Advice on talking to son
jayess
hsm...@aol.com (HSMama2) wrote:
>>At dinner tonight, my son told me that his tics embarrass him
>>sometimes - I don't know what to say to him.
When you say that you don't know what to say to him, do you mean
that you don't know how to solve his problem? I know that most
parents would like to solve all their children's problems and
make their lives nice and sweet, but, nevertheless, we don't
have that power. Perhaps what your son needs to hear you say is
that you understand, that you, too, at times have felt
embarrassed by things you have done and you know what it feels
like. Maybe you can relate a real life story of your own
feelings of embarrassment.
To say to him "don't be embarrassed" is telling him how to feel
and he has a right to his feelings.
<snipped>
>> lately he's been getting questions from his friends about his
>>tics, who don't believe him when he says he can't help it.
If these friends are important to your son, perhaps he can give
them a pamphlet that explains Tourette's so they can read it for
themselves.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
HSMama2
pat answer. He feels uncomfortable because in the last month or so, his
smelling tic has gotten very obvious, and now he has one where he has to lift
his arms over his head. We homeschool (which has nothing to do with him having
TS), but lately he's been getting questions from his friends about his tics,
who don't believe him when he says he can't help it.
Also, today my husband took the kids to the movies. During the movie, he kept
asking my son *not* to sniff, so the other moviegoers wouldn't be bothered.
(True, the sniffing is noticeable, but it's not loud.) So that made my son
very aware of it of course, and he felt very embarrassed.
I am going to talk to my husband and remind him that our son can't *help* it.
(That's one thing I've noticed - a lot of things I've read talk about how some
people can control their tics for a given time - my son doesn't seem to be able
to do that at all) But I don't know what to say to my son. At all. I don't
even know where to start.
TIA,
KJ
HSMama2
>that you don't know how to solve his >problem?
Maybe. I guess he's telling me he's embarrassed because he wants me to fix it,
to make it all better. And I can't.
>Perhaps what your son needs to hear you say is that you understand, that you,
too, at times have felt embarrassed by things you have done and you know what
it feels
>like. Maybe you can relate a real life >story of your own feelings of
embarrassment.
This is a good idea - thanks.
>To say to him "don't be embarrassed" is >telling him how to feel and he has a
right to his feelings.
I would never tell him that. I meant it in the sense of "I know I can't tell
him this, so what do I say?" (which you answered already, so thanks)
><snipped>
>>> lately he's been getting questions from his friends about his tics, who
don't believe him when he says he can't help it.
>
>If these friends are important to your son, perhaps he can give them a
pamphlet that explains Tourette's so they can read it for
>themselves.
Good idea - but the kids in question are 8 and 9, so talking will probably work
better.
Thanks for the advice,
KJ
Grrr
>(That's one thing I've noticed - a lot of things I've read talk about how some
>people can control their tics for a given time - my son doesn't seem to be able
>to do that at all)
same here.
sound...@flash.net
jayess wrote:
>
> In article <20000530223546...@ng-mb1.aol.com>,
> hsm...@aol.com (HSMama2) wrote:
> >>At dinner tonight, my son told me that his tics embarrass him
> >>sometimes - I don't know what to say to him.
>
> When you say that you don't know what to say to him, do you mean
> that you don't know how to solve his problem? I know that most
> parents would like to solve all their children's problems and
> make their lives nice and sweet, but, nevertheless, we don't
> have that power.
I'm not a parent, but I think you're really right about that. I think
many recognize it, but I can see where it would be very difficult not to
want to try to have that power.
> Perhaps what your son needs to hear you say is
> that you understand, that you, too, at times have felt
> embarrassed by things you have done and you know what it feels
> like. Maybe you can relate a real life story of your own
> feelings of embarrassment.
> To say to him "don't be embarrassed" is telling him how to feel
> and he has a right to his feelings.
>
Very well said.
> <snipped>
> >> lately he's been getting questions from his friends about his
> >>tics, who don't believe him when he says he can't help it.
>
> If these friends are important to your son, perhaps he can give
> them a pamphlet that explains Tourette's so they can read it for
> themselves.
