 |
 |
At 13:59 1999/08/18 +0800, you wrote: >Janet, > >I am perplexed. I wrote a letter to the list concerning a trend I have >noticed on the list. I deliberately kept it general in the spirit of >discussing ideas and not attacking individuals (an approach you have >recently insisted on in your capacity as list administrator), just following house rules is all my being honoured with the responsibilities of co-list-mom is totally dependent on barb patterson's agreement an attack or a challenge directly at me and my ideas is debate "janet, your ideas strike me as insensitive and ego-centric" an attack or a challenge at my character is a slur or a 'flame' "janet, you are an insensitive egomaniac" i can and may and no doubt will change my mind about my ideas i cannot change my character as given to me >and you >responded to it with a letter that not only insists on personalising the >exchange but with the repeated use of the phrase "if you mean me and my >reply to joan snyder" introduced a note of totally unnecessary belligerence. i didn't intend belligerence, just a degree of aggressiveness maybe our perception is our choice >I am even more perplexed why, if your posting contained none of the >attitudes mine commented on, you should assume that I was referring to it? i didn't - that's why i kept qualifying my statements >I wrote PCPD in response to a trend I have been thinking about for some >time. The recent exchange of letters initiated by the Samuelson comments, an >exchange which, among others, included your reply to Joan Snyder, brought my >thinking on the subject into focus. That I am not the only person to >perceive this trend is made evident by the responses my posting has drawn. >So - yes I did, and still do, include your posting among those I commented >on. so you were referring to my comments so now i am perplexed by your perplexion >And as you insist on raising the issue, please see below my signature >group. >you wrote: > > "just what "case" is joan quoted as making? > > I do believe that her words are pulled > ***** by the print medium involved ***** > out of an impassioned plea she made re funding pd research" > >my translation (no doubt shaded by being male) > > Jane (Samuelson) cannot possibly have meant what she is reported as >saying (why not - is it untrue, or just unpalatable) therefore she is being >misquoted. And anyway what she said was said in the context of asking for >funds and so was exaggerated for effect. [In other words Stage V only exists >to frighten Congress] this is your interpretation i don't understand how you arrived at it that was not my meaning at all >you wrote: > >despite the "failings" and the "weaknesses" that you exhibit >you've had options and benefits that past parkies have not had >viz moe udall > >my translation > > Stop whinging, we've never had it so good. this is your interpretation i don't understand how you arrived at it that was not my meaning at all >[Janet - I have no idea how advanced your PD is but I know how advanced Joan >Snyder's is and you would need to be Stage VI to say what you said with any >authority. At the very least I'd say you owe her an apology. Incidentally I >would see your comments here as getting close to a personal attack] this is your interpretation i don't understand how you arrived at it that was not my meaning at all >Joan said: > > I've become a realist with optimistic attitudes. > >to which you replied: > > the word REALIST is not a synomym for PESSIMIST > at least not the last time I looked > >my comment: > >if this statement doesn't mean you look on Joan's posting and or attitude as >pessimistic I'm not sure what it means, particularly considering that you >have chosen to ignore Joan's own assessment of herself. not ignored at all certainly not put down maybe pushy teasing of a loved friend who has whirling dervish tendencies in between spells on the couch >you wrote: > >if we ourselves fall for the headline seeking traps and ploys >of the fear-mongering-exaggeration-prone-awfulizing-style of the media >how can we hope to turn pd awareness around? > >my translation: > >we must not let the media convince us that (late stage) PD is a bad thing >[why not - is it not true?], because if they do how can we hope to change >the rest of the worlds awareness of PD. not my meaning or intent at all i am still flabbergasted at your 'take' on my words janet janet paterson 52 now / 41 dx / 37 onset snail-mail: PO Box 171 Almonte Ontario K0A 1A0 Canada website: a new voice <http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/6263/> e-mail: <[log in to unmask]>