Re: Answers to CAA questions

[Guest guest]

> >

> > Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

> > UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

> > budging on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we

would

> > not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I'm the party Bob is referring to, and I offer my sincere apologies to you and to A-CHAMP. I've tried to be careful not to use the phrase "walk away" since our discussion and one got by me the other day. I was in too much of a hurry, and regret not editing more carefully. As I assured you earlier this year, it is by no means meant as a derogatory term from me personally or from NAA. We have used the phrase in reference to a course we ourselves might at one point take regarding the bill. A better phrase than "walking away" is "deciding to no longer support the bill" and I will again try to use this instead.

I have the greatest respect for you personally, Bob, and for A-CHAMP and all the vaccine/mercury-focused organizations. Our goals have always been the same, even when the means of reaching them has varied.

Rita

__________________________________

Re: Re: Answers to CAA questions

You do not need to apologize for your message. These words "walk away"are being deliberately twisted (not by your) to mischaracterize our(A-CHAMP's and others) actions and undermine the legitimacy of ourvoice in advocating our position on CAA. Used generically, "walkingaway" is a perfectly ok tactic to use in negotiations. But there is aconcerted and orchestrated effort to characterize A-CHAMP as "walkingaway" with the specific intent of damaging our credibility and stiflingour voice. I have encountered the term in justifying some group'sactions rebuffing our efforts to coordinate advocacy efforts. I haveencountered the term also in its use by another to dismiss our actionsas if we "walked away" when things got "tough." When it was first usedpublicly last July it was used to characterize our opposition to thebill in the form it existed in July as compared with theself-characterization of other organizations to remain "engaged." Iprivately told the party that used the phrase that I objected to it andtheir organization should refrain from using the characterization. Ihave now seen the phrase used by multiple organizations and people inregard to us. It is a slander designed to keep us away from thediscussions. It is a ploy used by the spinmeisters who haveorchestrated the CAA negotiations.My remarks were in no way directed to you - I merely used your messageas an opportunity to clarify what is going around as a result of thework of certain spinmeisters.

[Guest guest]

Maurine,

I have not intended for any of my posts to be " hostile " ....please

point out which of my posts did that?

I respect anyone's right to " disagree " on this subject....or any

other subject....it doesn't bother me in the least!!!

Kelli

>

> Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

budging on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we would

not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you for this message, Rita. I didn't even note the " walk away " in

the message you put out recently. It was others to whom I was

referring, both in public and private communications. I appreciate your

clarification but the spread of the use of this word, especially when I

saw it compared with " walking away from one's family " was offensive.

Thank you for this statement of solidarity. We certainly do share the

same objectives.

Bob

On Nov 26, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Rita Shreffler wrote:

I'm the party Bob is referring to, and I offer my sincere apologies to

you and to A-CHAMP.  I've tried to be careful not to use the phrase

" walk away " since our discussion and one got by me the other day.  I

was in too much of a hurry, and regret not editing more carefully.  As

I assured you earlier this year, it is by no means meant as a

derogatory term from me personally or from NAA.  We have used the

phrase in reference to a course we ourselves might at one point take

regarding the bill.  A better phrase than " walking away " is " deciding

to no longer support the bill " and I will again try to use this

instead.

 

I have the greatest respect for you personally, Bob, and for A-CHAMP

and all the vaccine/mercury-focused organizations.  Our goals have

always been the same, even when the means of reaching them has varied.

 

Rita

__________________________________

 

Re: Re: Answers to CAA questions

You do not need to apologize for your message. These words " walk away "

are being deliberately twisted (not by your) to mischaracterize our

(A-CHAMP's and others) actions and undermine the legitimacy of our

voice in advocating our position on CAA. Used generically, " walking

away " is a perfectly ok tactic to use in negotiations. But there is a

concerted and orchestrated effort to characterize A-CHAMP as " walking

away " with the specific intent of damaging our credibility and stifling

our voice. I have encountered the term in justifying some group's

actions rebuffing our efforts to coordinate advocacy efforts. I have

encountered the term also in its use by another to dismiss our actions

as if we " walked away " when things got " tough. " When it was first used

publicly last July it was used to characterize our opposition to the

bill in the form it existed in July as compared with the

self-characterization of other organizations to remain " engaged. " I

privately told the party that used the phrase that I objected to it and

their organization should refrain from using the characterization. I

have now seen the phrase used by multiple organizations and people in

regard to us. It is a slander designed to keep us away from the

discussions. It is a ploy used by the spinmeisters who have

orchestrated the CAA negotiations.

