Re: Less frequent dosing and internet troll behavior

June 10, 2008

Michele -

The approach you describe ... it's full of emotional calmness, affirmation.

I've got to tell you, I'm not sure how well this works. I think what really

works, is passionately arguing for something. I know, people take things

personally, but if they see that you don't, if they see that you stick with the

issue without regard to whatever attacks they may level against you, then in a

sort of modeling way, they can let go and do the same. That calmness and

supportiveness - too much of it comes across to me as saccharine. But

passionate engagement and willingness to argue an issue - that's infectious.

Dave.

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

Posted by: " Michele " talithamichele@... michele_in_california

Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 3:33 pm ((PDT))

> >

> > Thank you.

:-)

>> > > it is important to

>> > > validate people without validating their current approach to the

>> > > problem.

> >

> > This is helpful. Not sure HOW helpful, and how much it is just

> > that people who are prone

> > to take things negatively can't be reached and necessarily have to

> > hurt their kids a lot

> > before listening to people becomes less painful than watching

> > their child disintigrate, but

> > at least it is a handle on the problem.

> >

> > Or as I'd rephrase it, I have to contradict and confront their

> > request for affirmation without

> > criticizing them.

I wouldn't assume they are looking for affirmation for the course of

action in question. I would assume they are looking for PERSONAL

affirmation and try to give that as something completely separate

from the protocol in question. It is sometimes possible to affirm

that someone is a good parent, trying hard to do right by their kid,

while at the same time saying that what they are doing currently is

not the best practical solution.

June 10, 2008

I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a parallel complete

unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see rhetorical tactics

of avoidance rather than engagement.

What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be constructive (albeit about

a different issue, list culture). I fail to see how that at all reflects what

Dana is doing.

Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss list culture, I

think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the culture. I'm

more interested in engaging concrete issues. I figure if we stick with a

passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each other out, the

rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough around the

edges, because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves, then

hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried about how they

want to be treated.

Dave.

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

Posted by: " Michele " talithamichele@... michele_in_california

Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 4:34 pm ((PDT))

> > You are playing troll and you should behave yourself and stop it.

> > If you weren't playing troll you'd already have started another

> > list to discuss the wonders

> > of 8 hour DMSA dosing and devoted your efforts there.

> > Andy

I don't think she is trolling. I think she is trying to say the same

thing I am trying to say: If people are assumed to be wrong, guilty

and stupid from the get-go for even admitting that they are doing a

different protocol, then you have no hope of helping them because

they won't post here.

I think it's a mistake to make a big issue out of her using the

example of 8 hour dosing and act like she is trying to " promote "

that. I don't think she is.

[...]

June 10, 2008

Perhaps it should be called, " Chelating Using Physiologically Appropriate

Dosing " , since this really has nothing to do with Andy (other than the fact

that he was able to clarify the issues involved).

Dave.

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

Posted by: " Tamara Kuhn " tkuhn1@... bailykuhn

Date: Sun Jun 8, 2008 5:56 pm ((PDT))

Honestly - the list should have a new title, chelating the Andy Cutler

method. This same thing just happened to the NCD people. So maybe it's

time to switch the title of this list to express it's intented is the Andy

way and get other started on other methods, maybe NCD got a

group going, not sure.

Tammy

June 10, 2008

>

> I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a

parallel complete

> unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see

rhetorical tactics

> of avoidance rather than engagement.

I see someone being railroaded who is coping as best she can, albeit

she doesn't have the best skills for it. I see a whole lot of

people getting stuck on an unfortunate example and unable to get

past that to hear her own statement that she is trying to say the

same thing I am trying to say about list culture.

>

> What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be constructive

(albeit about

> a different issue, list culture).

Thank you.

I fail to see how that at all reflects what

> Dana is doing.

I will say again: " The road to hell is paved with good

intentions. " Her inability to effectively execute is damning her

and being mistaken as " motive " .

>

> Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss

list culture, I

> think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the

culture. I'm

> more interested in engaging concrete issues.

Those concrete issues are easier to discuss and the discussions are

more productive when a list removes cultural obstacles to good

discussion.

I figure if we stick with a

> passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each

other out, the

> rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough

around the

> edges,

I don't care either. He and I both publically stated there is no

contention in my discussions with him.

because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves,

then

> hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried

about how they

> want to be treated.

