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), 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 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 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. And as you insist on raising the issue, please see below my signature
group.
Dennis.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dennis Greene 49/dx 37/ onset 32
There's nothing wrong with me that a cure for PD won't fix!
[log in to unmask]
http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
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]
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.
[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]
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.
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.
dg
