Re: NON-PD: English please

[Janice Morgan <bunny@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Charlie,
     You are right, religion is a big part of my life also but will not push
it on to others, unless I am asked for my point of view. We all have a
delete button. Janice
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles T. Meyer, M.D. <cmeyer2@xxxxxxxx>
To: <PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: NON-PD: English please


> Greg,
>
> I'm sorry my English was not to your liking and if I wasn't clear I am
> sorry-  if  double talk referred to my syntax rather than my argument.
 My
> syntax does tend  to get tangled at  times and did in that letter).
>
>  I was responding to Bob Anibal not to you. My thesaurus  gives as
synonyms
> of debate- "argument" and "disagreement"  There is a slight difference
> between the two- a shade of meaning.
>
> My point about religion as having a place on the list has to do with the
> central role it plays in many people's lives. As I believe Murph asked-
> ":You wouldn't put a ban on talking about Sinemet would you?"  His faith
is
> that central to him.  While don't share his views on religion,  his faith
in
> his mind is inseparable from his PD.  I am against censoring any view.  I
> will argue with him when he and I disagree- which is often- but I will
> defend his RIGHT to discuss it here.   If the subject is too controversial
> and will cause too much of a conflict I would be willing to take it off
list
> VOLUNTARILY but IMHO it belongs here.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Greg Sterling <sterling@xxxxxxxx>
> To: <PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 12:08 PM
> Subject: NON-PD: English please
>
>
> > Charlie,
> >
> > Talk about double-talk.  English please!  Better check your dictionary
for
> > the correct definition of debate and argument and stop relying on your
own
> > interpretation.
> >
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
**************************************************************************
> >
> > From: Charles T. Meyer, M.D. <cmeyer2@xxxxxxxx>
> > To: PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Monday, November 15, 1999 12:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: RELIGION and the list
> >
> >
> > >Bob,
> > >
> > >The problem with your statement is what is debate and what is argument.
> I
> > >think that everything except  attacks directed at an individual should
be
> > >fair game.  The problem even with this is what crosses the line.
Heated
> > >debate can easily push these limits and  get people angry.  It is just
a
> > >small jump from saying  your logic is faulty from saying you are
> illogical.
> > >As long as a person is not being harassed off LIST with unwanted email
> and
> > >they are following the rules of the list as far as using headings to
> > >minimize offense that might be taken by someone who chooses not to
> > >participate I agree that the discussions (or arguments should be
allowed
> on
> > >the list.)
> > >
> > >And Janet your observation is quite revealing- that this legend still
> stirs
> > >feeling today.  I think that- as I said before- that adults should have
> > >unrestricted debate and contact with all views.  If we don't accept
that
> > >then we become anti-democratic.  It should be each of our choices about
> > what
> > >we read  and discuss.  The statement proposes to limit that
availability
> > >even with almost unlimited access to the airwaves at this point in
time.
> > >(Balance was an issue when there were only a few stations available in
> each
> > >market).
> > >
> > >Let us try to be inclusive rather than exclusive on our list, respect
> > >everyone's views and their right to hold them.  But,  if some PWP's are
> so
> > >upset by this that they can't handle it they have the right to opt out.
> If
> > >volume is your problem then use the filters Janet has provided for us
or
> > >those on your own mail program.  If you don't know how to use them then
> ask
> > >someone.
> > >
> > >
> > >Charlie
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: Bob Anibal <boba@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >To: <PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 9:40 AM
> > >Subject: Re: RELIGION and the list
> > >
> > >
> > >> There are , I feel, large differences between discussions, debates
and
> > >> arguments. The first is or can be educational and everybody wins the
> > >others
> > >> often get heated and no-win
> > >> Bob A
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: janet paterson <janet313@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> To: <PARKINSN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 10:37 PM
> > >> Subject: Re: RELIGION and the list
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > hi all
> > >> >
> > >> > At 21:46 1999/11/14 -0500, greg wrote, in part:
> > >> > >... but cannot see the relevance of religion and its impact
> > >> > >onpersonal innerpeace...
> > >> >
> > > PD other than to give some sort of > > i personally found the
diagnosis
> of
> > >pd and my acceptance of same
> > >> > a real "wake-up-and-smell-the-coffee call"
> > >> > i started looking at my priorities pretty hard then
> > >> > and am still making adjustments
> > >> >
> > >> > i think that a diagnosis of any condition
> > >> > which is chronic and incurable and degenerative
> > >> > would affect most people in similar ways;
> > >> > it's a profound and intimate and solitary
> > >> > not to mention frightening event/trauma/realization
> > >> > to have to come to grips with;
> > >> > any or all of which qualities would probably
> > >> > send most people scurrying to their 'creed' for comfort
> > >> >
> > >> > >I try to avoid discussions on religion and politics because they
> > >> > >are both no-win situations.  As proof I only need to refer to the
> > >> > >much heated debate on the subject...
> > >> >
> > >> > what is it about a heated debate
> > >> > that make you feel it's a no-win situation?
> > >> >
> > >> > someone here once described a "vigourous discussion"
> > >> > as something like "aerobics for the mind"
> > >> >
> > >> > >I only started to question the religion posts to prove a point to
> > >> > >myself about the raw nerve religious debate touches in people...
> > >> >
> > >> > not in everyone, surely? and not every debate?
> > >> >
> > >> > >I also did it to try and provoke some emotion out of
> > >> > >what I felt were some fairly bland discussions....
> > >> >
> > >> > hey
> > >> > wait a minute
> > >> > have you not just contradicted yourself,
> > >> > or gone full circle,or fulfilled your own prophecies
> > >> > or am i missing something here?
> > >> >
> > >> > 1. religious discussions are no-win; the proof being
> > >> > 2. the heated debate which developed on the list
> > >> > 3. religious debates touch raw nerves in people
> > >> > 4. the religious discussions on the list were so bland
> > >> > 5. that you actively provoked emotions
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > janet
> > >> >
> > >> > whose religious birth-right comprised
> > >> > a protestant mother
> > >> > assisted by a catholic doctor
> > >> > in a jewish hospital
> > >> >
> > >
>