" Movements " tend to be lead by people who are viewed as caring about

their people. Superficially manipulative tactics and verbal strong-

arm tactics are unlkely to make this a movement. They are also

unlikely to achieve what Andy states he wants: for this to be about

doing things right instead of about him and his ego. His current

bombastic approach is a public relations disaster in that regard

because it promotes the perception that this is precisely about Andy

and whether or not you agree with him.

>

> Dave.

>

Thanks.

Michele

June 10, 2008

I guess I never realized that Dana didn't dose every 3 or 4 hours. I

know she does ala only and not as many supplements. I think in this

way it is good to see the lowest common denominator of factors a

person can use and still acheive results.

I feel also that both andy's and Dana's input have been invaluable to

me and I felt like I couldn't have transformed my son into the best

version of himself without both of them. I couldn't have figured out

the chelation part without andy. I couldn't have figured out

supplements and yeast without dana.

I take what i can use and leave the rest. I am tempted to use ala only

and bare bones supplements but, I would never not dose every 3 or 4

hours just to sleep all night. Now, the problem with Dana could be

her adrenals. When I tried to chelate myself, I failed all three

rounds I tried and slept through the night because my adrenals are

shot. Nothing could wake me up. So, I'm fixing my adrenals first.

Would it be better just to chelate anyway and sleep through the night?

I am not personally comfortable with that decision, so I am fixing the

problem that causes me to get so exausted while chelating first.

June 10, 2008

>

> Michele -

>

> The approach you describe ... it's full of emotional calmness,

affirmation.

> I've got to tell you, I'm not sure how well this works. I think

what really

> works, is passionately arguing for something. I know, people take

things

> personally, but if they see that you don't, if they see that you

stick with the

> issue without regard to whatever attacks they may level against

you, then in a

> sort of modeling way, they can let go and do the same. That

calmness and

> supportiveness - too much of it comes across to me as saccharine.

But

> passionate engagement and willingness to argue an issue - that's

infectious.

>

> Dave.

>

I find your remarks ironic since I would say that I *am*

passionately arguing with the people on this board and have not used

a " sacharine sweet " approach to just affirm their views that bashing

people is sometimes for the best. Yet, if you will notice, ugly

accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people

are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people

not agreeing with me. Meanwhile, you remain convinced that Dana is

merely acting as a troll even though she has publically stated my

assessment is correct: she is trying to say the same thing I am

trying to say.

Why does Dana have no credibility in your eyes at this time? I

would say most likely because the two of you have made it personal

and it has devolved into sniping. The emotional need to prove each

other wrong/defend yourself (yourSELF, not your position, really) is

destroyng any hope of productive conversation between the two of

you. The more you snipe at each other, the less likely it is that

you will ever be able to understand any of the points the other is

trying to make. It only makes the chasm between the two of you grow

to insurmountable size. (I don't know what history there is between

the two of you. Odds are good that there is also a long history of

poor communication, hurt feelings, a sense of being " snubbed " and

similar which caused a predisposition to the current outcome.)

Thanks.

Michele

June 10, 2008

Marketing. That is my connection, to the " I don't care that Andy's

rough around the edges " statement. And perhaps an underlying

dynamic. People are used to being " wooed " by the marketing guys, for

everything. Including information. In comparison to the

general " other people " out there, he would feel rough...To me, it

feels more like, " this is what I know " and the willingness to get

that information out there...that is invaluable - he sets clear

boundaries on what he knows to be facts/true, vs what he thinks to be

facts/true, vs what might be possible....

I believe that I & my household, have been harmed, way too many

times - by good marketing tactics & a distinct lack of important

information....urg. with a major mom growl thrown in.

There are specific things to avoid, when you are mercury toxic. And

there are specific things that help everyone. Then, there is the

mass of things that May or May Not help, depending on the

individual. When I am trying to muddle thru what May help - I start

with Andy. That is where I will CONSISTENTLY find information that

relates to the myriad manifestations of mercury poisoning and WHAT TO

DO about it.

For my self, I do not want to be " sold " information. Regardless of

form. I want access to information that will help. Period. I

will " buy " that information, without hesitation - providing I have

the means

Finding " Andy, " and his ability to put that information into some

type of meaningful form, means less trudging thru foo-foo / harmful

information, and more focusing on " what is important. " For me He

is rather unique in this " trait, " imho....

yep, potential " groupie " leanings here, lolol...go figure...

wishing all the best answers

elizabeth

(snipped)

I

> think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the

culture. I'm

> more interested in engaging concrete issues. I figure if we stick

with a

> passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each

other out, the

> rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough

around the

> edges, because it's not about him - and if we can find that in

ourselves, then

> hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried about

how they

> want to be treated.

