Alice

[Guest guest]

I find some interesting and sound insights in Alice 's writing, but I

too am generally turned off by her approach, which is too touchie-feelie

(sp?) and overly dramatic for me. However, I think it helps to realize that

her writing contains an inherent bias against the

psychology/psychiatry/counseling field(s), in a sense, lashing out or trying

to expose them. Not to say I agree with the direction that they're going, but

I think her professional efforts have left her feeling betrayed and misled.

Of course, every critical work, and many historical pieces naturally start

with some form of bias, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Nick

[Guest guest]

Hi Nick,

>

> Of course, every critical work, and many historical pieces naturally

start

> with some form of bias, and there's nothing wrong with that.

>

> Nick

Here is a quote from 's website that I found interesting:

" So I think it is crucial to grasp the difference between the

statement, " every victim becomes a persecutor, " which is

wrong, and the statement, " every persecutor was a victim in his

childhood, " which I consider true. The problem is that, feeling

nothing, he remembers nothing, realizes nothing, and this is why

surveys don't always reveal the truth. Yet the presence of a

warm, enlightened witness ... therapist, social worker, lawyer, judge

.... can help the criminal unlock his repressed feelings and restore

the unrestricted flow of consciousness. This can initiate the process

of escape from the vicious circle of amnesia and violence. "

It seems to me that Ken has taken this idea, that " every persecutor

was a victim in him childhood, " (an assertion with nothing

empirical to back it up) and changed it slightly to say that " every

person who has had problems with alcohol/drugs was a victim in his

childhood. " And where does this logic lead? Were the parents of the

parents also victims? It must run back through generation upon

generation! But perhaps I'm being silly. It's only the current

generation we are interested in, right?

This next quote puts right in the " attachment " camp as far as

I'm concerned:

" Untold millions of people who have been in attendance when babies are

born (doctors, midwives, nurses, family members) have taken it for

granted that the newborn will cry out of physical necessity. Amazingly

enough, they did not perceive the obvious fact that the face distorted

with pain and the little creature's cries were nothing other than the

expression of psychic distress. Frédérick Leboyer was the first to ask

the long overdue question of how babies must feel when, after an often

difficult struggle for survival, they are lifted up by their feet and

submitted to brutal routine procedures instead of being comforted. He

proved that if the newborns are treated with great care, in keeping

with their psychic state, they are able to smile just minutes after

being born and do not cry. It actually is in the way the newborns have

been treated, until very recently, that society makes the first of its

many contributions toward equipping a person with destructive and

self-destructive tendencies. "

UTTER BOLLOCKS! (To borrow Pam's phrase). Infants are not capable of

conscious smiling until approximately 6 weeks of age. Those nasty

" procedures " are *vital* and have saved untold lives.

I can not take a person seriously who spouts this kind of complete

nonsense.

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Is your source Piaget?

IIrc Recent research suggestds Piaget was wring, that even newborns

can smile in response to a maternal smile, and even copy sticking a

tongue out. Apparently during one lecture a woman said to Piaget:

" Professor, yesterday I stuck my tongue out at my newborn baby and he

stuck his out back. What do you think of that? "

A tense silece descended. how would the venerable professor respod to

this challenge to his theory?

" I think, " he said, " that that was very rude. "

Maybe newborns smile, but not consciously.

P.

> UTTER BOLLOCKS! (To borrow Pam's phrase). Infants are not capable

of

> conscious smiling until approximately 6 weeks of age.

[Guest guest]

> Hi ,

>

> Is your source Piaget?

Nah, any child development or baby book will tell you that. I checked

in The American Association of Pediatrics - Birth through the First

Five Years, and they state that the very first smiles come at about

four weeks, when the baby is sleeping. Then around 5-6 weeks they

will smile when they are alert. My daughter didn't actually *smile*

at 5 weeks, but her face could be very pleasant and relaxed. I have a

great picture of that.

>

> IIrc Recent research suggestds Piaget was wring, that even newborns

> can smile in response to a maternal smile, and even copy sticking a

> tongue out. Apparently during one lecture a woman said to Piaget:

> " Professor, yesterday I stuck my tongue out at my newborn baby and

he

> stuck his out back. What do you think of that? "

>

> A tense silece descended. how would the venerable professor respod

to

> this challenge to his theory?

