Joanne wrote:

>  Actually,I learned about C-palsy from the Childrens
> Disability mailing lists. This is a cut and paste job
> of the discription of C-Palsy from that  list
>
> C-PALSY
> Listserv for parents who have a child with Cerebral
> Palsy. Archives.
> Instructions: Send the message, SUBSCRIBE C-PALSY Your
> Name to [log in to unmask] or subscribe
> online.
> Listowner: Bill McGarry [log in to unmask]
>
> I've learned C-palsy isn't for parents per se but this
> is a great list because the people who participate are
> respectful of each others beliefs

Well.

Is this information correct now?

Was it ever?

Sounds like someone needs to seriously set the folks who wrote that blurb
straight - unless it is correct. Funny, but when I pull the header file for
this list, it names owners back to 1998. Check it:

*  Owner=  [log in to unmask]  Deri James
*  Owner=  [log in to unmask]           Bobby (Home)
*  Owner=  [log in to unmask]                       Kenneth Barber
*  Owner=  [log in to unmask]           Jasper van Beusekom (home)
*  Owner=  Quiet:
*  Owner=  [log in to unmask]          Jasper van Beusekom (school)
*  Owner=  [log in to unmask]           Bobbies Old Address
*
* 15Aug00 DJ    Bobby and Ken replace Trisha & Betty
* 29Aug99 JvB  Joy left us already
* 28Aug99 JvB  Set up new ownerteam & errors to Deri
* 28Okt98 PMK  Bill's gone MIA.  Added Jasper.  PMK.

Seems that "Bill McGarry" went MIA in October of 1998, rendering the info
Joanne quotes nearly four years out of date. My question to long-time
members is this: Was this list not originally for adults with cp?

If it was not, are we "hijackers"?

If I am wrong about this (and I sincerely hope that I am) then we are still
presented with a bit of a problem. Joanne goes on to write:

> I trust all to be discrete if they wish to post on
> this subject and not turn it into a pornographic
> thread.

Uh, oh... red flag words. "Discrete" and "pornographic".

Who defines them? I've seen nothing here so far - even including the
Jeffries post - that was not "discrete", and certainly nothing that was
"pornographic" by *my* definition of either term.

However I suspect that Joanne is harboring a far different definition of
those terms than I do.

Is the "Explicit Content" subject header not good enough to keep the
easily-offended from becoming offended?

Brent