UPDATE: playgroup fiasco

dragonlady wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in
misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up, but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

Jayne


Given the rather strong differences of opinion between some of us
regulars on a couple of threads lately, I continue to find this
accusation of "group think" rather amazing!

--
Well I, for one, am doing it just to throw them off the scent.

Barbara

Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up, but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

See, the problem I pointed out has nothing to do with how politely written each
post is. And doesn't have anything to do with "conformity of ideas".

Think about it.

The problem that you pointed out is that I am like "a bull in a china
shop". What I understand you to mean by that is that you think that I
am disruptive. Thinking about it does not make your meaning any clearer
to me. Could you please clarify what is disruptive about my posts if it
is neither the style nor the content.

Jayne

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in
misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up,
but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

See, the problem I pointed out has nothing to do with how politely written
each
post is. And doesn't have anything to do with "conformity of ideas".

Think about it.



My husband says that to me. Makes me WACKY. It has such a loudly implied
"stupid" at the end of it.


Banty

In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up, but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

See, the problem I pointed out has nothing to do with how politely written each
post is. And doesn't have anything to do with "conformity of ideas".

Think about it.

The problem that you pointed out is that I am like "a bull in a china
shop". What I understand you to mean by that is that you think that I
am disruptive. Thinking about it does not make your meaning any clearer
to me. Could you please clarify what is disruptive about my posts if it
is neither the style nor the content.

Well, jumping HERE and joining in the complaining after a vanity search is one
thing (most people don't do that), but minor in the scheme of things. The
crossposting that you did concerning the husband in a.m. as I recall from
looking it over didn't end for a while, what I remember most is you having
actually inviting a childfree poster hostile to our group here to post, then
proposed to set misc.kid up as some kind of meeting ground (oh goody), and it
took a LONG time to get you off that and to try to set up a group of your own,
all the while we were dealing with the concomitant unpleasantness. Each problem
is met by a LOT of begging for folks to tell you what you did wrong, and abject
apologies, then you would turn right around and do something similar. A
bumbling, clueless pattern which leaves a trail of strife and unpleasantness and
irritation, but, oh, little Jaynie has been so polite in each post. But you
don't drop a thing, off you go over and over again. Bull in a china shop. So -
phooey, folks got fed up with that. And it has nothing to do with any of your
views.

Now, I hestitate to post THIS because, it's more attention for you to savor, and
it is likely to spark yet another round of "gee what did I do wrong I don't
understand I'm just well-meaning little Jayne I don't understand" from you.

Which is why this will be the end of explanations from me to you on this topic.

Banty

On 9 Feb 2006 00:19:46 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:

I would say that the thimerosol in vaccines apparently
does cause autism, based on the four pieces of evidence
I listed. What are you looking at when you conclude
that apparently it doesn't?

I posted the articles more than once. I am dealing with
my grandson and so don't have time to point out more.

Sorry, but at this point, I will simply agree to disagree on this
point. The vaccine problem is not relevant to me because as
far as I can see, there is no scientific evidence pointing to
a correlation or a cause and even if there were, the remedies
proposed don't seem to work. If you see people saying there
is a *cure* for autism, stay far away from them. There is no
cure. It's a neurological difference in the way the brain works
and we don't have any way to change neurological differences.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 8 Feb 2006 18:02:56 -0800, wrote:


Nan wrote:
On 8 Feb 2006 14:41:02 -0800, wrote:

I was called names by quite a few people. I was also told to go away
and that I didn't belong there.

Jayne, you didn't exactly start off on the right foot when you
crossposted issues to try and cause problems with a regs husband.

I was not trying to "cause problems". I was inviting the regular in
question to post to a newsgroup where her husband was being disruptive
and unreasonable, thinking that he would behave better if someone he
knew from real life was there. It was a stupid idea and didn't work at
all, but you insist on attributing bad motives to me that are simply
untrue.

According to *you* her husband was being disruptive and unreasonable.
We don't know that and most of the people who were around don't
believe that he was being *disruptive.*


When I saw how disastrous my impulse had been - the a.m regular felt
attacked and stalked - I backed off immediately and apologized. I
liked the sense of community I saw on a.m and wanted to make up for my
error by contributing something positive to the group so I asked people
if they would feel ok with me posting there. There were no objections.
Far from being a troll, my goals in posting to a.m were to fit in and
to be helpful and supportive.

Yes, you did. But with the original postings came the consequence
that others in am didn't trust you not to do the same thing again
despite your apology, I imagine.

Months later some people were still calling me names, telling me to go
away and still throwing that original mistake in my face. I
encountered many kind and delightful people during my time on a.m, but
there were also a significant number of nasty and vindictive ones. I
just kept taking what they dumped on me because I felt guilty about
that first post until one day I had had enough and left.

It's an unmoderated group. If -L can call us *entitlemoos* and call
our children names, etc., why do you believe that others cannot do
the same thing to you even if you felt bad about your initial mistake?
This is usenet. Netcopping is frowned upon anyway. As for taking
what they *dumped* on you, perhaps that was another mistake. If
you are happier not posting there, then that is a good thing too.