>

> " I think, " he said, " that that was very rude. "

>

> Maybe newborns smile, but not consciously.

Well, I used to get sick of the people who always said, that wasn't a

" real smile " that's just gas. Their faces do go through various

expressions. You'd just have to be around some to really get what I

mean, but they aren't well-formed or conscious.

[Guest guest]

(snip)

>

> This next quote puts right in the " attachment " camp as far as

> I'm concerned:

>

> " Untold millions of people who have been in attendance when babies are

> born (doctors, midwives, nurses, family members) have taken it for

> granted that the newborn will cry out of physical necessity. Amazingly

> enough, they did not perceive the obvious fact that the face distorted

> with pain and the little creature's cries were nothing other than the

> expression of psychic distress. Frédérick Leboyer was the first to ask

> the long overdue question of how babies must feel when, after an often

> difficult struggle for survival, they are lifted up by their feet and

> submitted to brutal routine procedures instead of being comforted. He

> proved that if the newborns are treated with great care, in keeping

> with their psychic state, they are able to smile just minutes after

> being born and do not cry. It actually is in the way the newborns have

> been treated, until very recently, that society makes the first of its

> many contributions toward equipping a person with destructive and

> self-destructive tendencies. "

>

> UTTER BOLLOCKS! (To borrow Pam's phrase). Infants are not capable of

> conscious smiling until approximately 6 weeks of age. Those nasty

> " procedures " are *vital* and have saved untold lives.

>

> I can not take a person seriously who spouts this kind of complete

> nonsense.

>

>

------------------

Hi --

Well actually my son (fully awake and conscious) turned his head towar=

d me when he heard my voice and smiled, at 3 weeks of age.

But that's not the point.

Leboyer has been totally discredited -- as I posted earlier, his descr=

iptions of the " horrible, devastating " experience an infant in a perfectly h=

ealthy natural vaginal delivery goes through -- " crushed by the monstrous un=

yielding walls " of the vagina, sound like the ravings of a lunatic. (A miso=

gynist lunatic at that.) The stimulation to the nervous system of being squ=

eezed through the birth canal is actually quite beneficial, and the cries em=

itted by the infant due to the momentary discomfort of air hitting his wet b=

ody upon emerging, help get his lungs working. Trying to eliminate any " unc=

omfortable " sensations to the infant in the birthing process is unnecessary =

and may actually be harmful.

The only thing Leboyer was correct about was that holding the newborn =

upside down and tapping or striking it to make it cry is unnecessary. Healt=

hy infants will cry upon emerging without this kind of aid, and the practice=

has been discontinued in most hospitals.

Whatever momentary discomforts a normal healthy infant experiences in =

the early days and months, it is sheer poppycock to suggest that it adversel=

y affects him for the rest of his life, or that " reliving " birth or infancy =

is necessary as an adult in order to " heal " .

~Rita

[Guest guest]

> > Hi ,

> >

> > Is your source Piaget?

>

> Nah, any child development or baby book will tell you that. I

checked

> in The American Association of Pediatrics - Birth through the

First

> Five Years, and they state that the very first smiles come at

about

> four weeks, when the baby is sleeping. Then around 5-6

weeks they

> will smile when they are alert. My daughter didn't actually

*smile*

> at 5 weeks, but her face could be very pleasant and relaxed. I

have a

> great picture of that.

> >

> > IIrc Recent research suggestds Piaget was wring, that even

newborns

> > can smile in response to a maternal smile, and even copy

sticking a

> > tongue out. Apparently during one lecture a woman said to

Piaget:

> > " Professor, yesterday I stuck my tongue out at my newborn

baby and

> he

> > stuck his out back. What do you think of that? "

> >

> > A tense silece descended. how would the venerable

professor respod

> to

> > this challenge to his theory?

> >

> > " I think, " he said, " that that was very rude. "

> >

> > Maybe newborns smile, but not consciously.

>

> Well, I used to get sick of the people who always said, that

wasn't a

> " real smile " that's just gas. Their faces do go through various

> expressions. You'd just have to be around some to really get

what I

> mean, but they aren't well-formed or conscious.

