If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
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 |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
"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 |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
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 |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
|
#506
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
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 |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
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 |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
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 |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
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 |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
UPDATE: playgroup fiasco
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Playgroup fiasco (what do you make of this?) -- long | toypup | General | 47 | January 25th 06 01:34 AM |
32 week update and fluid issues update | Jennifer Howe | Pregnancy | 1 | April 29th 05 06:55 AM |
16 week update | Jamie Clark | Pregnancy | 4 | December 9th 04 11:03 PM |
Update | Jamie Clark | Pregnancy | 4 | October 1st 04 06:37 AM |
Use critical update | Alex Nemeth | Single Parents | 0 | October 2nd 03 03:42 AM |