To
hear you tell it, you were innocent and unjustly attacked.

The attacks on me were out of proportion to my initial mistake and went
on far longer than was just, especially since I had essentially asked
for permission before I joined the group. The people who felt that
way ought to have said then that they would never forgive me or accept
me.

Sorry to be venting all this on m.k. It isn't really appropriate here,
but since the subject has come up, I am enjoying writing about this.
It gives me a such sense of closure. I feel good that I can now be so
calm about something that was so painful at the time.

I am glad you are calmer about it. I am sorry that your feelings got
hurt, but I don't see that the *group* did this, only that certain
people would not forgive and forget and did not trust your sincerity
or apology. In real life, they would have had facial expressions and
tone of voice to go by, but on usenet we don't have that and so
misunderstandings happen.

Jayne



--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
toto ) writes:
On 5 Feb 2006 16:04:06 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:
toto ) writes:
On 4 Feb 2006 16:45:13 GMT, (Catherine
Woodgold) wrote:
The medical evidence is that autism has nothing to do with
vaccination.

That's not true. There is no such evidence and can't
be such evidence. Even if autism has nothing to do with
vaccination, there can't be medical evidence proving or
supporting that; the most there can be is a lack of
evidence.

There is evidence that there is no correlation, thus there
cannot be any causation in terms of vaccines and autism.

What evidence are you talking about? What kind of
evidence, and where is it? Do you believe that there
is such a thing as statistical evidence proving that
there is precisely zero correlation between two variables?

Note that the incidence of autism went UP in Yokohama
while the vaccination rate went way down.

That's interesting. It shows that there are causes
of autism other than vaccinations -- which we
knew already from the fact that not all vaccinated
people get autism. Were some of the cases of autism
non-vaccinated? Do we know the rate of autism
among the non-vaccinated in that place?

Mercury probably does. However, the thimerosol in vaccines
apparently does not cause autism even if mercury in higher
doses might.

I would say that the thimerosol in vaccines apparently
does cause autism, based on the four pieces of evidence
I listed. What are you looking at when you conclude
that apparently it doesn't?

Otherwise you have to explain the fact that even when vaccination
did not take place, the rate of autism rose.

This needs to be explained in any case. It's still a perfectly
valid hypothesis that vaccinations, with or without thimerosol,
cause autism, even if there are also other causes. Proving
that there are some other causes doesn't disprove the
correlation with vaccination.

Has anyone measured the level of mercury in this population?
Apparently there's so much pollution now that it's possible
to get mercury poisoning symptoms from eating one tuna
sandwich a week (particular kinds of tuna, perhaps).
Maybe the level of autism is closely related to the
total amount of mercury in the body, from vaccines as
well as other sources. Or, maybe there are multiple
causes of autism.

As parents we tend to grab onto anything that
we think might help, but there is no evidence for this theory
except junk science.

Stating that there is "medical evidence" that autism has
nothing to do with vaccination is junk science. Where
is this alleged evidence? Furthermore, there is evidence
of a link between vaccination and autism (see near the
end of this post).

I notice you don't seem to have answered my question:
where is the evidence you claim exists? You stated
as quoted earlier in this post: "The medical evidence
is that autism has nothing to do with vaccination."
What evidence are you referring to?

Evidence #1: autism, previously practically unknown, began
being diagnosed in relatively high numbers a few years after
vaccinations were introduced. This same phenomenon happened
in different years in different countries (Japan? The U.S.?).

Unfortunately the studies don't produce any correlation even
if this is true. The fact that autism increased includes many
confounding factors including better diagnoses and other
environmental causes.

What do you mean when you say the studies "don't produce
any correlation"? Do you mean that by some great
coincidence the numbers balance out to precicely zero?
Do you mean that the numbers work out to a
negative correlation between
vaccination and autism? Or do you mean
that the numbers work out in the
direction of a positive correlation, but that
there isn't enough data to conclude
that it's statistically significant?
Or, that there is a statistically significant
correlation, but there are other possible explanations
for it? Are you talking about each study individually,
or the collected statistics from all the studies
lumped together?

You mean the late 19th century, of course, when vaccinations began.
Even MMR dates to the early 1970s. And here I thought that the autism
*epidemic* occurred in the late 20th century. Sarcasm aside, if
*vaccination* caused autism, we should have seen a huge spike in the
1950s and 1960s, and it should have hit wealthy people before the poor,
but AFAIK, that's not the case.

Nonetheless, if you have actual data - adjusted for changing diagnostic
definitions -- demonstrating that the rate of autism increased with the
rate of increased vaccination, I'd like to see it. Correlation does
not equal causation, of course, but I'd still like to see it.


Evidence #2: Amish people don't vaccinate and have zero
or almost zero cases of autism -- except among a few
children who were adopted or were vaccinated for some
reason, the exceptions that prove the rule. These few
exceptions suggest that it's not so likely that the Amish
have a lot of undiagnosed cases of autism.

There was no study showing this despite the fact that there is
some internet talk about someone who supposedly went
looking for autistic children.