>
Are there any pamphlets available that would be especially helpful for
explaining Tourette Syndrome to children who don't have TS? Mainly, I'm
wondering where the best ones for such a situation can be found. And if
there aren't ones especially good for that, it wouldn't be a bad idea
for someone to write one.
Josh
jayess
they still have their offices at Bell Blvd in Queens, New York.
Its the coffee talking
>You can contact the Tourette's Syndrome Association. I believe
>they still have their offices at Bell Blvd in Queens, New York.
>
You might want to do it via mail, as I have not had a response from my e-mail
sent last week nor my phone call. I believe the address is on the front of
their web site.
http://tsa.mgh.harvard.edu
Marietta
<a href=http://www.thecoffeechronicles.com>The Coffee Chronicles</a> Living
with Tourettes - a different perspective.<br><br>
<font size=2>All rights reserved, post not to be reproduced without permission,
except for quoting to respond on AST.</font>
Jonathan Gennick
wrote:
>Also, today my husband took the kids to the movies. During the movie, he kept
>asking my son *not* to sniff, so the other moviegoers wouldn't be bothered.
>(True, the sniffing is noticeable, but it's not loud.) So that made my son
>very aware of it of course, and he felt very embarrassed.
This may not make your son feel better, but I suffered
unmercifully because of a sniffing tic back when I was, oh,
maybe in the 2nd or 3rd grades. I shared a ride to school
with some neighbors (private school = no busses), and she
constantly lectured me about my sniffing--kept telling me to
blow my nose more often. Her girls yelled at me quite a bit
too. The worst was that at that time I had no idea what TS
was or why I even needed to sniff so much. Fortunately, that
particular tic mostly passed, and I learned to
suppress/disguise it somewhat.
In another note, you mentioned that your son's friends are
only 8-9 years of age. It probably wouldn't do to give them
a very detailed explanation of the problem, but you should
be able to get across that the sniffing is the result of a
medical condition that your son can't help. Maybe. It's not
easy reasoning with kids that young. It would help if you
could get their parents on board with you.
Jonathan
_____________________________________________________
jona...@gennick.com
http://gennick.com
Brighten the Corner Where You Are
sound...@flash.net
jayess wrote:
>
> You can contact the Tourette's Syndrome Association.
You mean they have a pamphlet especially for a situation like that?
Maybe I haven't seen them all. Do they still make new ones? The ones
I've seen I'm not sure are all that good for young kids, but probably
fine if they're older. You think maybe it would be a good thing for
kids to write?
> I believe
> they still have their offices at Bell Blvd in Queens, New York.
>
I'm mold phobic.
HSMama2
Kendall P. Bullen
> jayess wrote:
> >
> > You can contact the Tourette's Syndrome Association.
>
> You mean they have a pamphlet especially for a situation like that?
There are some PDFs at http://www.tourettehelp.com -- but the only one
aimed at kids is a poem, and it doesn't look appropriate from where I
sit (which is nowhere near the original poster's situation).
Worth looking at, at least,
Kendall
--
Kendall P. Bullen Web: http://www.his.com/~kendall/
E-mail: kendall@-->^^^^^^^
I hate spam & UCE. Please fix my address if you must e-mail me.
But please, NEVER send me COPIES of Usenet postings.
Join Gaylaxicon 2000! Go to http://www.lambdasf.org/g2k
HSMama2
I talked to the mother of the friend that was giving him a hard time about the
arm raising, and she's going to sit down and talk with her son and explain it
to him, and make sure that he understands.
Kristina
Hae...@yahoo.com
> >If these friends are important to your son, perhaps he can give them
a
> pamphlet that explains Tourette's so they can read it for
> >themselves.
>
> Good idea - but the kids in question are 8 and 9, so talking will
probably work
> better.
There's a book called "Hi, My Name is Adam" or something like that. I
think that's geared towards younger children. I'm not sure if that was
the only one written even or if it's a small series, but perhaps that
would be helpful.
I've used a particular story to explain TS to my nephew and the kids of
some friends of mine and it seems to work well...