>

>

I posted a while back on my own theory that human emotionas

are a system, a built-in system and work similar to our other

bodily systems (digestive, respiratory, circulatory.) I can'i find

anythig to scientificaly back this one up, but I developed the idea

from looking at my dog and my cats.

In observing my doggy, I noticed that her facial expressions are

just like peoples. They are recognizable to us. When she's

happy, she looks happy. When she' s mad she looks mad, etc.

The kitty, however, I don't always know what he's feeling, his

facial expressions are not recocnizable to me. Unless it's

extreme, his back is arched, hair standing straight up, yes, I

know what that means.

I think that dogs have an emotional system that is very similar to

humans, cats' emotional system is significantly different. I don't

know if we are taxinomically closer to dogs than we are to cats,

but it would seem that we are.

Well, anyway, I think the " emotional system " is a good theory,

even if the scientific community is not pinning a medal on me in

town square, -- maybe someday

Devin

[Guest guest]

>

> (snip)

> >

> > This next quote puts right in the " attachment " camp as

far as

> > I'm concerned:

> >

> > " Untold millions of people who have been in attendance

when babies are

> > born (doctors, midwives, nurses, family members) have

taken it for

> > granted that the newborn will cry out of physical necessity.

Amazingly

> > enough, they did not perceive the obvious fact that the face

distorted

> > with pain and the little creature's cries were nothing other

than the

> > expression of psychic distress. Frédérick Leboyer was the

first to ask

> > the long overdue question of how babies must feel when,

after an often

> > difficult struggle for survival, they are lifted up by their feet and

> > submitted to brutal routine procedures instead of being

comforted. He

> > proved that if the newborns are treated with great care, in

keeping

> > with their psychic state, they are able to smile just minutes

after

> > being born and do not cry. It actually is in the way the

newborns have

> > been treated, until very recently, that society makes the first of

its

> > many contributions toward equipping a person with

destructive and

> > self-destructive tendencies. "

> >

> > UTTER BOLLOCKS! (To borrow Pam's phrase). Infants are

not capable of

> > conscious smiling until approximately 6 weeks of age.

Those nasty

> > " procedures " are *vital* and have saved untold lives.

> >

> > I can not take a person seriously who spouts this kind of

complete

> > nonsense.

> >

> >

>

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

>

> Hi --

>

> Well actually my son (fully awake and conscious) turned his

head towar=

> d me when he heard my voice and smiled, at 3 weeks of age.

>

> But that's not the point.

>

> Leboyer has been totally discredited -- as I posted earlier,

his descr=

> iptions of the " horrible, devastating " experience an infant in a

perfectly h=

> ealthy natural vaginal delivery goes through -- " crushed by the

monstrous un=

> yielding walls " of the vagina, sound like the ravings of a lunatic.

(A miso=

> gynist lunatic at that.) The stimulation to the nervous system of

being squ=

> eezed through the birth canal is actually quite beneficial, and

the cries em=

> itted by the infant due to the momentary discomfort of air hitting

his wet b=

> ody upon emerging, help get his lungs working. Trying to

eliminate any " unc=

> omfortable " sensations to the infant in the birthing process is

unnecessary =

> and may actually be harmful.

>

> The only thing Leboyer was correct about was that holding

the newborn =

> upside down and tapping or striking it to make it cry is

unnecessary. Healt=

> hy infants will cry upon emerging without this kind of aid, and

the practice=

> has been discontinued in most hospitals.

>

> Whatever momentary discomforts a normal healthy infant

experiences in =

> the early days and months, it is sheer poppycock to suggest

that it adversel=

> y affects him for the rest of his life, or that " reliving " birth or

infancy =

> is necessary as an adult in order to " heal " .

>

> ~Rita

This is just an example of the authoritarian mysogeny that that

has been impressed on us through out history. We have

examples like Leboyer who believes that the experience of birth

must be recreated so that he is able to give birth. We have

treatment programs of the past that dressed clients in diapers

and shaved their heads, so that the program directors are able

to raise the " child " from infancy. We have the " born again xtians "

who experience being born again of god (HE gives birth to you)

This is an attempt to completely discredit the woman's

birth-giving ability. Your original birth is invalidated, the " valid "

birth must be perfomed by a male. Here we see that the

patriarchal authoritarian males are really suffering from

" vagina-envy. "

Yes, if I'm not careful, I will be burned at the stake, or put in the

iron maiden, or drawn and quartered - such is life.