My remarks were in no way directed to you - I merely used your message

as an opportunity to clarify what is going around as a result of the

work of certain spinmeisters.

 

[Guest guest]

Thanks to all of you for your

dignity and perseverance.

This is an emotional arena, so it will

happen that words fly back and forth constantly; as is part of human nature.

We are

all striving for progress amidst the public developments and our own personal

concerns with our children....not an easy thing to do.

Sometimes in critical moments a

degree of calm and reflection is warranted.

Some

questions are necessary, as well as some trust, in dealing with such

complicated issues.

REAACH

urges both of these in measured calm and diplomacy, while staying the

course. Suzanne Messina REAACH

From: EOHarm [mailto:EOHarm ] On Behalf Of Krakow

Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006

12:25 PM

EOHarm

Subject: Re: Re: Answers

to CAA questions

Thank you for this message, Rita. I didn't even note the " walk

away " in the message you put out recently. It was others to whom I was

referring, both in public and private communications. I appreciate your clarification

but the spread of the use of this word, especially when I saw it compared with

" walking away from one's family " was offensive.

Thank you for this statement of solidarity. We certainly do share the same

objectives.

Bob

On Nov 26, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Rita Shreffler wrote:

I'm the party Bob is referring to, and I

offer my sincere apologies to you and to A-CHAMP. I've tried to be

careful not to use the phrase " walk away " since our discussion and

one got by me the other day. I was in too much of a hurry, and regret not

editing more carefully. As I assured you earlier this year, it is by no

means meant as a derogatory term from me personally or from NAA. We have

used the phrase in reference to a course we ourselves might at one point take

regarding the bill. A better phrase than " walking away " is

" deciding to no longer support the bill " and I will again try to use

this instead.

I have the

greatest respect for you personally, Bob, and for A-CHAMP and all the

vaccine/mercury-focused organizations. Our goals have always been

the same, even when the means of reaching them has varied.

Rita

__________________________________

Re:

Re: Answers to CAA questions

You do not need to apologize for

your message. These words " walk away "

are being

deliberately twisted (not by your) to mischaracterize our

(A-CHAMP's

and others) actions and undermine the legitimacy of our

voice

in advocating our position on CAA. Used generically, " walking

away "

is a perfectly ok tactic to use in negotiations. But there is a

concerted

and orchestrated effort to characterize A-CHAMP as " walking

away "

with the specific intent of damaging our credibility and stifling

our

voice. I have encountered the term in justifying some group's

actions

rebuffing our efforts to coordinate advocacy efforts. I have

encountered

the term also in its use by another to dismiss our actions

as if

we " walked away " when things got " tough. " When it was first

used

publicly

last July it was used to characterize our opposition to the

bill

in the form it existed in July as compared with the

self-characterization

of other organizations to remain " engaged. " I

privately

told the party that used the phrase that I objected to it and

their

organization should refrain from using the characterization. I

have

now seen the phrase used by multiple organizations and people in

regard

to us. It is a slander designed to keep us away from the

discussions.

It is a ploy used by the spinmeisters who have

orchestrated

the CAA negotiations.

My remarks were in no way directed

to you - I merely used your message

as an

opportunity to clarify what is going around as a result of the

work

of certain spinmeisters.

[Guest guest]

Kelli, The tone of all you recent posts seem hostile to me. I don't also understand why when Bob asked you specific questions-you couldn't just answer them outright. A tone of great secrecy seemed to flow out from your posts-almost like the government fiasco with the WMD's a few years back. it honestly felt kind of scary to me. maurineseekingtruth4miles <kellianndavis@...> wrote: Maurine,I have not intended for any of my posts to be "hostile"....please point out

which of my posts did that?I respect anyone's right to "disagree" on this subject....or any other subject....it doesn't bother me in the least!!!Kelli > > Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never budging on the "origional" agreed upon consensus language, we would not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.> > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------> Everyone is raving about the all-new

beta.>

Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

[Guest guest]

Too funny! No. I'm not some " alien being " or " foreign spy " ....