I talk to them first about the brain, making sure they know what it is
and how it's the boss of the whole body. Then I tell them that because
the brain has so much to do, it has messengers that help them. For
example, if the brain decides it's time for the toes to wiggle, it tells
a messenger "Hey, go tell the toes to wiggle" (I usually give a couple
more examples here too.)
ANYWAY, sometimes people are born with TOO MANY messengers. (I guess I'm
sorta thinking of brain chemicals here... like dopamine?) Anyway, after
all the messengers have been assigned their job, there's a bunch left
over. They want to help too, but the brain says 'No, I've already got
enough helpers. Go sit yourselves in the corner over there and occupy
yourselves and stay out of our way." Well, of course, the
extra-messengers soon get bored and angry and decide they're going to
help whether the brain likes it or not. So THEY start telling different
parts of the body to do stuff. Now, these parts don't know there's extra
messengers. They just know that when they're told to do something, they
do it EVEN IF THE OWNER OF THE BODY DOESN'T WANT THAT PART TO DO IT. (At
this point, I sorta use that eye-blinking example. I tell the kids to
try to not blink as long as possible.) Pretty soon the brain will decide
it's time to blink and send down a messenger. The poor eye will be
confused. Here's (kid's name) telling me not to blink, but here's one of
the brain's messengers telling me TO BLINK. (Pretty soon, of course, the
kid will have to blink.) "See," I say. "The messengers ALWAYS win."
Then I go on to explain some of the other 'silly things' those bored
extra messengers make me do. By the time I'm done, the kids think it's
actually pretty cool. LOL
Dominique :)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
HSMama2
>Then I go on to explain some of the other 'silly things' those bored
>extra messengers make me do. By the time I'm done, the kids think it's
>actually pretty cool. LOL
>
>Dominique :)
Thank you for this explanation. *I'm* still learning about it, so this is
helpful. I'm going to share this story with my son too - I think it will help
him to understand better *why* he tics.
KJ
Grrr
I think this is total crap.
>Then I go on to explain some of the other 'silly things' those bored
>extra messengers make me do.
> By the time I'm done, the kids think it's
>actually pretty cool. LOL
But then again, you haven't just justified/confirmed my own erroneous
and presumptuous thinking.
Most people think something is "intelligent" only when it coincides
with their own thoughts; however inept those ideas may be.
Grrr
sound...@flash.net
Well, Grrr, what do you expect her to do? Read them your $.02 post?
The eye-blinking thing does not feel at all like tics to ME, and I've
had eye-blinking tics, and for a while when I was a kid I had LOTS of
them. It feels completely different. But it IS a good demonstration of
messages being sent from the brain, and that in itself is a good step
toward a bit of understanding for a child (an adult probably would
already have a concept of this, I would think). And it sure sounds like
a fun way to learn, and she sures seems like a fun person for a kid to
learn from.
Josh
BlessedBy2
> Then I go on to explain some of the other 'silly things' those bored
> extra messengers make me do. By the time I'm done, the kids think it's
> actually pretty cool. LOL
>
> Dominique :)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Talk about publishing a children's book <g>!
--
BB2
Tourette Syndrome - Now What?
http://members.home.net/blessedby2
Lara
"Grrr" <.@..> wrote in message>
Hae...@yahoo.com wrote:>>
not sure who wrote >>>> and >>> on my newsreader.
> I think this is total crap.
>
> >Then I go on to explain some of the other 'silly things' those bored
> >extra messengers make me do.
>
>
> > By the time I'm done, the kids think it's
> >actually pretty cool. LOL
>
> But then again, you haven't just justified/confirmed my own erroneous
> and presumptuous thinking.
>
> Most people think something is "intelligent" only when it coincides
> with their own thoughts; however inept those ideas may be.
>
> Grrr
Grrr,
Not necessarily so, in my opinion. It's not really about intelligence is
it? I figure you really didn't mean intelligence. I believe in speaking
only Truth. However, the "truth" is different for all of us. In fact it
changes all the time for me. lol. That's not cause I'm not "truthful",
it's just I keep learning stuff, and it changes a bit, you know?