Devin

[Guest guest]

>

> Whatever momentary discomforts a normal healthy infant

experiences in the early days and months, it is sheer poppycock to

suggest that it adversely affects him for the rest of his life, or

that " reliving " birth or infancy is necessary as an adult in order to

" heal " .

>

> ~Rita

Hi Rita,

I also think that the idea that the birth process you and your

baby went through is somehow wrong, or setting the stage for violence

later, is a very dangerous one, albiet only a gullible person that

would swallow it. Parents and kids are going to get into each others'

hair at some point! There *will* be problems, there is no way around

that. But attributing them to " birth trauma " is a bad mistake.

Actually, that is the major drawback of c-section, is that because the

baby isn't squeezed through the birth canal they sometimes retain a

little bit of fluid in their lungs. A healthy cry helps clear it and

that is a measurement on the Apgar scale. A baby that isn't crying

might not be breathing well at that point.

[Guest guest]

Hello Devin,

First let me say how good I think your " rant " is - it says pretty well

exactly what I have thought and said on professional addiction forums

for a long time. I think the " severed penis " thing though is over the

top. Yep AA theology is patriarchal, but I wouldnt take it any

further than there. Also as you yourself observed in one of the gso

posts, there is a movement to a unisex God - some XA groups have gone

over to " God as we understood God " . OA has considered this -

ironically when we discussed this at intergroup said " My background is

Jewish and I think it's generally understood that GOd is male " .

As for your emotion theory yes there are biological theories of

emotion like you suggest, though Ive never been bothered to go into it

at depth. As no doubt Bjorn may confrirm, there is good reason why

humans may be more similar to dogs than cats - cats are generally

soilitary whereas digs are " pack animals " where herd behavior needs to

me modulated by emotional responses.

P.

> I posted a while back on my own theory that human emotionas

> are a system, a built-in system and work similar to our other

> bodily systems (digestive, respiratory, circulatory.) I can'i find

> anythig to scientificaly back this one up, but I developed the idea

> from looking at my dog and my cats.

>

> In observing my doggy, I noticed that her facial expressions are

> just like peoples. They are recognizable to us. When she's

> happy, she looks happy. When she' s mad she looks mad, etc.

> The kitty, however, I don't always know what he's feeling, his

> facial expressions are not recocnizable to me. Unless it's

> extreme, his back is arched, hair standing straight up, yes, I

> know what that means.

>

> I think that dogs have an emotional system that is very similar to

> humans, cats' emotional system is significantly different. I don't

> know if we are taxinomically closer to dogs than we are to cats,

> but it would seem that we are.

>

> Well, anyway, I think the " emotional system " is a good theory,

> even if the scientific community is not pinning a medal on me in

> town square, -- maybe someday

>

> Devin

[Guest guest]

ahicks@... wrote:

>

>

> Hi Nick,

> >

> > Of course, every critical work, and many historical pieces naturally

> start

> > with some form of bias, and there's nothing wrong with that.

> >

> > Nick

>

> Here is a quote from 's website that I found interesting:

>

> " So I think it is crucial to grasp the difference between the

> statement, " every victim becomes a persecutor, " which is

> wrong, and the statement, " every persecutor was a victim in his

> childhood, " which I consider true. The problem is that, feeling

> nothing, he remembers nothing, realizes nothing, and this is why

> surveys don't always reveal the truth. Yet the presence of a

> warm, enlightened witness ... therapist, social worker, lawyer, judge

> ... can help the criminal unlock his repressed feelings and restore

> the unrestricted flow of consciousness. This can initiate the process

> of escape from the vicious circle of amnesia and violence. "

>

> It seems to me that Ken has taken this idea, that " every persecutor

> was a victim in him childhood, " (an assertion with nothing

> empirical to back it up) and changed it slightly to say that " every

> person who has had problems with alcohol/drugs was a victim in his

> childhood. " And where does this logic lead? Were the parents of the

> parents also victims? It must run back through generation upon

> generation! But perhaps I'm being silly. It's only the current

> generation we are interested in, right?

,

Of course what people do is intergenerational.