>

> Dave.

>

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

>

June 10, 2008

I'll add:

4. Not being so toxic yourself that your logical and relational capacities are

fried, making you sure (backed up by a mercurial rage and oppositionality) that

the way _you_ want to do it, is the _right_ way and who the hell is anyone else

to tell you different?

Dave.

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

Posted by: " anneecbrynn " anneecbrynn@... anneecbrynn

Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:35 am ((PDT))

1. Being terrified of doing irreparable damage to your kid;

2. Being willing to think, for 10 minutes, about the process of

removing metals from the body and admit that even if you don't

understand all of the gobledygook, dosing every three hours makes

sense;

3. Being able to acquiesce to the fact that life is going to pretty

much suck for a while; and

3. Being willing to make the sacrifice in the name of safety?

I am sure I could have said it more eloquently, but all of this

really does bring out the (#*$% & (*@#^s in me :-)

Anne

June 10, 2008

Wow. Now Dana is ineffective, lacks coping skills and basically is

just a misguided soul with good intentions? You guys are

pathetically over-analyzing this whole thing. I think we should move

on before you start insulting her.

You don't know Dana at all. She's been on this site way longer than

you two and has never been subject to such public scrutiny. I find

this so odd and a bit self-serving (you guys seem to like to hear

yourselves speak); talking about someone with such disregard right in

front of their face. Well, their monitor.

I have enjoyed both of you so far and I think other group members

would say the same... lets end this discussion so we can keep it that

way!

Pam

> >

> > I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a

> parallel complete

> > unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see

> rhetorical tactics

> > of avoidance rather than engagement.

>

> I see someone being railroaded who is coping as best she can,

albeit

> she doesn't have the best skills for it. I see a whole lot of

> people getting stuck on an unfortunate example and unable to get

> past that to hear her own statement that she is trying to say the

> same thing I am trying to say about list culture.

>

> >

> > What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be constructive

> (albeit about

> > a different issue, list culture).

>

> Thank you.

>

> I fail to see how that at all reflects what

> > Dana is doing.

>

> I will say again: " The road to hell is paved with good

> intentions. " Her inability to effectively execute is damning her

> and being mistaken as " motive " .

>

> >

> > Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss

> list culture, I

> > think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the

> culture. I'm

> > more interested in engaging concrete issues.

>

> Those concrete issues are easier to discuss and the discussions are

> more productive when a list removes cultural obstacles to good

> discussion.

>

> I figure if we stick with a

> > passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each

> other out, the

> > rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's rough

> around the

> > edges,

>

> I don't care either. He and I both publically stated there is no

> contention in my discussions with him.

>

> because it's not about him - and if we can find that in ourselves,

> then

> > hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried

> about how they

> > want to be treated.

>

> " Movements " tend to be lead by people who are viewed as caring

about

> their people. Superficially manipulative tactics and verbal strong-

> arm tactics are unlkely to make this a movement. They are also

> unlikely to achieve what Andy states he wants: for this to be

about

> doing things right instead of about him and his ego. His current

> bombastic approach is a public relations disaster in that regard

> because it promotes the perception that this is precisely about

Andy

> and whether or not you agree with him.

>

> >

> > Dave.

> >

>

> Thanks.

>

> Michele

>

June 10, 2008

I agree with Pam. I know I am not a regular and I am one that is only

asking questions not offering advice, so my opinion is nil. This is

really hindering what this board is about, and frankly is not helping

anyone.

If Andy wanted just his protocol to be talked about just say that and

we can all move on.

Just an example of what parents can encounter when dealing with

chelation. I have in front of me what my DAN doctor told me to do to

start chelation

100-300 mg of ALA once a day

100 mg DMSA three times a day

I AM NOT KIDDING!

Sooooo me as a parent knows better than this because of this place

and Andy and Dana's help. I don't know what transpired to start

this, but please can everyone drop it?

> > >

> > > I disagree, Michele. I see her trying to promote it, with a

> > parallel complete

> > > unwillingness to engage in discussion about it. I also see

> > rhetorical tactics

> > > of avoidance rather than engagement.

