Re: Another Question for Matt: FOR THE RECORD?

[Guest guest]

Rose, I think you brought up some very valid points from a statistic viewpoint.

Matt, no offense, but I believe you're juggling too many things at once. The

Portland office, the San Francisco national conference, the bidding in the

Milwaukee 2006 conference, the printing of the LPA Today, the everyday

process of handling with the Executive Board and Board of Directors... plus your

own farm, your businesses, family, wife and kids.

Don't you think you should be letting other people in LPA pull their own weight

and

just let them handle it? That's why we elect officers, conference chairs,

editors, District/Chapter officers and so forth because we work as a TEAM.

You even said yourself that you are sacrificing your own family and personal

career for LPA and questioned your own re-election decision based on these

sacrifices.

It's obvious how you're getting stressed out and perhaps not well-equipped with

the right stats because you should give these responsibilities to your fellow

LPA

members and volunteers who ARE experts in their positions and have the time to

do so.

You've done a tremendous amount of work -- but I think you need to let the

organization run its course.

By the way, where has Dan Okenfuss been in the last 8 months? He's the Vice

President of Public Relations and he should be answering these questions from

the media. We elected him and I think he's a great PR person. I have a feeling a

lot of members don't even have a clue who he is now.

Irene

> During the controversy concerning the media handling of " The Littlest

> Groom " earlier this year, President Matt Roloff spoke out often about

> how, when dealing with the media, the people being interviewed have

> no control over the way things are edited. This is a statement that I

> agree with but I question why he hasn't listened to his own advice?

>

> If we have no control over the editing of interviews, why provide

> fictitious information in the first place? Matt attests to

> anecdotally mentioning that he thought unemployment for ALL

> disabilities was around 85% only to later say he " found " it's 75%.

> With a few moments of fact checking, my results range from 40%

> (http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-

> employment/labor2002.html ) to 51% by using the data from the Census

> website, a rate that is still quite high when compared the general

> population but no where near the rates that Matt used.

>

> I would like to know if speaking with the media is such a delicate

> job why do we put ourselves in an even more vulnerable position by

> giving inaccurate information? Between this situation and Matt's

> recent appearance on Good Morning America where he gave the

> statistical chance for an AP couple to give birth to a dwarf child as

> 1 in 5,000. Why bother speaking to the media anyway? Let them make up

> their own numbers; we might end up looking better than the info we

> are giving out.

>

> Rose

[Guest guest]

Matt, I'm a dwarf and I'm employed.

I may not own a farm, a tree house or a sunken Pirate ship but I like thousands

of dwarves have jobs and make an honest living.

As President you need to have your facts straighr when it comes to genetics,

healthcare and employment of LP's.

Your know it all attitude and refusal to accept facts from people other than

yourself is becomming your biggest downfall.

[Guest guest]

Irene-- Thank you for your email -- Absolutely no offense taken.

In fact quite the contrary-- you have really hit the nail on the head.

I could go into a long drawn out explanation about how difficult it has

been to get LPA firing on more cylinders and how the basic problem

preventing so many of the great ideas I hear on this list from being

initiated is lack of funds....and how many people promise to deliver

only to be smart enough to keep their primary focus on their 'real'

life... And how really my focus has been to stay as laser focused on

fund raising as I promised the board I would do. etc.etc.. All the

other irons have really been distracting to that primary goal....

....But in the end I just say " you're right! " and leave it at that.

Matt

P.S. When I first asked Dan Okenfuss to step in as VP PR he asked me Not

to dump everything on him at once-- He was busy moving into a new home

etc. As time has gone on I have pushed more and more of the PR inquire

on to him. Often however, the media is interested in profiling the

Roloff's Farm and unfortunately LPA is not their focus.

Re: Another Question for Matt: FOR THE RECORD?

Rose, I think you brought up some very valid points from a statistic

viewpoint.

Matt, no offense, but I believe you're juggling too many things at once.

The

Portland office, the San Francisco national conference, the bidding in

the

Milwaukee 2006 conference, the printing of the LPA Today, the everyday

process of handling with the Executive Board and Board of Directors...

plus your

own farm, your businesses, family, wife and kids.

Don't you think you should be letting other people in LPA pull their own

weight and

just let them handle it? That's why we elect officers, conference

chairs,

editors, District/Chapter officers and so forth because we work as a

TEAM.

You even said yourself that you are sacrificing your own family and

personal

career for LPA and questioned your own re-election decision based on

these

sacrifices.