>

>

> This next quote puts right in the " attachment " camp as far as

> I'm concerned:

>

> " Untold millions of people who have been in attendance when babies are

> born (doctors, midwives, nurses, family members) have taken it for

> granted that the newborn will cry out of physical necessity. Amazingly

> enough, they did not perceive the obvious fact that the face distorted

> with pain and the little creature's cries were nothing other than the

> expression of psychic distress. Frédérick Leboyer was the first to ask

> the long overdue question of how babies must feel when, after an often

> difficult struggle for survival, they are lifted up by their feet and

> submitted to brutal routine procedures instead of being comforted. He

> proved that if the newborns are treated with great care, in keeping

> with their psychic state, they are able to smile just minutes after

> being born and do not cry. It actually is in the way the newborns have

> been treated, until very recently, that society makes the first of its

> many contributions toward equipping a person with destructive and

> self-destructive tendencies. "

>

> UTTER BOLLOCKS! (To borrow Pam's phrase). Infants are not capable of

> conscious smiling until approximately 6 weeks of age. Those nasty

> " procedures " are *vital* and have saved untold lives.

>

> I can not take a person seriously who spouts this kind of complete

> nonsense.

>

Well, whether those " procedures " are *vital* or not, we in the U.S. have a

higher infant mortality rate than most if not all of our wealthy

industrialized democracy peers who, from my understanding, are far less

intrusive.

(e.g. Finland 3.82/1,000 live births, France 4.51, Japan 3.91, U.S. 6.82)

As far as Leboyer " asking the question, " that makes a lot of sense to me.

Ken Ragge

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

>

> Well, whether those " procedures " are *vital* or not, we in the U.S.

have a

> higher infant mortality rate than most if not all of our wealthy

> industrialized democracy peers who, from my understanding, are far

less

> intrusive.

> (e.g. Finland 3.82/1,000 live births, France 4.51, Japan 3.91, U.S.

6.82)

I'd be interested in the source of your information, time frame, etc.

I am not familiar with maternity procedures in other places to have a

comparison about the relative intrusiveness.

Not all infant mortality can be attributed to the birth itself, or

what procedures were used. For example, in the US there has been a

huge increase in older mothers and statistically there is a higher

infant mortality rate associated with this. Babies or mothers with

serious illnesses have higher mortality rates and some infants can

only live in the womb (There is a rare condition called anencephaly,

where the baby literally does not develop a brain and spinal

material--while inside it is similar to being on life-support, but

they can't transition to the outside). Post-maturity is also

associated with stillbirth because the placenta begins to break down

at a certain time if the baby is out or not. This situation can be a

bit more common in people who eschew medical intervention.

I did find one interesting statistic: In the US in 1950 the incidence

of stillbirth was 19.2 per 1,000 births and in 1980 it had dropped to

9.2 per 1,000 births. I'd be curious to find out the rate in 2000.

[Guest guest]

Hello

This finding about inferior infant mortality figures in the US is

well-known and reliable, and was highlighted by Stanton Peele in

" Diseasing of america " . I have seen no reason for it to be a

statistical artifact - it appears to be a completely reliable finding.

If it were methodoligically unsound then it would have been debunked

along time ago, and an academician of the stature of Peele would be

aware of that.

P.

>

> Hi Ken,

> >

> > Well, whether those " procedures " are *vital* or not, we in the

U.S.

> have a

> > higher infant mortality rate than most if not all of our wealthy

> > industrialized democracy peers who, from my understanding, are far

> less

> > intrusive.

> > (e.g. Finland 3.82/1,000 live births, France 4.51, Japan 3.91,

U.S.

> 6.82)

>

> I'd be interested in the source of your information, time frame,

etc.

> I am not familiar with maternity procedures in other places to have

a

> comparison about the relative intrusiveness.

>

> Not all infant mortality can be attributed to the birth itself, or

> what procedures were used. For example, in the US there has been a

> huge increase in older mothers and statistically there is a higher

> infant mortality rate associated with this. Babies or mothers with

> serious illnesses have higher mortality rates and some infants can

> only live in the womb (There is a rare condition called anencephaly,

> where the baby literally does not develop a brain and spinal

> material--while inside it is similar to being on life-support, but

> they can't transition to the outside). Post-maturity is also

> associated with stillbirth because the placenta begins to break down

> at a certain time if the baby is out or not. This situation can be

a

> bit more common in people who eschew medical intervention.

