Jerry Schwartz (On 25 Jul 97) was talking to Steven Godbe
 JS> It is unfortunate that Bob rose to the bait, if bait it was
 JS> intended to be,
 Yes...(he sez red faced)... in mitigation let me say that I'd been
 dealing with a school division central office educrat who had been
 insisting off and on for several days that an IEP conference HAD to
 be held immediately because SHE (who wasn't in attendance at the one
 in June) didn't believe that the goals/objectives were appropriate.
 This woman hasn't been in a classroom in 20 years, knows next to
 nothing about ADHD, knows next to nothing about my son, didn't know
 that the school's child study team at his triennial had strongly
 recommended continuation of services and we, for all intents and
 purposes, hand picked his teacher for next year and brought him into
 the IEP process.
 I got this P(iled) H(igher) and D(eeper) "Dr." out of the picture and
 off my back by having our lawyer send her a polite letter asking when
 it would be convenient to schedule a due process hearing to determine
 why a bureaucrat was interfering in the proper and correct execution
 of IDEA.  Now _I_ know that's not how it works, and she should have
 also, but obviously didn't.  It boils down to letting them know that
 you know what the law requires and having the will to pursue it.
 It's only July and school doesn't start (here) until after Labor
 Day...I am just all a quiver with anticipation..
BM>> You don't have an relatives named Kelley by any chance?
 JS> That was a cheap shot on Bob's part.
 Yes it was....pop..pop...  (-8
 JS> By the way, although I think you said that you've been around for a
 JS> while, I don't recall seeing your name on any posts prior to Dr. Dot's
 JS> message.
 I'd thought that but I cut down the length of time to 60 days that I
 keep this echo archived so couldn't say yea or nay.
... Some days it's not worth chewing through the restraints.			
--- PPoint 2.03
Steven Godbe (On 23 Jul 97) was overheard expounding to Bob Moylan
 SG> Bob, I'll say it one last time.  I don't care to discuss her with you
 SG> or anyone anymore.  I won't.
 Fine.
 SG> No one wanted to hear what I had to say upon the subject anyway.
 Perhaps because you said nothing of substance about her.
 BM> Your interest in ADD/ADHD was not questioned by anyone.  You
 BM> volunteered the information that both you and your wife have been
 BM> diagnosed with ADD and that you and your brother have struggled
 BM> with learning disabilities all your lives.
 SG> Okay, and I'm not SUPPOSED to discuss on-topic personal information
 SG> for some reason, that strikes you as odd, that I should have
 SG> volunteered personal information which also happened to be on-topic?
 How you arrive at that conclusion based on my statement that precedes
 it is simply amazing.  I note that you cut the line about "Dr." Dot
 saying considerably less about herself.  The question then remains...
 Why?  ( I don't expect any reply to that)
 SG> I'm human too.  I respond to provocation with genuine human emotion.
 If questions regarding Dr. Dot provoke emotional responses from you
 that is your problem.  A simple answer to relatively simple questions
 would have sufficed.
 SG> I'm endeavoring to ramp it down, care to join me in that goal?
 I do not consider that I was getting "hot" about it.
 SG> You know, the emotional heat may well have been warm,
 Obviously...
 SG> but there was legitimate content to those posts, too.
 Some but not as far as Dr. Dot and Breggin are concerned.
 SG> It might also be that they choose to spend their time and share the
 SG> benefits of their experience and association with people who are more
 SG> pleasant to spend time with, and who are able to recognize value when
 SG> they see it.
 ..or it might be that they are trolling, or are more comfortable
 casually mentioning credentials without being asked for evidence
 that they are what they purport to be.  Without benefit of first
 person responses I guess we'll just never know will we.
 SG> and chose another place or pursuit.  I find it incomprehensible that
 SG> you find it odd some people would rather leave than deal with an
 SG> inhospitable welcome.
 Not to belabor the point but if she is what she, and you claim she is
 straight forward answers to questions would have been sufficient.
 SG> You might also have missed that I've volunteered time and directed
 SG> many people to ADHD groups locally, as well as made this conference
 SG> available to them on my bbs.
 That's excellent and what you could have said about yourself and
 skipped all the stuff about Dot.
 SG> BTW, I DO have several nephews who do
 SG> exhibit symptomology often identified as ADHD.
 I would hope that you are encouraging their parents to have complete
 work up done to confirm or rule out.
--- PPoint 2.03
---------------