Re: WAS New study - THEN Majority/Purpose - ADDING Mutual Courtesy & Respect :-)

[Guest guest]

,

I admit to not fully understanding the point was making

here either. And, I really did not understand her comments in

response to my follow up questions to about her response to me

regarding the posted study. (Whew, breathe, long sentence!) Setting

that aside for the moment though, if I may, I would like to follow

up some on the substance of your post.

<<And honestly for the life of me I can't see how much newer than

2008 a study could be. Is it relevant to our apraxic children? Now

THAT is a good question!>>

I agree. And, that is the question, albeit in a somewhat piecemeal

fashion, that I was asking in the linked posts.

/message/7508

8

/message/7508

9

Unfortunately, here is the response I received:

<<Anyone who doesn't know that apraxic children were also looked at

but not mentioned is not in reality.>>

While I admit to not fully understanding 's intended meaning

(and previously inquiring about it, but not receiving a response):

/message/7515

7

Truly, I cannot think of a response to me that might have been less

respectful or more flippant than the one I received. Except, of

course for those responses in recent past that told mothers that

they did not know what they were even talking about, or the one in

which she stated that she was glad she always knew nearly a decade

ago that dietary interventions –- those with which other mothers are

finding current success -- did not work anyway, or the response that

compared claims that dairy restrictive diets showed positive results

in particular children's speech to claims that Teddy Grahams might

do the same. These are only a few that come instantly to mind --

sadly, there have been many more.

, I say all of this to say that I wholeheartedly agree with you

when you state:

<<So PLEASE if you have things to share regarding apraxia or other

speech and language disorders then WRITE! If on the other hand you

are being disrespectful and flippant please do it else where. My

[child] is not helped by your sarcasm.>>

I just believe it applies to everyone with equal force, including a

group's leader, however accomplished and respectable she may be.

Some would argue she should be held to a higher standard. But, I'm

not asking for that. I'm simply asking for the same standard, as

opposed to the double one that we appear to be applying at present.

>

> A number of the " old timers " may remember me and know that I

rarely

> post negatively but the below post really got to me. I'm replying

to

> Michele's message because to me it sounded so disrespectful but I

> write to the group.

>

> First things first - The definition of majority means OVER 50%.

> There are OVER 7,000 people on this list. I would respectively

ask

> for people to PLEASE temper your accusations and your guesses.

Even

> if there were 10 people posting about a specific intervention or

> disability it does NOT make it a majority. Actually as I write

this

> there are 7,590 people subscribed to this list. That means that

OVER

> 3,795 would be a majority. It is of NO help to ANYONE when people

> throw their own particular theories around. We are very lucky

that

>

[Guest guest]

I wholeheartedly agree with your insights. I have always felt the

dismissal by on other effective interventions (as proven by

moms)to be disrespectful and uncalled for. After all, these moms

share their success stories and strategies so fish oil/vitamin E

non-responders can benefit.

--- momtosjk <crkelley@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> I admit to not fully understanding the point was making

> here either. And, I really did not understand her comments in

> response to my follow up questions to about her response to me

>

> regarding the posted study. (Whew, breathe, long sentence!) Setting

>

> that aside for the moment though, if I may, I would like to follow

> up some on the substance of your post.

>

> <<And honestly for the life of me I can't see how much newer than

> 2008 a study could be. Is it relevant to our apraxic children? Now

> THAT is a good question!>>

>

> I agree. And, that is the question, albeit in a somewhat piecemeal

>

> fashion, that I was asking in the linked posts.

>

>

/message/7508

> 8

>

>

/message/7508

> 9

>

> Unfortunately, here is the response I received:

>

> <<Anyone who doesn't know that apraxic children were also looked at

>

> but not mentioned is not in reality.>>

>

> While I admit to not fully understanding 's intended meaning

> (and previously inquiring about it, but not receiving a response):

>

>

/message/7515

> 7

>

> Truly, I cannot think of a response to me that might have been less

>

> respectful or more flippant than the one I received. Except, of

> course for those responses in recent past that told mothers that

> they did not know what they were even talking about, or the one in

> which she stated that she was glad she always knew nearly a decade

> ago that dietary interventions –- those with which other mothers

> are

> finding current success -- did not work anyway, or the response

> that

> compared claims that dairy restrictive diets showed positive

> results

> in particular children's speech to claims that Teddy Grahams might

> do the same. These are only a few that come instantly to mind --

> sadly, there have been many more.

>

> , I say all of this to say that I wholeheartedly agree with

> you

> when you state:

>

> <<So PLEASE if you have things to share regarding apraxia or other

> speech and language disorders then WRITE! If on the other hand you

> are being disrespectful and flippant please do it else where. My

> [child] is not helped by your sarcasm.>>

>

> I just believe it applies to everyone with equal force, including a

>

> group's leader, however accomplished and respectable she may be.

> Some would argue she should be held to a higher standard. But, I'm

>

> not asking for that. I'm simply asking for the same standard, as

> opposed to the double one that we appear to be applying at present.

>

>

>

> >

> > A number of the " old timers " may remember me and know that I

> rarely

> > post negatively but the below post really got to me. I'm

> replying

> to

> > Michele's message because to me it sounded so disrespectful but I

>

> > write to the group.

> >

> > First things first - The definition of majority means OVER 50%.

> > There are OVER 7,000 people on this list. I would respectively

> ask

> > for people to PLEASE temper your accusations and your guesses.

> Even

> > if there were 10 people posting about a specific intervention or

> > disability it does NOT make it a majority. Actually as I write

> this

> > there are 7,590 people subscribed to this list. That means that

> OVER

> > 3,795 would be a majority. It is of NO help to ANYONE when

> people

> > throw their own particular theories around. We are very lucky

> that

> >