>

> I did find one interesting statistic: In the US in 1950 the

incidence

> of stillbirth was 19.2 per 1,000 births and in 1980 it had dropped

to

> 9.2 per 1,000 births. I'd be curious to find out the rate in 2000.

>

>

[Guest guest]

> Hello

>

> This finding about inferior infant mortality figures in the US is

> well-known and reliable, and was highlighted by Stanton Peele in

> " Diseasing of america " . I have seen no reason for it to be a

> statistical artifact - it appears to be a completely reliable

finding.

> If it were methodoligically unsound then it would have been debunked

> along time ago, and an academician of the stature of Peele would be

> aware of that.

Pete, are you talking about the stats Ken posted? I'm confused. I

still don't know where they're coming from. How does Peele use the

information?

[Guest guest]

> Pete, are you talking about the stats Ken posted? I'm confused. I

> still don't know where they're coming from. How does Peele use the

> information?

whichever the stats were you reponded to - I expect you are thinking

of the right ones. Peele uses them as an indication as to how

Americans suffer from over-medicalization of their culture. It's only

a passing reference.

P.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

>

>

> > Pete, are you talking about the stats Ken posted? I'm confused. I

> > still don't know where they're coming from. How does Peele use the

> > information?

>

> whichever the stats were you reponded to - I expect you are thinking

> of the right ones. Peele uses them as an indication as to how

> Americans suffer from over-medicalization of their culture. It's only

> a passing reference.

>

> P.

That strikes me as a very odd claim. I don't recall offhand what the causes

of high US infant mortality are supposed to be, but I would guess that the

'usual suspects' would be income inequality, lack of access to health care,

and high teenage pregnancy rates. How the heck would 'over-medicalization'

be a contributor? And do you know exactly where Peele makes that passing

reference?

--wally

[Guest guest]

> That strikes me as a very odd claim. I don't recall offhand what the

causes

> of high US infant mortality are supposed to be, but I would guess

that the

> 'usual suspects' would be income inequality, lack of access to

health care,

> and high teenage pregnancy rates. How the heck would

'over-medicalization'

> be a contributor? And do you know exactly where Peele makes that

passing

> reference?

I am suspicious too. I dont edxpect there is too much hi tech in the

charity hospital in Ghost Town, Missouri. however I trst Peele to

think of such things. The reference is *somewhere* toward the end of

" Diseasing of America " iirc. As well as possibly writing him and

asking him ( speele@... ), you could write the listowner of

the freedomof mind group who has also quoted these stats,

Pignotti (freedomofmind-owner ).

P.

[Guest guest]

Despite what you think, the main cause is overmedicalization -

complications caused by C-sections and medications used during

labor. Unless you are outside of the US, I don't see how you could

have missed this... there are special news reports on this subject

quite frequently.

> >

> > > Pete, are you talking about the stats Ken posted? I'm

confused. I

> > > still don't know where they're coming from. How does Peele use

the

> > > information?

> >

> > whichever the stats were you reponded to - I expect you are

thinking

> > of the right ones. Peele uses them as an indication as to how

> > Americans suffer from over-medicalization of their culture. It's

only

> > a passing reference.

> >

> > P.

>

> That strikes me as a very odd claim. I don't recall offhand what

the causes

> of high US infant mortality are supposed to be, but I would guess

that the

> 'usual suspects' would be income inequality, lack of access to

health care,

> and high teenage pregnancy rates. How the heck would 'over-

medicalization'

> be a contributor? And do you know exactly where Peele makes that

passing

> reference?

>

> --wally

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Dawn. I'm trying to drink a lot more. How are you feeling? I'm

so sorry about all you're going through, but it sounds like you're

handling it pretty well. Hope you feel better soon!

- AA

Dawn wrote:

>

> Alice,

>

> I have low energy levels also...I do find that when I drink a LOT more

> water, it definitely helps!

>

> Dawn

>

> Re: ?

>

> I was out for 4 weeks. I could have gone back to my desk job after 3

> weeks, but I wanted to take the extra time to get some strength and

> energy back, and I'm glad I did. I still had low energy for several

> weeks. Even now, after a year, I have some problems with low energy.