If one is speaking to a very young child, I reckon it's important to gain
their confidence and alleviate some of their "imagined" negative
perceptions. This is a form of "truth" as far as I see it.
I read this as Dominique explaining to friends of a very young child.
Humour in that situation, as well as many others, can be a wonderful tool.
"Truth" plus humour.
I also believe Dominique is talking about explaining her own Tics to her
Nephew
and his young friends.
I wasn't really able to use humour in my Children's situation because we had
been told there was something else going on besides TS. That changed
everything about my own Son's perception of himself for many years. Much,
much, too long. "cool" would have been a much preferable option for all
of us... including myself as a child.
How would you approach the situation with very young children?
(by the way... "Hi, I'm Adam : A Child's Book About Tourette Syndrome" --
Adam, Buehrens; Paperback)
Just my thoughts momentarily,
Lara
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BlessedBy2
> Grrr wrote:
> >
> > I think this is total crap.
Oops - there goes the book ...
>
> Well, Grrr, what do you expect her to do? Read them your $.02 post?
ROFL!
If the messenger always wins, what happens when they shoot the messenger?
BlessedBy2
> (by the way... "Hi, I'm Adam : A Child's Book About Tourette Syndrome" --
> Adam, Buehrens; Paperback)
I can't help but add this in whenever I see that title :-)
I really disliked that book.
I can't say why at the moment, because I threw it away.
BB2
Lara
"BlessedBy2" <bless...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:393B8A3A...@aol.com...
*ACK.
You know that book and "Tourette Syndrome and Human Behavior" are the only
two books about TS that come up in our particular local Shire/District
Library?? *sigh.
Both actually were of some comfort to me at the time though. <smile>
*larabeatingherheadagainstabrickwallhere but we'll get there!
sound...@flash.net
Josh
Its the coffee talking
Loved your idea Dominique
Josh, ROFL
Grrr, it would scare the hell out of me if you talked to my kids... then again,
they might scare the hell out of you too. (Who queried him as to what he'd say
to kids? What were *you* thinking? LOL)
Lara, Sigh about your bad Library situation.
Blessed, I can send you my marble book, I don't see much reason to keep it on
the shelf <g>, (Now on the other hand, I not only will be printing off
Dominique's post for my son to read, we will be reading it over dinner... I
think the *whole* family can relate.)
What does intelligence have to do with any of this any way... we are just
talking opinions...
Lara
"Its the coffee talking" <marie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000605075255...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
> > Dominique :)
>
> Loved your idea Dominique
>
> Josh, ROFL
>
> Grrr, it would scare the hell out of me if you talked to my kids... then
again,
> they might scare the hell out of you too. (Who queried him as to what he'd
say
> to kids? What were *you* thinking? LOL)
'Twas I!! <smile> LOL
Actually, seriously, all things considered, I'd really be interested to
know.
Lara
BlessedBy2
> > Dominique :)
>
> Loved your idea Dominique
>
> Josh, ROFL
>
> Grrr, it would scare the hell out of me if you talked to my kids... then again,
> they might scare the hell out of you too. (Who queried him as to what he'd say
> to kids? What were *you* thinking? LOL)
>
> Lara, Sigh about your bad Library situation.
Lara, maybe you can get them to add the Robertson "Facts" book, because it's so
inexpensive?
>
>
> Blessed, I can send you my marble book, I don't see much reason to keep it on
> the shelf <g>,
No thanks ... BUT ...
Speaking of Peggi getting a writing contract, and *you* not liking "Adam" any more
than I do ...
What are YOU waiting for ??? <very very very big grin>
> (Now on the other hand, I not only will be printing off
> Dominique's post for my son to read, we will be reading it over dinner... I
> think the *whole* family can relate.)
>
> What does intelligence have to do with any of this any way... we are just
> talking opinions...
