Re: chaos and flames

[DAVID OLLER <doller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wendy,

I have appreciated your letters, and want to thank you. The only other thing
is that I want to apologize to Janet for the obvious derogatory remarks I
made to here.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Parkinson's Information Exchange
> [mailto:PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Tebay, Wendy M
> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 1998 11:44 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list PARKINSN
> Subject: chaos and flames
>
>
> Whew!  I was gone for a couple days and it looks as tho' all heck broke
> loose.  I still haven't caught up on all the digests I've received in the
> past couple days.  I don't even think I got beyond the first one yet and I
> saw total chaos!  That wasn't my original intent when I posted my response
> to Janet's policing of "snake-oil salesmen", etc.  That's why in part I
> suggested keeping some of this off list, as that sort of behavior and
> flaming should not be occurring on the public list.  I really doubt anyone
> is too interested in hearing name-calling, etc.
>
> Altho' when I first posted my concerns over this whole issue, it
> hadn't yet
> totally degraded to the level it is now, but  I sensed that sort of thing
> coming.  I think everyone agrees that we can disagree and even challenge
> another, but when it crosses the line into personal attacks, it's starting
> to go too far.  That's why I spoke up before, because I sensed
> some of that
> in Janet's questioning, whether that  was her intent or not.
>
> Janet, like I've said, it wasn't that I didn't appreciate your
> checking into
> things like this for us, but I was disturbed by what you were then doing
> with the info.  I felt anyway, that  your lines of questioning
> were straying
> far from your stated intent of questioning the person's motives or whether
> they were perhaps hiding something regarding personal financial interests.
> When you would question them, they gave what to me sounded like reasonable
> answers, particularly since I had seen no evidence of them trying to sell
> anything in the first place.  You said that you didn't presuppose
> guilt, but
> in this last case, it seemed to me that you definitely did.  Once
> you found
> the web site, you seemed to me to have already made up your mind that this
> then automatically conferred guilt upon the accused.  In our
> country's legal
> system, it's up to the government/accuser to prove guilt, the
> onus is not on
> the individual to prove their innocence.  A subtle difference, but very
> significant.  The second scenario presupposes guilt.  Like this comment
> about his posting, that you made after finding his web page:
>
> since his lengthy introductory message mentions everything but
> the profits he would make from such sales
>
> Maybe, he never mentioned it, nor his web page, simply because he had no
> intent of trying to profit from our list.  He may sell that stuff
> elsewhere,
> but that doesn't automatically mean that also includes here.  I'm
> not being
> naive, cuz maybe he intended to and maybe he didn't,  but obviously you've
> already drawn your conclusions prior to your first round of questioning.
>
> I personally felt David's first round of answers to your questioning to be
> very reasonable.  One of the things you said, in particular, to one of his
> answers, offended me, due to its sarcastic and rude tone.  It was this:
>
> (David) Now if you think I could watch
> >three of my family die of Parkinsons,
>
> (Janet)  that is so sad...
> who were they?
> how long did they have pd?
> what treatments did they undergo?
> please share with us
>
> Was I wrong in labelling your method of questiong as being rude and
> offensive?  I don't think so, and this is only one example, but one that
> particularly bothered me.  You are no longer addressing his
> profit motives,
> but belittling his feelings and experiences regarding deceased family
> members.  I find that very insulting and irrelevant to your purported
> purpose here.  This is not stating your opinion, nor is it
> questioning that
> is any of your, nor our, business.  I've related many times on
> this list the
> story of my youngest brother who died of cancer and how it has affected
> every area of my life.  You have absoluely no idea how angry I
> would become
> were someone to question my sincerity on that and to use such sarcasm.
> Janet, that is a personal attack, and of the sort which I personally would
> rather not see on this list.  Your whole tone and attitude here
> is far from
> one of objective questioning of the relevant evidence.  That's also why I
> said that it seems that altho' you say you want to be proven wrong,
> statements like this above leave me with a very different opinion.
>
> Also, when I complained that I didn't particularly want someone else
> speaking or drawing conclusions on my behalf, you said that you had only
> been speaking for yourself and your own opinions.  Then why do you post he
> following each time you catch a 'huckster':
>
> as i have stated loud and clear to other internet hucksters
> who have used this same shameful sales method
> of deliberate concealment of motives
> by preying on my cyber-family
> and our shared condition
>
> Not that I mind being a part of your cyber-family, but this implies some
> sort of big-sister protection that I never asked for.  The comment on our
> "shared condition" implies to me also that you are protecting us from
> becoming victims again of some huckster, as perhaps we were already first
> made victims by pd.  I have problems with the implication that
> I'm a victim
> of any sort, and even more so potentially thanks to pd.  I want to be
> exposed to any and all info that I can get my hands on.  That
> includes both
> pro and con info, that I can use to make up my own mind.  I am
> not, nor will
> I ever be a victim of any sort who needs another's protection.  I
> don't mean
> to offend by this, as the oldest sister in my family myself, I am very
> protective of my brother, however, he doesn't necessarily always want or
> need my protection either.  That's why I finally suggested that
> you post the
> web site address so that we could go and decide for ourselves.  I wouldn't
> have minded either had you stated your opinion that you considered this to
> be damning evidence, and leave it at that.  Like I mention above, I feel
> that your opinion went too far into almost abusive questioning.
>
> Janet, I'm not trying to pick on you, nor am I unappreciative of your
> efforts.  Quite the opposite.  For the record, should David's
> profit motives
> be truly shady and purposely concealed, then and only then, may he deserve
> that sort of response that you gave him already.  I just felt it to be way
> premature, especially as I didn't believe him to be guilty of
> anything, yet,
> and who knows, maybe not ever.  I don't necssarily condone the
> name-calling
> and flaming that's now started, but I have to say that I'm not surprised.
> No person, guilty or not, likes to have every aspect of their integrity
> challenged.  There are ways to question and to challenge another
> without the
> sarcasm, personal attacks, and irrelevant questions.
>
> Well, I'm not really sure whether I should even post this, as
> like I said, I
> only started  going thru one digest and couldn't believe the chaos myself.
> I would've posted this message privately, to save everyone else the hassle
> of seeing yet another posting on this subject, but as it seems that Janet
> will post it publically anyway, I won't bother.
>
> I too hope, that once these flames die down, that we can resume being a
> "cyber-family" and supporting each other.  Sometimes tho', it's families
> that have the worst fights too.  So, in closing I'll just say
> that I respect
> Janet's, David's, and everyone else's opinions, and that I love seeing
> differing opinions and even controversy at times.  I do not,
> however, enjoy
> personal attacks, and that's really what most of my objections
> and comments
> boiled down to.
>
> Wendy Tebay
>