>

> - AA

>

> huggabubbles2000@... wrote:

> >

> > Can you post-op's let me know about how long you guys were out of

> > work after surgery...I know everyone's different, but I'm just

> trying

> > to get a general idea. Thanks.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Dawn. I'm trying to drink a lot more. How are you feeling? I'm

so sorry about all you're going through, but it sounds like you're

handling it pretty well. Hope you feel better soon!

- AA

Dawn wrote:

>

> Alice,

>

> I have low energy levels also...I do find that when I drink a LOT more

> water, it definitely helps!

>

> Dawn

>

> Re: ?

>

> I was out for 4 weeks. I could have gone back to my desk job after 3

> weeks, but I wanted to take the extra time to get some strength and

> energy back, and I'm glad I did. I still had low energy for several

> weeks. Even now, after a year, I have some problems with low energy.

>

> - AA

>

> huggabubbles2000@... wrote:

> >

> > Can you post-op's let me know about how long you guys were out of

> > work after surgery...I know everyone's different, but I'm just

> trying

> > to get a general idea. Thanks.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Dawn. I'm trying to drink a lot more. How are you feeling? I'm

so sorry about all you're going through, but it sounds like you're

handling it pretty well. Hope you feel better soon!

- AA

Dawn wrote:

>

> Alice,

>

> I have low energy levels also...I do find that when I drink a LOT more

> water, it definitely helps!

>

> Dawn

>

> Re: ?

>

> I was out for 4 weeks. I could have gone back to my desk job after 3

> weeks, but I wanted to take the extra time to get some strength and

> energy back, and I'm glad I did. I still had low energy for several

> weeks. Even now, after a year, I have some problems with low energy.

>

> - AA

>

> huggabubbles2000@... wrote:

> >

> > Can you post-op's let me know about how long you guys were out of

> > work after surgery...I know everyone's different, but I'm just

> trying

> > to get a general idea. Thanks.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

It would sure beat all these VOICES!

- AA

Dawn wrote:

> Alice...bells going off in your head...maybe that'd be a first!

>

> Dawn

>

> Re: Fall Outing September 30th, 10 - 5

> Salem

> MA

>

>

> Joni,

>

> I think Salem Willows looks good, as long as we gather in the park,

> and

> I don’t have to be right next to the Arcade. I want to be able to get

> to

> know people without bells going off right by my head ;-)

>

> - AA

>

> jdd716@... wrote:

>

> > I need some help with making a decision on which park we should go

> to

> > in

> > Salem for our outing. I have found 3 parks, two of which I have

> > included a

> > link, so you can check it out. The 3rd park (which was the one I was

>

> > thinking

> > of in the first place, does not have a web link).

> >

> > 1. Winter Island Park. This looks like a pretty cool park, but has

> a

> > $10.00

> > parking fee on the weekend. Historic Fort Pickering and Lighthouse,

>

> > beach,

> > boat launch, pier, picnic area and camp sites May through October.

> >

> > http://www.salemweb.com/winterisland/default.htm

> >

> > 2. Salem Willows Amusement Park. This looks pretty good as well.

> > Shaded park,

> > scenic harbor views, public pier with harbor cruises. Beaches,

> > children's

> > rides, amusement games, food & refreshments. March to October, 10 am

>

> > -11 pm.

> > Free parking and admission.

> >

> > http://www.salemweb.com/willows/default.htm

> >

> > 3. Forest River Park <A

> >

>

> REF= " http://www.mapblast.com/mblast/map.mb?CMD=LFILL & & CT=42.506232:-70.8876

>

> 73:50000 & IC=42.506232:-70.887673:8 & GAD2=Forest+River+Park & GAD3=Salem%2c+MA++

>

> 01970 & GAD4=USA: & W=425 & H=250 " >West

> > Avenue</A> - Family park with beaches, picnic areas,

> > fresh water swimming pool (residents only). Non-resident parking fee

>

> > in

> > season. Open dawn to dusk. I believe the parking fee is $5.00. No

> > website for

> > this park.

> >

> > Personally # 2 sounds like the way to go (I like free). Cast your

> vote

> > on

> > which one you prefer. Majority will rule. We can then decide where

> we

> > are

> > going to meet, provide directions, setup rides for those that don't

> > drive,

> > etc.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Joni - Dr. Thayer 11/27/00

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

It would sure beat all these VOICES!