It's obvious how you're getting stressed out and perhaps not

well-equipped with

the right stats because you should give these responsibilities to your

fellow LPA

members and volunteers who ARE experts in their positions and have the

time to

do so.

You've done a tremendous amount of work -- but I think you need to let

the

organization run its course.

By the way, where has Dan Okenfuss been in the last 8 months? He's the

Vice

President of Public Relations and he should be answering these questions

from

the media. We elected him and I think he's a great PR person. I have a

feeling a

lot of members don't even have a clue who he is now.

Irene

> During the controversy concerning the media handling of " The Littlest

> Groom " earlier this year, President Matt Roloff spoke out often about

> how, when dealing with the media, the people being interviewed have

> no control over the way things are edited. This is a statement that I

> agree with but I question why he hasn't listened to his own advice?

>

> If we have no control over the editing of interviews, why provide

> fictitious information in the first place? Matt attests to

> anecdotally mentioning that he thought unemployment for ALL

> disabilities was around 85% only to later say he " found " it's 75%.

> With a few moments of fact checking, my results range from 40%

> (http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-

> employment/labor2002.html ) to 51% by using the data from the Census

> website, a rate that is still quite high when compared the general

> population but no where near the rates that Matt used.

>

> I would like to know if speaking with the media is such a delicate

> job why do we put ourselves in an even more vulnerable position by

> giving inaccurate information? Between this situation and Matt's

> recent appearance on Good Morning America where he gave the

> statistical chance for an AP couple to give birth to a dwarf child as

> 1 in 5,000. Why bother speaking to the media anyway? Let them make up

> their own numbers; we might end up looking better than the info we

> are giving out.

>

> Rose

===

[Guest guest]

Irene,

After even more consideration of your thoughtful and insightful

email....

Again...You are absolutely right, there are a lot of balls in the air

right now and it would be great to hand a couple of them off. In fact I

deeply regret that I have been unable to keep up with all the generous

offers received and worse yet--adequately manage those that have. The

challenge has really been not so much to find willing volunteers but to

work with them in an encouraging way that keeps them successful while

I'm still able to focus on what I do best. Sometimes the distractions

and time spent on that effort pushes me into significant frustration and

away from my normal duties.

Nick and several others have suggested that we recruit a Volunteer

Coordinator to help manage all the people already volunteering. As you

may know it's become impossible for me to focus on my duties AND manage

all the personalities and needs of our employees and volunteers and the

10,000(+/-) members who also seek my attention. You are dead right--

that I've become very stressed out making my best effort to address all

these needs myself. If you all could only see the tremendous

requests/needs we receive each day with such limited resources to

provide any meaningful assistance-- It's very disheartening to see this

and be so helpless each and every day.

The challenge often is that I appoint a person in a particular role and

suddenly everyone in the organization expects that person to be at their

beckon call. Then I start getting complaints etc.. when that volunteer

is not as responsive as one might like.. So... That triggers me to try

and coach... Or make personnel adjustments... I end up overreacting out

of shear frustration! You see-- This is what has lead to virtually all

the recent melt downs.

I'll work very hard the next few days to find a volunteer coordinator to

address this very issue.

I encourage the membership to step forward and offer their expertise and

I'll do my best to see their resources utilized in the very near future.

Thanks Irene for pointing out the source of much of what ails us.

Regards,

Matt Roloff

Re: Another Question for Matt: FOR THE RECORD?

Rose, I think you brought up some very valid points from a statistic

viewpoint.

Matt, no offense, but I believe you're juggling too many things at once.

The

Portland office, the San Francisco national conference, the bidding in

the

Milwaukee 2006 conference, the printing of the LPA Today, the everyday

process of handling with the Executive Board and Board of Directors...

plus your

own farm, your businesses, family, wife and kids.

Don't you think you should be letting other people in LPA pull their own

weight and

just let them handle it? That's why we elect officers, conference

chairs,

editors, District/Chapter officers and so forth because we work as a

TEAM.

You even said yourself that you are sacrificing your own family and

personal

career for LPA and questioned your own re-election decision based on

these

sacrifices.

It's obvious how you're getting stressed out and perhaps not

well-equipped with

the right stats because you should give these responsibilities to your

fellow LPA

members and volunteers who ARE experts in their positions and have the

time to

do so.

You've done a tremendous amount of work -- but I think you need to let

the

organization run its course.

