 |
 |
Janet, your response to this e-mail makes me feel like I want to submit your name to the Pope for "canonization". Of course there are those times when I think "Janet, you little devil, you". LOL :-) :-), Guess you are just human after all. This might be a good time to remind list members that you can send an offsets mail to the 'From' address in the message header (In most cases). Bob Chapman janet paterson wrote: > hi all > > At 21:52 1999/11/10 EST, linda wrote to me, in part: > >Janet, You are providing a marvelous, invaluable service to > >thousands of people and your efforts do not go unrecognized... > > credit for the list's existence goes to barb patterson > list-mom and founding-mother [!] > i've been helping her with the nerdish stuff only since july this year > when she took her first holiday away from 'da list' in > six count'em six years > > i agree it's a marvellous if not miraculous resource > and cannot imagine coping without it > i.e. without all of you > > >I must just be missing something about the way this list runs, > >as opposed to other listservs, no criticism or disrespect > >intended. To each his own.... > > each list develops its own 'personality' i suppose > there are lots of different ways the software can be set up > and which affect the list activity in a very direct way > > in this case, since 'exchange' is the name of the game > the default setting for any replies to postings on the list > is set to 'reply to the list' rather than 'to the individual sender' > > we tried it the other way for a few months at the beginning of the year > but switched back to 'reply to the list' so as to retain > the maximum benefit from 'sharing' > > which is why i tend to answer non-confidential messages > like this one via the list > i figure someone out there might benefit from eavesdropping > if not now, maybe later, while digging in the archives > > there is an 'over-ride' feature which i have activated > so that the 'reply to' is consistent through all e-mail software > [some of them follow the internet rules and some sort of do] > > >Sorry. I did not realize AOL has a different set-up than > >other e-mail headings. Interestingly enough, I had no > >intentions of putting the response back to the list, > >but only to the sender. Somehow it still got sent to the whole > >list...which was exactly the point the sender was making... > > i was an AOLian for a little more than a year > after having been 'etherized' on the net for a few years > that experience was an eye-opener > > there are a lot of internet and e-mail 'conventions' > which don't seem to be written down anywhere > [i guess one is supposed to know them by osmosis] > which i didn't understand until they went > astray or askew with my AOL mail > > >It's not the postings on the list that are annoying, in fact, > >for the most part they're quite beneficial and it's both > >reassuring and thought-provoking to hear what others have to > >say. Within 24 hours of signing up, I've learned much and been > >personally contacted with helpful offers and information.... > > good > > >But, being new to the list, it's frustrating to open a number > >of the e-mails and have no way of knowing ahead of time that > >they're pieces of an ongoing personal conversation. I felt like > >I was intruding... > > yes > it is like jumping into the middle of several conversations at once > but it's not called 'intruding' > listening in while you get your bearings is called 'lurking'! > > i don't mean to sound patronising so ignore the following if it's old news > but it may be new news to some newbies: > > E-MAIL CONVENTION NUMBER 202: > If a message subject header line has a Re: at the front of it, > it means that the message is a REply to a previous message; > i.e. part of a subject 'thread' of messages. > If there is no RE: in the subject header line, > that message is the start of a newly introduced subject. > > >Regarding my ties to PD.... > >My 79 year old mother has PD and lives quite a distance from me, > >so there is no way I can look in on her or go to the doctor with her. > >She tries to protect me by not giving me the whole story. For years, > >she actually lied to me about her apparent PD, because she didn't want > >me to worry... > > i will play amateur psych here and wonder out loud > if she is 'ashamed' to show her true pd condition to anyone? > it isn't a rare attitude; i even know about it myself [!] > > >I had no way of knowing what she was telling doctors and > >visa-versa. And she admits, herself, that she doesn't ask > >questions of doctors... > > if she won't or can't, then someone has to, in my humble opinion. > there is still too much ignorance out there in all fields > about how to deal with it > > >She is coming to visit me for three weeks-soon- because her > >companion-"caretaker" (also 79) is going on vacation. Since her > >condition is advancing quickly and she is finding it difficult > >to find the right balance of meds, and her falls are increasing... > > oops > alarm bells are ringing > > when did her condition start 'advancing quickly'? > this is not normal for pd > especially when it has been progressing more slowly previously > > the speed-up has to be caused by something; > what change was made then > in her meds, her diet, her lifestyle, her stress level etc? > > >I felt the best thing to do was sign up and find out > >everything I could. I just joined the CARE list and I have > >started to surf websites of major orgs. for research.... > > that is the best thing you could do > knowledge is power > > >Her companion is a sweetheart and I'm extremely grateful > >that he lives near her and looks after her, but I can't > >expect him to take full responsiblity. I must become the > >educated one in the family. There is no-one else. I can't > >possibly be a good caretaker if I don't learn all I can... > > yep > she's lucky to have you > > >Already, having been on the list only a few days, I learned > >enough about the meds to at least ask my mom specific questions > >about what she is taking. It was the first intelligent conversation > >we had about her condition in all the years since the diagnosis.... > > that's good news! > the med regimen details of 'how much' and 'how often' are critical > > timing is all > just like tuning up a powerful engine > > >so I really do appreciate the list. > >Peace. Linda > > ditto and ditto! > > janet > > janet paterson > 52 now / 41 dx / 37 onset > e-mail - [log in to unmask] > web-site - http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/6263/