> >

> > I see someone being railroaded who is coping as best she can,

> albeit

> > she doesn't have the best skills for it. I see a whole lot of

> > people getting stuck on an unfortunate example and unable to get

> > past that to hear her own statement that she is trying to say the

> > same thing I am trying to say about list culture.

> >

> > >

> > > What you are offering is an attempt to engage and be

constructive

> > (albeit about

> > > a different issue, list culture).

> >

> > Thank you.

> >

> > I fail to see how that at all reflects what

> > > Dana is doing.

> >

> > I will say again: " The road to hell is paved with good

> > intentions. " Her inability to effectively execute is damning her

> > and being mistaken as " motive " .

> >

> > >

> > > Now, on the other hand, with regard to your attempt to discuss

> > list culture, I

> > > think that's a different issue. I'm not so interested in the

> > culture. I'm

> > > more interested in engaging concrete issues.

> >

> > Those concrete issues are easier to discuss and the discussions

are

> > more productive when a list removes cultural obstacles to good

> > discussion.

> >

> > I figure if we stick with a

> > > passionate desire to stand for the truth, and thereby help each

> > other out, the

> > > rest will just work itself out. I don't _care_ that Andy's

rough

> > around the

> > > edges,

> >

> > I don't care either. He and I both publically stated there is no

> > contention in my discussions with him.

> >

> > because it's not about him - and if we can find that in

ourselves,

> > then

> > > hey, we'll have a movement instead of a lot of people worried

> > about how they

> > > want to be treated.

> >

> > " Movements " tend to be lead by people who are viewed as caring

> about

> > their people. Superficially manipulative tactics and verbal

strong-

> > arm tactics are unlkely to make this a movement. They are also

> > unlikely to achieve what Andy states he wants: for this to be

> about

> > doing things right instead of about him and his ego. His current

> > bombastic approach is a public relations disaster in that regard

> > because it promotes the perception that this is precisely about

> Andy

> > and whether or not you agree with him.

> >

> > >

> > > Dave.

> > >

> >

> > Thanks.

> >

> > Michele

> >

>

June 10, 2008

" Also, in the ten paragraphs you typed, "

LOL!!!

From: nutribod & lt;nutribod@... & gt;

Subject: [ ] Re: Less frequent dosing and internet troll behavior

Date: Tuesday, June 10, 2008, 3:00 AM

Hey ,

" I don't think I am talking about " behavior " . I think I am talking

about trying to communicate effectively. "

You ARE talking about behavior - you cannot communicate (effectively

or not) without behavior (defined as " manner of acting or conducting

yourself " ). Also, in the ten paragraphs you typed, I'm still looking

for you're amswer to the question posed, " what does it take for

people to understand why ALA must be dosed at 3 h intervals? "

Some people are better at science; you are better with your

interpersonal skills. If someone were to insist that it would be

beneficial for you to be more scientific in your logic, it wouldn't

be very helpful. Similarly, some people will deride minimal benefit

from persistent recommendation that they should interact with people

in the manner you've found effective. I AGREE that you handled your

father better than your mother, but your mother must have been wired

differently enough that she wouldn't/couldn' t acquire your approach

(despite it's greater efficacy). Personality (which has great

bearing on how we communicate) is based largely on genetic factors.

Because we are all wired differently, we can't expect everyone to be

comfortable with the mode of communication you've had the most

success with.

Also, do you think that Andy would be able to address as many sick

peoples' questions if he were busy considering and reconsidering his

wording for the sake of everyone's emotional needs? Based on

everything you've written (that I've read) I consider you to be a

very special, loving, and considerate person. It is people like you

who serve to balance the style of others who express themselves

differently.

Best Regards,

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; Forgive me for changing the direction of the thread. I'm not

& gt; trying

& gt; & gt; to discourage others from going on about behavior.

& gt; & gt;

& gt;

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; My question is - what does it take for people to understand why

ALA

& gt; & gt; must be dosed at 3 h intervals?

& gt; & gt;

& gt; & gt; J

& gt; & gt;

& gt;

& gt; Well, at the risk of seeming to beat a dead horse, I don't think I

& gt; am talking about " behavior " . I think I am talking about trying to

& gt; communicate effectively.