>
> Marietta
> <a href=http://www.thecoffeechronicles.com>The Coffee Chronicles</a> Living
> with Tourettes - a different perspective.<br><br>
> <font size=2>All rights reserved, post not to be reproduced without permission,
> except for quoting to respond on AST.</font>
--
treadi...@my-deja.com
Bless...@aol.com wrote:
> Lara wrote:
>
> > (by the way... "Hi, I'm Adam : A Child's Book About Tourette
Syndrome" --
> > Adam, Buehrens; Paperback)
>
> I can't help but add this in whenever I see that title :-)
> I really disliked that book.
> I can't say why at the moment, because I threw it away.
> BB2
>
I still have the book. Two things that I don't like about the book are:
1. The child uses a med patch. This depiction backfired for us,
because it implied that the med *makes it go away* and that isn't what
happened for my daughter. And ......
2. It discusses rage as *part* of TS, which I think is an absolute
injustice for all of the reasons previously discussed at length on ast.
There is another book Adam and the Magic Marble (or something like
that). I haven't seen that one, though.
Unfortunately, there is no book out there for any age of kids reflects
current information. Maybe someone should write one :)
Always,
TreadinWater
Hae...@yahoo.com
> I think this is total crap.
We're talking about explaining TS to little kids. If you have a better
way, please share it. :)
> But then again, you haven't just justified/confirmed my own erroneous
> and presumptuous thinking.
>
> Most people think something is "intelligent" only when it coincides
> with their own thoughts; however inept those ideas may be.
Sorry, I don't know where you're coming from with this.
Dominique :)
Hae...@yahoo.com
Bless...@aol.com wrote:
> > Grrr wrote:
> > >
> > > I think this is total crap.
>
> Oops - there goes the book ...
>
> >
> > Well, Grrr, what do you expect her to do? Read them your $.02 post?
>
> ROFL!
> If the messenger always wins, what happens when they shoot the
messenger?
She turns into a vampire. Hehehe
Hae...@yahoo.com
> I still have the book. Two things that I don't like about the book
are:
>
> 1. The child uses a med patch. This depiction backfired for us,
> because it implied that the med *makes it go away* and that isn't what
> happened for my daughter. And ......
>
> 2. It discusses rage as *part* of TS, which I think is an absolute
> injustice for all of the reasons previously discussed at length on
ast.
Bummer. Maybe I should be more careful about recommending books I'd
never seen? This is the first time I'd heard anything negative about
it, that I can recall. :)
> There is another book Adam and the Magic Marble (or something like
> that). I haven't seen that one, though.
>
> Unfortunately, there is no book out there for any age of kids reflects
> current information. Maybe someone should write one :)
Hmmmm.... someone like Patti??
Hae...@yahoo.com
Hae...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Unfortunately, there is no book out there for any age of kids
reflects
> > current information. Maybe someone should write one :)
>
> Hmmmm.... someone like Patti??
Ooops, I mean Peggi!!
Dominique, who imagines poor Patti is probably shouting "Wait! How did
*I* get dragged into this???" :)
jai
> extra messengers make me do. By the time I'm done, the kids think it's
> actually pretty cool. LOL
>
This worked great Raymond!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jai
Its the coffee talking
>Speaking of Peggi getting a writing contract, and *you* not liking "Adam" any
>more
>than I do ...
>What are YOU waiting for ??? <very very very big grin>
A contract!
Marietta
BTW, congratulations Peggi, I'm jealous! <wink>
Grrr
wrote:
>Talk about publishing a children's book <g>!
children's/child's?
Grrr
wrote:
>
>"Grrr" <.@..> wrote in message>
>Hae...@yahoo.com wrote:>>
>not sure who wrote >>>> and >>> on my newsreader.
>
>>
>> I think this is total crap.
>>
>> >Then I go on to explain some of the other 'silly things' those bored
>> >extra messengers make me do.
>>
>>
>> > By the time I'm done, the kids think it's
>> >actually pretty cool. LOL
>>
>> But then again, you haven't just justified/confirmed my own erroneous
>> and presumptuous thinking.
>>
>> Most people think something is "intelligent" only when it coincides
>> with their own thoughts; however inept those ideas may be.
>>
>> Grrr
>
>Grrr,
>
>Not necessarily so, in my opinion. It's not really about intelligence is
>it?