Like I was just discussing with Lenny, I AM a very open person by

nature but I just get real hesitant to say much because I don't want

to make a mistake by " revealing " something that I shouldn't due to

the fact that this is a semi-PUBLIC list!

And so, I reminded Bob about the post that had already been made

which explained in detail the latest on CAA. I figured I couldn't

go wrong on something that was already posted :-)

Just that simple, really.

Kelli

> >

> > Bob, the problem is, had every organization stood together as a

> UNITED FRONT, holding the legislators feet to the fire, never

> budging on the " origional " agreed upon consensus language, we

would

> not be playing this frustrating game of cat and mouse.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > ---------------------------------

> > Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ---------------------------------

> Everyone is raving about the all-new beta.

>

[Guest guest]

I know there are probably many on this board who are not Christians;

however, I think the Biblical analogy is very appropriate for the

autism community, esp after reading about the goings-on among the

autism community over CAA. I hope those not Christians can respect

this as a literary analogy.

Corinthians 12:12-26 talks about the body of Christ being different

parts, but all part of the same body. Starting at 19:

And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye

cannot say to the hand, " I have no need of you " ; nor again the head to

the feet, " I have no need of you. " No, much rather, those members of

the body which seem to be weaker are necessary. And those members of

the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow

greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty, but

our presentable parts have no need. But God composed the body, having

given greater honor to that part which lacks it, that there should be

no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care

for one another. And if one member suffers, all the members suffer

with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.

Seems to me that we all need to respect all each other's gifts and

stop all the fighting. There are those in the autism community who are

extremely diplomatic; that is a needed gift. There are those who are

very outspoken; we also need those in the community. If neurodiversity

is gifted to help those understand respect is needed for people with

autism, then we should respect that in the neurodiversity. If DAN! is

gifted to help the biomedical needs of those with autism, then

neurodiversity needs to respect that. If A-CHAMP is gifted at

lobbying, all the other orgs need to respect that. If ASA is gifted at

name recognition, we should appreciate the name recognition to promote

autism stuff. If NAA is good at promoting biomed issues, ASA, A-CHAMP,

etc, should promote that part of NAA, etc.

Seems to me the problem, once again, is that these groups actually

expects the gov to spend money researching their own guilt in the

cause of autism. It ain't gonna happen without major implosion among

the groups. If ASA, as an example, isn't gifted in understanding the

biomed issues of autism, we never should have expected them to sign on

supporting such, nor should we expect the biomed gang to stand for

anything less.

The politicians are doing to the autism community exactly what they

were hoping. They didn't wanna prove themselves guilty, so they used

politics to get everyone arguing. Now they can kick back, put their

heels on their desks, and smoke a big ole cuban knowing they got

themselves out of the picture, got the autism community to fold, and

everything stays the same.

Can those who support biomed not come together and form a biomed

consensus? I still say the best way to get reseach is for us to get

the money ourselves. Think of all the time, energy, and wasted money

working on a bill that's never come to anything. How much could we

have raised in funding for good studies? I know our local autism group

has an account just for funding research. I would imagine other groups

have similar. Seems to me working on lobbying some universities around

the nation to do a few studies would be much more well-spent time and

energy. We already have some of the best researchers in the world

helping the autism pandemic. As one wise soul put it, any time the gov

gets involved, it only means disaster. The immunization program is a

perfect example.

Debi

[Guest guest]

> And if they were all one member, where would the body be?

> But now indeed there are many members, yet one body. And the eye

> cannot say to the hand, " I have no need of you " ; nor again the head to

> the feet, " I have no need of you. "

Debi,

To follow your analogy, I think there does come a time when the brain

can rightly address the hemorrhoids: " get lost. "

Lenny

[Guest guest]

Lol. I think He was talking about normal, healthy body parts, not the

nasty growths we get. Now see, I was trying to be nice and complement

everyone, here you go assigning nauty names...

Debi

> Debi,

> To follow your analogy, I think there does come a time when the brain

> can rightly address the hemorrhoids: " get lost. "

>

> Lenny

>