& gt;

& gt; I'm not really all that strong in science. I can deal with it but

& gt; it isn't an innate strength of mine. If I had to personally

& gt; research and comprehend the scientific underpinnings of my health

& gt; problems to get well, I might be dead by now. Given that science

is

& gt; not my forte, when I was deathly ill, it was just not possible for

& gt; me to wrap my brain around that stuff. I can do it with effort

when

& gt; I am healthy. I couldn't do it when I was really, really sick and

& gt; overwhelmed.

& gt;

& gt; Instead, I found people to talk to who were better than me in that

& gt; area. One woman I spoke with for a long time and who helped me

& gt; enormously has a lot of training in alternative medicine.

& gt; Initially, I was reluctant to take her advice because much of it

& gt; sounded so outlandish to me. It did not fit with what I understood

& gt; about how things worked. It did not fit with what doctors and

& gt; teachers and such said. I was slow to make use of her

suggestions.

& gt; She repeated some things to me for several months before I was

& gt; willing to act on it. Only after acting on some of her suggestions

& gt; did I become more open to her " outlandish " ideas. It got gradually

& gt; easier for me to trust suggestions from her that simply didn't fit

& gt; with things I previously knew.

& gt;

& gt; So I managed to accomplish the " impossible " and get well in spite

of

& gt; science being a relatively weak area for me and in spite of being

& gt; too sick to do the work it would take for me to really understand

& gt; the chemistry, physiology, etc at the root of my health problems.

I

& gt; managed that because I have reasonably good judgment about whom to

& gt; take advice from. We all make judgment calls on a regular basis

& gt; about whom to trust. If nothing else, you have to believe that the

& gt; stories about success or failure on a particular protocol are

& gt; truthful testimony. Unless you are going to do experiments

& gt; completely on your own and only believe what you see first hand

with

& gt; your own eyes and reinvent all scientific principles from the

ground

& gt; up, you have to trust to some degree that what other's say is

& gt; truthful. In the face of conflicting information, you also have to

& gt; decide which sources are the most reliable.

& gt;

& gt; People who don't have enough of an educational background to judge

& gt; whose information sounds solid typically use other social

indicators

& gt; of " crediblity " to choose whom to trust and what information to act

& gt; on. These include things like titles ( " doctor " ), educational

& gt; achievements ( " phd " ), uniforms, and social proof (ie lots of other

& gt; people that I trust believe this person is credible). This is part

& gt; of where doctors get so much power to influence the decisions of

& gt; others.

& gt;

& gt; Also, emotion is a form of memory and judgment. When a person is

& gt; unable for some reason to make a decision based on research,

& gt; conscious memory of specific events and other 'rational' types of

& gt; information, they typically " go with their gut " and do what their

& gt; feelings tell them to do. Research indicates that people who are

& gt; less emotional have more trouble making snap decisions. They have

& gt; to research it and make a conscious decision based on data because

& gt; they are unable to draw on this other type of information. That has

& gt; both good points and bad points.

& gt;

& gt; When I lived with my parents for nearly a year while going through

& gt; my divorce, I and my sons had to deal with my elderly father (80 at

& gt; the time) who likely qualifies for a diagnosis of Alzheimer's. We

& gt; didn't find him difficult to deal with. My mother often had

& gt; screaming fights with him, driven by her own fear of what was

& gt; happening to him and frustrations, and when he was constantly nasty

& gt; to her, she blamed it on Alzheimer's. But he was never nasty that

& gt; way with my sons and I. We never belittled him or treated him like

& gt; he was stupid for not remembering that he had already told this

same

& gt; story 10 other times. We listened fairly patiently so he could get

& gt; his need met for telling this story again. We respected his

& gt; routines because we are aware that muscle memory (aka routines) is

& gt; another form of memory which still continued to serve him in spite

& gt; of his inability to consciously remember many recent events. My

& gt; oldest son has a lot of brain glitches, most of which can be traced

& gt; to a head injury in infancy. So we used a lot of these strategies

& gt; for his benefit for many years before we were faced with my

father's

& gt; condition. So my sons and I found my father's very faulty memory

& gt; easy to cope with and accommodate. And we didn't treat him badly.