No, it's about being content to accept and agree with some half-assed
truth, as long as it fits within your own frame of thinking.
It's called sitting on your laurels.
But what one persons finds "intelligent" (or cool) is what another may
see as incredibly "inept".
That the problem is in the brain producing an excess of 'telling the
body to move stuff', i think, is too ideal. It just perpetuates the
obvious. You might like to shroud yourself in the blatantly obvious.
Whereas, i don't. I could make up a simple story that merely serves to
confirm this same erroneous mode of reasoning which i suspect a
majority of people would likely go through in trying to understand the
problem from the outside, too. But i foresee it going hand-in-hand
with why the problem is often dealt with by just throwing medication
at these folk.
The rationale that if it's shown that a solution doesn't lie in a
mental disciplining of the child, in order to block out these
extraneous and unwanted psychological patterns through which these
movements arise, then there is obviously some sort of redundant
activity going on in the brain for which one just needs to simply
apply the right magic drug, thus blocking (annihilating) all those
naughty 'we are the extra messengers' team, sending them back into
extra messenger land.
The fact is, this is ignorant and shallow thinking, and i think that
people already serve their own stupid, erroneous attitudes enough,
without us to have to feed them with rubbish simply to patch up
ungrounded ignorance with more resolute ignorance.
It's not that i think a story directed at children is wrong. Only when
it looks as though it could easily have been written by a child, also.
I've thought *much* too much about it to then be able to frame any of
my theories into some simple childrens' fairy tale, which actually
serves to contradict what i've thus far said in my other post.
All i say is that the story was and is utter crap.
I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
Though as long it's out there, you have no excuse for not
understanding my stance in the matter.
Grrr
talking) wrote:
>Loved your idea Dominique
>
>Josh, ROFL
>
>Grrr, it would scare the hell out of me if you talked to my kids... then again,
>they might scare the hell out of you too. (Who queried him as to what he'd say
>to kids? What were *you* thinking? LOL)
As long as they don't walk over my bridge, then *everyone* can live
happily ever...
Hae...@yahoo.com
> >Not necessarily so, in my opinion. It's not really about
intelligence is
> >it?
> No, it's about being content to accept and agree with some half-assed
> truth, as long as it fits within your own frame of thinking.
ROFL!! If you had to explain to a 5 year old how babies are made, would
you tell them exact detail? Or would you put it into words and concepts
that they could understand?
> It's called sitting on your laurels.
I know what's meant by 'sitting on your laurels', but I don't know what
YOU mean by it in this circumstance. Who do you think is sitting on
their laurels, and why?
> But what one persons finds "intelligent" (or cool) is what another may
> see as incredibly "inept".
True, but we're talking about young children versus adults. Even a very
bright 5 year old isn't going to have the same comprehension level as
an average 20 year old. I'm getting the impression you're missing an
important part of this whole thing. Or else you're just looking for a
reason to be ornery?
> That the problem is in the brain producing an excess of 'telling the
> body to move stuff', i think, is too ideal. It just perpetuates the
> obvious.
I hope you don't have any children. LOL!!!
You might like to shroud yourself in the blatantly obvious.
> Whereas, i don't.
All you know is how I relate tics to young children.
I could make up a simple story that merely serves to
> confirm this same erroneous mode of reasoning which i suspect a
> majority of people would likely go through in trying to understand the
> problem from the outside, too.
yeah, I know that when parents tell their children that the stork
brought them, they really believe it too. ;)
But i foresee it going hand-in-hand
> with why the problem is often dealt with by just throwing medication
> at these folk.
Because children don't understand the details of neurology? Because we
need to explain things in terms they CAN understand? How so?
> The rationale that if it's shown that a solution doesn't lie in a
> mental disciplining of the child, in order to block out these
> extraneous and unwanted psychological patterns through which these
> movements arise, then there is obviously some sort of redundant
> activity going on in the brain for which one just needs to simply
> apply the right magic drug, thus blocking (annihilating) all those
> naughty 'we are the extra messengers' team, sending them back into
> extra messenger land.