Are you alleging that the person didn't actually go
looking, or are you discounting as not a "study" any
research which is not published in a peer-reviewed
journal?

I've read the purported *study* which was based on talking to one
doctor and visting one clinic. In any event, even if its true that the
incidence of autism is low in the Amish population, it proves nothing.
As I pointed out, the Amish population has almost zero incidence of Tay
Sachs and Sickle Cell Anemia as well. Accordingly, they must also be
caused by vaccination. Correlation does not equal causation. Besides,
they're an insular community; there could be dozens of genetic or
lifestyle reasons for the low incidence of autism. Finally, recall
that the Amish function in a very different society than we *English*
(as they call us) do. Autistic characteristics may be more socially
acceptable in their society.

Evidence #3: About 30,000 children treated by Homefirst
services in Chicago were not vaccinated and have apparently
a zero autism rate.

Homefirst Health Services has other practices which confound
the data.

Do you mean that they've found a way to prevent
autism, but it might be some other part of their
practice (possibly breastfeeding or taking
vitamins or something -- I don't know what
they do)? Isn't that just as important?
If they've found a way to prevent autism, shouldn't
whatever they're doing be studied and copied?

I haven't read the report at length. One thing that jumped out at me
in a quick perusal of an article was the following quote from a
Homefirst doctor, *We do have enough of a sample," Eisenstein said.
"The numbers are too large to not see it. We would absolutely know.
We're all family doctors. If I have a child with autism come in,
there's no communication. It's frightening. You can't touch them. It's
not something that anyone would miss.* And before I began reading,
that's how I thought of autistic spectrum disorders. But these are not
necessarily all kids who are completely closed to the world, who cannot
communicate at all. Moreover, even the doctors admit its not a
scientific study. So it appears that this is flawed.


Evidence #4: Aparently there is at least one scientific
study showing that a particular strain of mice, when
exposed to low-dose thimerosol, develop autism-like
symptoms. [Thimerosol is the mercury compound used
as a preservative in many vaccinations, for those who
don't know.] This illustrates how a disease may have
both genetic and chemical-environmental links.

And in countries where thimerosal has been completely removed from
vaccines (eg, Denmark), autism rates have continued to skyrocket.
Somehow, I find this most telling.

Barbara

On 9 Feb 2006 17:45:42 -0800, "Barbara" wrote:

And before I began reading, that's how I thought of autistic
spectrum disorders. But these are not necessarily all kids
who are completely closed to the world, who cannot
communicate at all. Moreover, even the doctors admit its not a
scientific study. So it appears that this is flawed.

Very few family doctors and pediatricians even suspect and
many will advise parents who do see something to wait and do
nothing because the child seems to be just a little different and
it might be nothing.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:
In article .com,
says...


Banty wrote:

I wasn't in a.m. to watch all that, but
I *do* recall all your childfree-peacemaking misadvantures here in misc.kids.
You aren't abusive like a couple of the other names that have come up, but
you're a bull in a china shop.

This seems to support Lyn's contention that conformity of ideas is
expected here. I consistently express myself in a polite and
reasonable way. However, I have quite a few unconventional beliefs.
It sounds like you find my ideas unacceptable.

See, the problem I pointed out has nothing to do with how politely written each
post is. And doesn't have anything to do with "conformity of ideas".

Think about it.

The problem that you pointed out is that I am like "a bull in a china
shop". What I understand you to mean by that is that you think that I
am disruptive. Thinking about it does not make your meaning any clearer
to me. Could you please clarify what is disruptive about my posts if it
is neither the style nor the content.

Well, jumping HERE and joining in the complaining after a vanity search is one
thing (most people don't do that), but minor in the scheme of things. The
crossposting that you did concerning the husband in a.m. as I recall from
looking it over didn't end for a while, what I remember most is you having
actually inviting a childfree poster hostile to our group here to post, then
proposed to set misc.kid up as some kind of meeting ground (oh goody), and it
took a LONG time to get you off that and to try to set up a group of your own,
all the while we were dealing with the concomitant unpleasantness.

This is not how I recall events, nor can I find much support for your
recollections in google.

Jayne

On Thu, 9 Feb 2006 14:51:56 -0500, "bizby40"
wrote:

The other thing is that most all of us can be "off-putting" at
times, even without being mean. And so if you are posting
to a group, chances are that sooner or later you will say
something someone disagrees with. And then a debate
may start, and it might even get heated. Witness, for example,
the Matchbox cars debate. Ericka and Banty and I have
been quite heatedly disagreeing. And yet I hold no animosity
for either of them, nor do I think they hold any for me.

Part of the reason why I don't take it personally is that I
already know them and like them, and I know that we
do agree on many other subjects. *If* this same discussion
had happened when I was new here and didn't know
anyone, I might well have felt unwelcome.

And so I think that perhaps in many cases, the person who
feels unwelcome is perhaps misinterpreting heated feelings
about a *topic* as heated feelings about them.

Yes.
I think most of the time posters will disagree with still respecting
each other. There are a minority few who will be very rude and
obnoxious to others, and that will be their downfall.

Nan