& gt; In contrast, my mother would say the most awful things to my dad

and

& gt; justify it with " He won't remember it in five minutes " . My kids

and

& gt; I knew that he DID remember it on some level, even if he couldn't

& gt; recall the specific words: the negative emotions remained and he

& gt; made his judgements on who to trust based on those feelings. He

was

& gt; suspicious of her because of the negative feelings he had towardds

& gt; her. He had nothing else to go on but that remaining faculty. And

& gt; his trust for my sons and I gradually increased because he had no

& gt; negative associations with us in his emotional memory bank.

& gt;

& gt; So the longer I lived there, the more he was willing to eat food I

& gt; cooked and do other things which exhibited trust in me. My mother

& gt; was really surprised because my dad was typically unwilling to eat

& gt; anyone's cooking but hers. One of the things I did was just to

leave

& gt; food at his place at the table so he could eat it when he chose to

& gt; eat it. I avoided the attempts to control him that my mother

& gt; constantly engaged in. I knew how to avoid those wrestling matches

& gt; for control because I had worked for so many years with my oldest

& gt; son's issues. I have tried on a few occasions to express this

& gt; understanding to others and it usually gets me greeted with the

& gt; internet equivalent of jaw-dropping and staring as if I had just

& gt; sprouted three heads. So most of the time I don't try to talk

about

& gt; it.

& gt;

& gt; Many people on a list like this one will be one or more of the

& gt; following: too uneducated, too uninformed, too overwhelmed to do

& gt; their own research, not innately good at science, and/or too

& gt; physically ill to cope with research they might otherwise do.

Those

& gt; people are more likely to use social proof and " go with their gut " -

-

& gt; ie the person they " like " or the person who seems trustworthy

based

& gt; on title or based on eliciting positive feelings. I don't have

what

& gt; it takes to be a used-car-salesman type and fast-talk people into

& gt; trusting me. I have found that being very honest and also setting

a

& gt; high standard for treating them with respect does eventually win

& gt; over a lot of people, in spite of my many failings like sticking

& gt; both feet in my mouth when I don't feel well. So, for me, the path

& gt; that works is respect people and try to understand WHY they do

& gt; things and try to be honest about what works even though that

& gt; may " hurt their feelings " in the short run. But I don't do it with

& gt; a callous disregard for how they will feel about the information.

I

& gt; realize it will hurt and I try to be considerate without watering

& gt; down the facts in any way. I don't do that because I care all that

& gt; much about feelings. I do that because it increases the odds that

& gt; they will at least " hear " what I am saying even if they don't

& gt; ultimately agree with me. Too much negative emotion towards me

will

& gt; close people's minds to ideas I put forth, sometimes shutting them

& gt; so totally that they will reject anything that appears to " agree "

& gt; with me/things I have said simply because it appears to agree with

& gt; me.

& gt;

& gt; I know the conversation is essentially dead. I would have posted

& gt; this much earlier today but I didn't have time. I had to leave for

& gt; work.

& gt;

& gt; Peace.

& gt;

& gt; Michele

& gt;

June 10, 2008

I actually think there are only a very small number of people that

use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large

majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of

communication. It seems like those that argue for the more

controlling style also are those that use it. And, there are only a

few that do.

With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that

believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote

it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate

the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I

don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that

feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it is OK

to belittle parents looking for information.

So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this

point.

Ruth

On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote:

> Yet, if you will notice, ugly

> accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people

> are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people

> not agreeing with me.

June 10, 2008

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

From: Dan & Ruth Setlak

I actually think there are only a very small number of people that

use or promote the " bombastic, " bullying strategy. And the large

majority of us on the list would prefer a more respectful style of

communication. It seems like those that argue for the more

controlling

===>Asking you to realize that insisting all people " behave " such as you see

fit (or the way you do which you have pointed out repeatedly is the best way) is

the ultimate in controlling behavior. You can't get more controlling than that.

Realizing and making allowances for different styles would be the opposite of

controlling.

style also are those that use it. And, there are only a

few that do.

With that said, I believe there are a large number on the list that

believe in and adhere to the Cutlar protocol - and even may promote

it on other lists, such as myself; most, I think, greatly appreciate

the knowledge and time that is freely shared on this list. But, I

don't think there necessarily has to be overlap between those that

feel positively about the protocol and those that also think it is OK

to belittle parents looking for information.

So, I think there are possibly many that do agree with you on this

point.

Ruth

On Jun 10, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Michele wrote:

> Yet, if you will notice, ugly

> accusations against me have stopped (at least for now) and people

> are having a reasonable discussion with me in spite of most people

> not agreeing with me.

