UPDATE: playgroup fiasco

"Circe" ) writes:
The same thing is happening with asthma. Rates are going up like mad. I was
talking to some friends the other night because they'd taken their son to
the ER with a bad attack on Sunday and wanted to pick my brain about asthma
control (they know about my little "incident" a couple of years back).
Anyway, the dad was asking why asthma is becoming so much more common and
one of the things I said was that better treatment was making it possible
for more asthmatics to reach adulthood and reproduce, which naturally drives
up the incidence of asthma.

There's no way that's the main reason. There are huge
numbers of cases of asthma -- mostly among people whose
parents don't have asthma, I believe. Also, I read in
the newspaper over 20 years ago that the number of deaths
due to asthma, while small, was far higher than it
had been in the past, and they were trying to explain
that.

No, the rising asthma is due to air pollution. Statistics
have been done on it.

"Circe" ) writes:
The same thing is happening with asthma. Rates are going up like mad. I was
talking to some friends the other night because they'd taken their son to
the ER with a bad attack on Sunday and wanted to pick my brain about asthma
control (they know about my little "incident" a couple of years back).
Anyway, the dad was asking why asthma is becoming so much more common and
one of the things I said was that better treatment was making it possible
for more asthmatics to reach adulthood and reproduce, which naturally drives
up the incidence of asthma.

Asthma is caused by air pollution. I figure there are
probably also other causes. Food allergies seem to be going
up a lot; I suppose peoples' immune systems have been affected
by pesticides or heavy-metal pollution or radioactive pollution
or vaccinations or something. Large numbers of people, whose
parents don't have food allergies or asthma, are getting those
things; genes can't be the only explanation.

"SACRAMENTO -- A 10-year study of children ... has produced
the stongest evidence to date that ozone, commonly known
as smog, can cause asthma in children. ...

"... 'We've known for a long time that smog can trigger
attacks in asthmatics. This study has shown that ozone
can cause asthma as well.' ...

"... The previously released results showed that children
who moved to communities with higher levels of particulate
matter ... showed decreased rate of lung function growth ..."

http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr013102.htm

Banty ) writes:
And a particular poster may be good, or not so good, at defending their position
in a discussion newsgroup, and might feel hounded by disagreement.

One of the things I love about Usenet is that you can
have lots of discussions. People interested in the same
topics collect in the same fora, it's possible to express
oneself without being interrupted, etc. Maybe it even
helps that often hours or days pass between replies, so
there's time to cool down at least partially. Many of
the same problems happen as with discussion IRL, but
nevertheless I find the opportunity for discussion and
debate to be very good in comparison.

Banty ) writes:
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.

Banty

I don't get it -- except that I see you calling someone names.
That is, if you've pointed out a problem, I either don't
remember what it was or can't discern it in the post above.

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

If you end the explanations, I hope you will also end
the accusations, as I think it would be unfair to have
accusations without explanations of what the accusations
are about.

One of your accusations seems to be inviting someone
to participate in the newsgroup. I think everyone
has a right to participate.

toto ) writes:
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.

We do have ways to change neurological differences:
neurofeedback for example; blood sugar management;
essential nutrients; drugs; and many other things.

wrote:

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

Jayne

What it boils down to is that she sees this as "her" group and HOW DARE
you come in here and post whatever it was you were posting because you
HAD TO know it would have upset her and all of her Moocow friends.

That's what it boils down to. Same old ****, different day, week,
year, eon....

-L.

) writes:
Banty wrote:
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

I didn't understand Banty's explanation either. For one
thing, I have no idea who she means was doing a "vanity search"
or when. I jumped into this thread and joined in complaining,
but I don't see anything wrong with the way I did
that and I don't think anyone has complained.

Inviting someone to participate in a newsgroup is OK.
Trying to start up a subgroup or discussion within
a newsgroup is OK. Complaining can be OK in certain
contexts.

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
I didn't understand Banty's explanation either. For one
thing, I have no idea who she means was doing a "vanity search"
or when.

Jayne searched on her own name, undoubtedly to find replies to her own
posts in order to answer them. It's a method a lot of people use,
especially when they post on multiple groups. I use this method
myself, often. To Banty, that translates into a "vanity search".


I jumped into this thread and joined in complaining,
but I don't see anything wrong with the way I did
that and I don't think anyone has complained.

Inviting someone to participate in a newsgroup is OK.
Trying to start up a subgroup or discussion within
a newsgroup is OK. Complaining can be OK in certain
contexts.

The whole thing boils down to Banty and her Moo friends trying to
control the content of this and other groups. They can't, it
frustrates them, and they act nasty to those they don't want
participating. It's quite simple, really.

-L.

In article .com,
"-L." wrote:

Catherine Woodgold wrote:
I didn't understand Banty's explanation either. For one
thing, I have no idea who she means was doing a "vanity search"
or when.

Jayne searched on her own name, undoubtedly to find replies to her own
posts in order to answer them. It's a method a lot of people use,
especially when they post on multiple groups. I use this method
myself, often. To Banty, that translates into a "vanity search".


I jumped into this thread and joined in complaining,
but I don't see anything wrong with the way I did
that and I don't think anyone has complained.

Inviting someone to participate in a newsgroup is OK.
Trying to start up a subgroup or discussion within
a newsgroup is OK. Complaining can be OK in certain
contexts.

The whole thing boils down to Banty and her Moo friends trying to
control the content of this and other groups. They can't, it
frustrates them, and they act nasty to those they don't want
participating. It's quite simple, really.

-L.


When you are nasty to me, does that mean you are trying to get me to
leave? Or are frustrated because you can't control my content?

There are lots of reasons someone might be nasty -- and most of them
have nothing to do with trying to control someone else's participation
in a group.

--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care