By the way, where has Dan Okenfuss been in the last 8 months? He's the

Vice

President of Public Relations and he should be answering these questions

from

the media. We elected him and I think he's a great PR person. I have a

feeling a

lot of members don't even have a clue who he is now.

Irene

> During the controversy concerning the media handling of " The Littlest

> Groom " earlier this year, President Matt Roloff spoke out often about

> how, when dealing with the media, the people being interviewed have

> no control over the way things are edited. This is a statement that I

> agree with but I question why he hasn't listened to his own advice?

>

> If we have no control over the editing of interviews, why provide

> fictitious information in the first place? Matt attests to

> anecdotally mentioning that he thought unemployment for ALL

> disabilities was around 85% only to later say he " found " it's 75%.

> With a few moments of fact checking, my results range from 40%

> (http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-

> employment/labor2002.html ) to 51% by using the data from the Census

> website, a rate that is still quite high when compared the general

> population but no where near the rates that Matt used.

>

> I would like to know if speaking with the media is such a delicate

> job why do we put ourselves in an even more vulnerable position by

> giving inaccurate information? Between this situation and Matt's

> recent appearance on Good Morning America where he gave the

> statistical chance for an AP couple to give birth to a dwarf child as

> 1 in 5,000. Why bother speaking to the media anyway? Let them make up

> their own numbers; we might end up looking better than the info we

> are giving out.

>

> Rose

===

[Guest guest]

Matt,

One word...MICROMANAGEMENT!!

STOP DOING IT!

When you get volunteers, turn them loose and let them do what's

best. They don't need (or want) constant " coaching " . In fact, many

of us are very offended by it.

One of the many reasons I left.

Randy Bradford

> > During the controversy concerning the media handling of " The

Littlest

> > Groom " earlier this year, President Matt Roloff spoke out often

about

> > how, when dealing with the media, the people being interviewed

have

> > no control over the way things are edited. This is a statement

that I

> > agree with but I question why he hasn't listened to his own

advice?

> >

> > If we have no control over the editing of interviews, why provide

> > fictitious information in the first place? Matt attests to

> > anecdotally mentioning that he thought unemployment for ALL

> > disabilities was around 85% only to later say he " found " it's

75%.

> > With a few moments of fact checking, my results range from 40%

> > (http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-

> > employment/labor2002.html ) to 51% by using the data from the

Census

> > website, a rate that is still quite high when compared the

general

> > population but no where near the rates that Matt used.

> >

> > I would like to know if speaking with the media is such a delicate

> > job why do we put ourselves in an even more vulnerable position

by

> > giving inaccurate information? Between this situation and Matt's

> > recent appearance on Good Morning America where he gave the

> > statistical chance for an AP couple to give birth to a dwarf

child as

> > 1 in 5,000. Why bother speaking to the media anyway? Let them

make up

> > their own numbers; we might end up looking better than the info

we

> > are giving out.

> >

> > Rose

>

>

>

> ===

>

[Guest guest]

Do you really think it was necessary to tell that to the entire list?? I

didn't think Randy's comment deserved that sort of response. .......But maybe

that's just me....

Amy

In a message dated 4/7/2004 6:12:23 PM Central Standard Time,

RHaines110@... writes:

By the way, How can you be so critical and judgmental about LPA and Matt when

you didn't even pay your conference registration fees at your own regional.

What are the good people of your district suppose to think when you show up

with your flyers, yet you can’t even support your district.

[Guest guest]

SORE _ASS......you never f'n learn!

You are and have always been the fattest most arrogant, opinionated, coward

since 1993.

You comment on things thru this list and the media, and I guarantee you , you

wouldnt have the balls to say face to face or in front of a crowd.

You are an embarrassment and with out a doubt a pure asshole for your holier

than though comments.

In person you are an achon in the corner, on this list you are a joke.

[Guest guest]

Randy,

When are you going to stop being so angry and bitter?

Having been working as close to Matt in the past 2 years as just about anybody

else in this organization I think you're completely wrong.

My observations are that Matt tends to get involved when there is a problem or

issue. When things are going well and people are doing their jobs (as

committed) he's stays away.

It's when people aren't living up to their commitments or they're over their

budget that he injects himself.

This is what we expect from our President. I know my SF committees have been

very pleased with him. He has helped us when we needed him, and has let us do

our jobs when we didn’t.

By the way, How can you be so critical and judgmental about LPA and Matt when

you didn't even pay your conference registration fees at your own regional. What

are the good people of your district suppose to think when you show up with your

flyers, yet you can’t even support your district. That whole situation just

looked like sour grapes.

