we going to do about these feelings of ours? janet paterson - 51 now /41 dx /37 onset - almonte/ontario/canada [log in to unmask]