- AA

Dawn wrote:

> Alice...bells going off in your head...maybe that'd be a first!

>

> Dawn

>

> Re: Fall Outing September 30th, 10 - 5

> Salem

> MA

>

>

> Joni,

>

> I think Salem Willows looks good, as long as we gather in the park,

> and

> I don’t have to be right next to the Arcade. I want to be able to get

> to

> know people without bells going off right by my head ;-)

>

> - AA

>

> jdd716@... wrote:

>

> > I need some help with making a decision on which park we should go

> to

> > in

> > Salem for our outing. I have found 3 parks, two of which I have

> > included a

> > link, so you can check it out. The 3rd park (which was the one I was

>

> > thinking

> > of in the first place, does not have a web link).

> >

> > 1. Winter Island Park. This looks like a pretty cool park, but has

> a

> > $10.00

> > parking fee on the weekend. Historic Fort Pickering and Lighthouse,

>

> > beach,

> > boat launch, pier, picnic area and camp sites May through October.

> >

> > http://www.salemweb.com/winterisland/default.htm

> >

> > 2. Salem Willows Amusement Park. This looks pretty good as well.

> > Shaded park,

> > scenic harbor views, public pier with harbor cruises. Beaches,

> > children's

> > rides, amusement games, food & refreshments. March to October, 10 am

>

> > -11 pm.

> > Free parking and admission.

> >

> > http://www.salemweb.com/willows/default.htm

> >

> > 3. Forest River Park <A

> >

>

> REF= " http://www.mapblast.com/mblast/map.mb?CMD=LFILL & & CT=42.506232:-70.8876

>

> 73:50000 & IC=42.506232:-70.887673:8 & GAD2=Forest+River+Park & GAD3=Salem%2c+MA++

>

> 01970 & GAD4=USA: & W=425 & H=250 " >West

> > Avenue</A> - Family park with beaches, picnic areas,

> > fresh water swimming pool (residents only). Non-resident parking fee

>

> > in

> > season. Open dawn to dusk. I believe the parking fee is $5.00. No

> > website for

> > this park.

> >

> > Personally # 2 sounds like the way to go (I like free). Cast your

> vote

> > on

> > which one you prefer. Majority will rule. We can then decide where

> we

> > are

> > going to meet, provide directions, setup rides for those that don't

> > drive,

> > etc.

> >

> > Take care,

> > Joni - Dr. Thayer 11/27/00

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Alice,

I'm not attacking you or anyone else that said they didn't like that post and

I am sorry if you felt that way. However, I did say that I feel as though

it's a selfish move to stop posting just because you didn't like one or two e

mails that were posted. We are not bashing you for stating what you feel,

but it's not fair of you to say so long to all of us that need and appreciate

your help just because you didn't like the e mail.

" this is for people who have been here longer than 6 months, as well as the

few nice newbies " - this statement that you wrote just offended me. The way

that this reads is saying that I'm not a nice person just because I said it

wasn't nice leaving us when we need your help ..............and you don't

even know me.

I'm glad that this post was here for you when you needed it. I do hope

everyone else will stick around because I am a " newbie " . My surgery is in 5

months and I know I will need alot of help from all you " old timers " .

Matina

[Guest guest]

Alice,

I'm not attacking you or anyone else that said they didn't like that post and

I am sorry if you felt that way. However, I did say that I feel as though

it's a selfish move to stop posting just because you didn't like one or two e

mails that were posted. We are not bashing you for stating what you feel,

but it's not fair of you to say so long to all of us that need and appreciate

your help just because you didn't like the e mail.

" this is for people who have been here longer than 6 months, as well as the

few nice newbies " - this statement that you wrote just offended me. The way

that this reads is saying that I'm not a nice person just because I said it

wasn't nice leaving us when we need your help ..............and you don't

even know me.

I'm glad that this post was here for you when you needed it. I do hope

everyone else will stick around because I am a " newbie " . My surgery is in 5

months and I know I will need alot of help from all you " old timers " .

Matina

[Guest guest]

Of course she did - after purposely offending me.

Gee, I wonder if I will get to meet her at the fall outing....