 |
 |
John and List. I appreciate your perspective as an active- long timer and especially your more active involvement when I first joined the list several years ago. I hope that you and others are not taking my attempt to look at the list as an attempt to force my opinions or views on others.. When this whole debate started with my doing the survey with an unfortunate title I was trying to get a sense and give the list a sense of where peoples opinions lie. I am overwhelmed by how negatively the asking of questions has been taken. An organism like the list if it does not develop self-awareness it will be carried along by forces of its environment and its innate structure for better or worse. I don't see anything wrong with taking a look at ourselves and reassessing our purposes and goals from time to time. We may well find out like you suggest that we are accomplishing pretty much what we want to accomplish. But we should take a look at it. Just as people grow by taking stock of their lives once in a while I think it is healthy for the list as well. I do not think the list is a democracy or necessarily should be ruled by majority rule. But if we know what we want to accomplish and can reach a consensus about it we have a much better chance of maximizing our value to the PD community. What do we want the list to be and are we accomplishing that goal? Does anybody see a problem with that as a discussion topic? Charlie John Cottingham wrote: > At 06:15 PM 1/10/99 -0600, you wrote: > >What was clear to me from the survey (and what I had felt prior to the > survey) is that most people > >see some sort of a problem with volume and relevance > > Those of us that have been here for the duration have seen the same when we > were a 10 to 20 message day list. > > We are an international list that has great resources that knows no > nationality, or creed or religion. > > People come and people go. What they receive is what we give them. > > Those that are angry, align with those that are angry. > Those that need factual information are given factual information. > Those who are concerned children or spouses are given information and hugs. > Those that are just diagnosed are given advice. > Those who are contemplating new treatments are joined with those who have > been there done that. > Support organizations are pointed to documentation that can be used in > their newsletter. > > Drug company representatives lurk to see how their drugs are being > perceived and used in the Parkinson's community. > > Equipment manufacturers do the same. > > Surveys measure opinion of the minority, the silent majority are members of > our family but are affected by the opinions of the minority. > > Some are like I was as a young sailor far from home....the shout of "Mail > Call" would lift the spirits of any. New messages from the parkinsn > listserv are looked forward to by many that have made the parkinsn list > their life. > > "Authorities" come and go with the seasons...the same is true with the > personalities of Parkinsn. The authorities feel the need to answer every > question and join every thread. > > The long view I have always had for the Parkinsn list is at the end of the > day...have we given information, hope and support to those who have asked > us. I keep that in mind regardless how big the list gets...regardless how > may silly messages I see...and how many nationalistic topics seem to go on > and on, we are here to help...when called upon. > > I have no time for petty bitching and moaning...a job is to be done > here...regardless. > > The Parkinsn list is not run by the majority but by one. Opinions come and > go but in the end Laissez-faire prevails. > > [log in to unmask] Search the parkinsn archive online at: > > John Cottingham -- ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************