June 10, 2008

Actually, that would be 5, since I managed to get in two 3.s :-)

>

> I'll add:

>

> 4. Not being so toxic yourself that your logical and relational

capacities are

> fried, making you sure (backed up by a mercurial rage and

oppositionality) that

> the way _you_ want to do it, is the _right_ way and who the hell

is anyone else

> to tell you different?

>

> Dave.

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

>

> Posted by: " anneecbrynn " anneecbrynn@... anneecbrynn

> Date: Mon Jun 9, 2008 10:35 am ((PDT))

>

> 1. Being terrified of doing irreparable damage to your kid;

>

> 2. Being willing to think, for 10 minutes, about the process of

> removing metals from the body and admit that even if you don't

> understand all of the gobledygook, dosing every three hours makes

> sense;

>

> 3. Being able to acquiesce to the fact that life is going to

pretty

> much suck for a while; and

>

> 3. Being willing to make the sacrifice in the name of safety?

>

> I am sure I could have said it more eloquently, but all of this

> really does bring out the (#*$% & (*@#^s in me :-)

>

> Anne

>

June 10, 2008

Ya, or I might say, the difference between " character " and " personality " . We

used to talk about peoples' characters. Have you notice how that's not even a

term of discussion in our society any more? Instead, people just sell

themselves by creating a personality, an " image " .

Dave.

----------

Posted by: " eli8591 " eli8591@... eli8591

Date: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:51 am ((PDT))

Marketing. That is my connection, to the " I don't care that Andy's

rough around the edges " statement. And perhaps an underlying

dynamic. People are used to being " wooed " by the marketing guys, for

everything. Including information. In comparison to the

general " other people " out there, he would feel rough...To me, it

feels more like, " this is what I know " and the willingness to get

that information out there...that is invaluable - he sets clear

boundaries on what he knows to be facts/true, vs what he thinks to be

facts/true, vs what might be possible....

I believe that I & my household, have been harmed, way too many

times - by good marketing tactics & a distinct lack of important

information....urg. with a major mom growl thrown in.

There are specific things to avoid, when you are mercury toxic. And

there are specific things that help everyone. Then, there is the

mass of things that May or May Not help, depending on the

individual. When I am trying to muddle thru what May help - I start

with Andy. That is where I will CONSISTENTLY find information that

relates to the myriad manifestations of mercury poisoning and WHAT TO

DO about it.

For my self, I do not want to be " sold " information. Regardless of

form. I want access to information that will help. Period. I

will " buy " that information, without hesitation - providing I have

the means

Finding " Andy, " and his ability to put that information into some

type of meaningful form, means less trudging thru foo-foo / harmful

information, and more focusing on " what is important. " For me He

is rather unique in this " trait, " imho....

yep, potential " groupie " leanings here, lolol...go figure...

wishing all the best answers

elizabeth

June 10, 2008

Michele -

As for Andy, I think I could agree with you. The proper response to this, is

simply to make it less about him and more about what we do - for that, it means

truly taking up the issues around chelation and arguing for them, so it's not

left for him to do. It is _us_ who are failing in our responsibility to move

beyond our need for him as an authority. It means we have to learn, learn,

learn, and take up the reins for ourselves.

As regards Dana, I am not sure we're even on the same page here, . I

think this started with Dana refusing to even engage any of a the questions

that I posed to her in an email, where I really tried to discuss with her what

she was doing. I found her tactics quite remarkable, completely avoiding

engagement or any kind of serious discourse over topics presumable of mutual

concern. Bewildering, truly. It leads me to wonder if we are actually on the

same project together, or if there are other agendas at play. ly, now

that I see it, I don't want to waste my time on it. There is too much that

needs doing.

Dave.

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

Posted by: " Michele " talithamichele@... michele_in_california

Date: Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:33 am ((PDT))

> >

> > Michele -

> >

> > The approach you describe ... it's full of emotional calmness,

affirmation.

> > I've got to tell you, I'm not sure how well this works. I think

what really

> > works, is passionately arguing for something. I know, people take

things

> > personally, but if they see that you don't, if they see that you

stick with the

> > issue without regard to whatever attacks they may level against

you, then in a

> > sort of modeling way, they can let go and do the same. That

calmness and

> > supportiveness - too much of it comes across to me as saccharine.

But

> > passionate engagement and willingness to argue an issue - that's