Randy, I encourage you to stay positive and encourage one another for the common

good of LPA and please stop this bickering.

Lastly, I would like to extend an invitation to you to the District 12 regional

conference on April 30 – May 2 at the Hyatt in Burlingame. We’re

celebrating the past 4 decades of District 12 with wonderful presentation put

together by Figone. Many wonderful volunteers from District 12

contributed historical photos to this presentation. Also contributing to this

was Ruth Ricker and Leslye Sneider.

It will be a wonderful and peaceful weekend for all to enjoy.

Peace to you,

Haines

In a message dated 4/7/2004 1:50:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

bradfra@... writes:

>

>

> Matt,

>

> One word...MICROMANAGEMENT!!

>

> STOP DOING IT!

>

> When you get volunteers, turn them loose and let them do what's

> best. They don't need (or want) constant " coaching " . In fact, many

> of us are very offended by it.

>

> One of the many reasons I left.

>

> Randy Bradford

>

>

> > > During the controversy concerning the media handling of " The

> Littlest

> > > Groom " earlier this year, President Matt Roloff spoke out often

> about

> > > how, when dealing with the media, the people being interviewed

> have

> > > no control over the way things are edited. This is a statement

> that I

> > > agree with but I question why he hasn't listened to his own

> advice?

> > >

> > > If we have no control over the editing of interviews, why provide

> > > fictitious information in the first place? Matt attests to

> > > anecdotally mentioning that he thought unemployment for ALL

> > > disabilities was around 85% only to later say he " found " it's

> 75%.

> > > With a few moments of fact checking, my results range from 40%

> > > (http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-

> > > employment/labor2002.html ) to 51% by using the data from the

> Census

> > > website, a rate that is still quite high when compared the

> general

> > > population but no where near the rates that Matt used.

> > >

> > > I would like to know if speaking with the media is such a delicate

> > > job why do we put ourselves in an even more vulnerable position

> by

> > > giving inaccurate information? Between this situation and Matt's

> > > recent appearance on Good Morning America where he gave the

> > > statistical chance for an AP couple to give birth to a dwarf

> child as

> > > 1 in 5,000. Why bother speaking to the media anyway? Let them

> make up

> > > their own numbers; we might end up looking better than the info

> we

> > > are giving out.

> > >

> > > Rose

> >

> >

> >

> > ===

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/7/04 10:12:51 PM, LittleLadyQT writes:

>

> SORE _ASS......you never f'n learn!

>

> You are and have always been the fattest most arrogant, opinionated, coward

> since 1993.

>

>

Now that's class.

By The way I'm not fat. I'm exactly where the achon weight chart says I

should be.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 RHaines110@... wrote:

> By the way, How can you be so critical and judgmental about LPA and

> Matt when you didn't even pay your conference registration fees at your

> own regional. What are the good people of your district suppose to think

> when you show up with your flyers, yet you can't even support your

> district. That whole situation just looked like sour grapes.

Oh Mat... er, I mean, Rob.... what shall we ever do with you?

A little birdie told me that in exchange for " favors " of some kind, your

Salt Lake City National Conference Registration fee was waived. The

problem is, the little birdie wasn't too happy about not receiving said

" favors " .

-Dave

[Guest guest]

And I am the one that gets put on moderation...geez this was posted 2x

Bon

> SORE _ASS......you never f'n learn!

> You are and have always been the fattest most arrogant,

opinionated, coward

> since 1993.

>

> You comment on things thru this list and the media, and I guarantee

you , you

> wouldnt have the balls to say face to face or in front of a crowd.

>

> You are an embarrassment and with out a doubt a pure asshole for

your holier

> than though comments.

>

> In person you are an achon in the corner, on this list you are a

joke.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Bonnie,

First, you are no longer on moderation.

Second, you are absolutely correct. That kind of personal attack will not be

tolerated on this list, and the person who made that attack is now on

moderation.

Please folks, reread Dan Kennedy's post from yesterday. If something upsets

you, sit on it for at least a day before you respond. I, myself, have been

guilty of firing off emails I've regretted the next day.

Bill Bradford

List Moderator

[Guest guest]

I'd like to retract a comment I made a couple of months ago, I no longer

wonder why there are so many little people who are not members of the LPA,

with all of this griping, descent, and general nonsensical drama it's a

wonder these conferences go off at all, let alone the organizations amazing

ability to remain standing.

Many of the posts I've read in the past few weeks remind me of the

incredulous high school drama we used to have on student council. Honestly.

Grow up people.

(This is not directed towards bonnie's post, rather the whole group)

Matt

_____

From: Bonnie [mailto:oichick621@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:02 AM

dwarfism

Subject: Re: Another Question for Matt: FOR THE RECORD?

And I am the one that gets put on moderation...geez this was posted 2x

Bon

> SORE _ASS......you never f'n learn!

> You are and have always been the fattest most arrogant,

opinionated, coward

> since 1993.

>

> You comment on things thru this list and the media, and I guarantee

you , you

> wouldnt have the balls to say face to face or in front of a crowd.

>

> You are an embarrassment and with out a doubt a pure asshole for

your holier

> than though comments.

>

> In person you are an achon in the corner, on this list you are a

joke.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rob,

For one thing, who asked you? I don't see Matt's gums flapping in the wind =

so

he can't answer for himself.

2) Get off it....stop patting yourself on the head and the next time you de=

cide to

publicly blast someone, get your facts straight.

Otherwise stick to running the district, organizing a super conference that=

everyone is expecting and bite your tongue.

You come across very immaturely!

Good luck in July!

> > > > During the controversy concerning the media handling of " The

> > Littlest

> > > > Groom " earlier this year, President Matt Roloff spoke out often

> > about

> > > > how, when dealing with the media, the people being interviewed

> > have

> > > > no control over the way things are edited. This is a statement

> > that I

> > > > agree with but I question why he hasn't listened to his own

> > advice?

> > > >

> > > > If we have no control over the editing of interviews, why provide

> > > > fictitious information in the first place? Matt attests to

> > > > anecdotally mentioning that he thought unemployment for ALL

> > > > disabilities was around 85% only to later say he " found " it's

> > 75%.

> > > > With a few moments of fact checking, my results range from 40%

> > > > (http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/economics-

> > > > employment/labor2002.html ) to 51% by using the data from the

> > Census

> > > > website, a rate that is still quite high when compared the

> > general

> > > > population but no where near the rates that Matt used.

> > > >

> > > > I would like to know if speaking with the media is such a delicate

> > > > job why do we put ourselves in an even more vulnerable position

> > by

> > > > giving inaccurate information? Between this situation and Matt's

> > > > recent appearance on Good Morning America where he gave the

> > > > statistical chance for an AP couple to give birth to a dwarf

> > child as

> > > > 1 in 5,000. Why bother speaking to the media anyway? Let them

> > make up

> > > > their own numbers; we might end up looking better than the info

> > we

> > > > are giving out.

> > > >

> > > > Rose

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > ===

> > >

[Guest guest]

I am a new member to this list (as of about a week ago). My son, who is almost

6, has an undiagnosed form of skeletal dysplasia (either metaphyseal dysplasia

or pseudoachondroplasia, most likely), and recently we have been trying to learn

as much as we can about dwarfism. I read Dan Kennedy's book recently, among

others, and found that helpful. We have been wondering about whether to join

the LPA, or whether to attend the annual conference. I must say that reading

these lists has made me question whether we should participate, and whether it

is something that would be smart for him in the long run. This list does not

seem to provide me with the supportive and interesting information I was looking

for (by contrast, Parents of little people has been terrific!!), and it also

seems to foster the image that I have gotten from some books and articles about

the LPA as nothing but a social organization, with people being catty and

excluding others.

My son also has another disorder, neurofibromatosis, and we found it

tremendously helpful to get information through the National Neurofibromatosis

Foundation's website and home office, to talk to other parents, to get patient

support, to locate doctors, and to learn more about the disorder. Several times

I have tried to call the LPA, only to be met each time with an answering

machine. I chose not to leave a message. I have sent for information through

the website, but we will see if it arrives.

I am not ready to give up on the LPA yet, but we have not joined yet and all of

these emails do make me wonder. I did enjoy 's note from a few days ago,

listing out questions that I would love to know the answer to or hear people

talk about. But the rest of this has been frustrating to read, and I just don't

know if I can subject my son to it. What are the positive reasons for getting

involved with the LPA, or the larger dwarf community?

Matt Thalken <matt@...> wrote:

I'd like to retract a comment I made a couple of months ago, I no longer

wonder why there are so many little people who are not members of the LPA,

with all of this griping, descent, and general nonsensical drama it's a

wonder these conferences go off at all, let alone the organizations amazing

ability to remain standing.

Many of the posts I've read in the past few weeks remind me of the

incredulous high school drama we used to have on student council. Honestly.

Grow up people.

(This is not directed towards bonnie's post, rather the whole group)

Matt

_____

From: Bonnie [mailto:oichick621@...]

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:02 AM

dwarfism

Subject: Re: Another Question for Matt: FOR THE RECORD?

And I am the one that gets put on moderation...geez this was posted 2x

Bon

> SORE _ASS......you never f'n learn!

> You are and have always been the fattest most arrogant,

opinionated, coward

> since 1993.

>

> You comment on things thru this list and the media, and I guarantee

you , you

> wouldnt have the balls to say face to face or in front of a crowd.

>

> You are an embarrassment and with out a doubt a pure asshole for

your holier

> than though comments.

>

> In person you are an achon in the corner, on this list you are a

joke.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--

I'm sending this publicly and privately in case you've already unsubscribed.

First, thank you so much for reading my book.

More important, though, what you see on this list is nothing like what you

would encounter in LPA. The list, as you may know, has no direct affiliation

with LPA. And even the LPA members and officers who are tangling on this

list are completely different in person. There's something about the

Internet that brings out some people's uninhibited side. That's true of many

Internet forums, not just this one.

Even though I helped get this list off the ground, I never recommend it to

parents, especially ones who are just easing their way in to the LPA

community. Please check this out:

<parentsoflittlepeople2>

I think you'll like it a lot.

Good luck!

Dan

On 4/9/04 3:24 PM, " " <lhmartin66@...> wrote:

> I am a new member to this list (as of about a week ago). My son, who is

> almost 6, has an undiagnosed form of skeletal dysplasia (either metaphyseal

> dysplasia or pseudoachondroplasia, most likely), and recently we have been

> trying to learn as much as we can about dwarfism. I read Dan Kennedy's book

> recently, among others, and found that helpful. We have been wondering about

> whether to join the LPA, or whether to attend the annual conference. I must

> say that reading these lists has made me question whether we should

> participate, and whether it is something that would be smart for him in the

> long run. This list does not seem to provide me with the supportive and

> interesting information I was looking for (by contrast, Parents of little

> people has been terrific!!), and it also seems to foster the image that I have

> gotten from some books and articles about the LPA as nothing but a social

> organization, with people being catty and excluding others.

>

> My son also has another disorder, neurofibromatosis, and we found it

> tremendously helpful to get information through the National Neurofibromatosis

> Foundation's website and home office, to talk to other parents, to get patient

> support, to locate doctors, and to learn more about the disorder. Several

> times I have tried to call the LPA, only to be met each time with an answering

> machine. I chose not to leave a message. I have sent for information through

> the website, but we will see if it arrives.

>

> I am not ready to give up on the LPA yet, but we have not joined yet and all

> of these emails do make me wonder. I did enjoy 's note from a few days

> ago, listing out questions that I would love to know the answer to or hear

> people talk about. But the rest of this has been frustrating to read, and I

> just don't know if I can subject my son to it. What are the positive reasons

> for getting involved with the LPA, or the larger dwarf community?

>

>

>

>

>

> Matt Thalken <matt@...> wrote:

> I'd like to retract a comment I made a couple of months ago, I no longer

> wonder why there are so many little people who are not members of the LPA,

> with all of this griping, descent, and general nonsensical drama it's a

> wonder these conferences go off at all, let alone the organizations amazing

> ability to remain standing.

>

>

>

> Many of the posts I've read in the past few weeks remind me of the

> incredulous high school drama we used to have on student council. Honestly.

> Grow up people.

>

>

>

> (This is not directed towards bonnie's post, rather the whole group)

>

>

>

> Matt

>

> _____

>

> From: Bonnie [mailto:oichick621@...]

> Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 2:02 AM

> dwarfism

> Subject: Re: Another Question for Matt: FOR THE RECORD?

>

>

>

> And I am the one that gets put on moderation...geez this was posted 2x

>

> Bon

>

>

>> SORE _ASS......you never f'n learn!

>> You are and have always been the fattest most arrogant,

> opinionated, coward

>> since 1993.

>>

>> You comment on things thru this list and the media, and I guarantee

> you , you

>> wouldnt have the balls to say face to face or in front of a crowd.

>>

>> You are an embarrassment and with out a doubt a pure asshole for

> your holier

>> than though comments.

>>

>> In person you are an achon in the corner, on this list you are a

> joke.