Hmmm.. none of the kids I told this story too seemed to make a
correlation between unwanted psychological patterns and annihilation of
naughty messengers. You must be hanging out with the smart kids. ;)
> The fact is, this is ignorant and shallow thinking, and i think that
> people already serve their own stupid, erroneous attitudes enough,
> without us to have to feed them with rubbish simply to patch up
> ungrounded ignorance with more resolute ignorance.
OK. Next time I'll just read the diagnostic criteria to them. That
should make their little eyes glaze over in like, say, 8 seconds?
> It's not that i think a story directed at children is wrong. Only when
> it looks as though it could easily have been written by a child, also.
Well, I put the story out there for anyone who might find it helpful.
If you don't find it helpful, don't use it.
> I've thought *much* too much about it to then be able to frame any of
> my theories into some simple childrens' fairy tale, which actually
> serves to contradict what i've thus far said in my other post.
This only serves to confirm that you really don't have any idea what
this thread is about. Or you just don't care but see a chance to spout
off?
> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
>
> Though as long it's out there, you have no excuse for not
> understanding my stance in the matter.
I'm not interested in your stance on how TS works. I'm trying to figure
out what you find so objectionable to simplifying tics to a concept
that small children can understand.
Dominique
Randall Bart
Hae...@yahoo.com enlightened alt.support.tourette with these thought
provoking words:
>> No, it's about being content to accept and agree with some half-assed
>> truth, as long as it fits within your own frame of thinking.
>
>ROFL!! If you had to explain to a 5 year old how babies are made, would
>you tell them exact detail? Or would you put it into words and concepts
>that they could understand?
With a 5yo I would probably skip explaining the difference between
mitosis and meiosis.
--
RB |\ © Randall Bart
aa |/ Bart...@usa.spam.net Bart...@att.spam.net
nr |\ Please reply without spam 1-818-985-3259
dt ||\ Failure Is Not An Option; It Now Comes Bundled
a |/ DOT-HS-808-065 MSMSMSMSMSMSMS=6/28/107 I LOVE YOU
l |\ Unisys A Series Wiz For Hire:
l |/ http://users.aol.com/PanicYr00/RBResume.html
Grrr
> Grrr <.@..> wrote:
>
>> >Not necessarily so, in my opinion. It's not really about
>intelligence is
>> >it?
>
>> No, it's about being content to accept and agree with some half-assed
>> truth, as long as it fits within your own frame of thinking.
>
>ROFL!! If you had to explain to a 5 year old how babies are made, would
>you tell them exact detail? Or would you put it into words and concepts
>that they could understand?
Children don't *want* detail.
What they ask for is the truth.
Your second question is what you did in your original story.
I would rather feed them with what they need: the truth.
>> It's called sitting on your laurels.
>
>I know what's meant by 'sitting on your laurels', but I don't know what
>YOU mean by it in this circumstance. Who do you think is sitting on
>their laurels, and why?
I didn't mean you.
>> But what one persons finds "intelligent" (or cool) is what another may
>> see as incredibly "inept".
>
>True, but we're talking about young children versus adults. Even a very
>bright 5 year old isn't going to have the same comprehension level as
>an average 20 year old. I'm getting the impression you're missing an
>important part of this whole thing. Or else you're just looking for a
>reason to be ornery?
I'm saying people are often happy just to take in and rest on their
own mutilated version of the truth. People want something familiar
they can cling to and then drag down into their own little version of
the world. It's not any sort of bridge of understanding you typed out.
It is simply what people want to hear, because it confirms their own
erroneous beliefs, not any real truth.
>> That the problem is in the brain producing an excess of 'telling the
>> body to move stuff', i think, is too ideal. It just perpetuates the
>> obvious.
>
>I hope you don't have any children. LOL!!!
I hope, if you have children, they don't grow up like you.
>You might like to shroud yourself in the blatantly obvious.
>> Whereas, i don't.
>
>All you know is how I relate tics to young children.
>
>I could make up a simple story that merely serves to
>> confirm this same erroneous mode of reasoning which i suspect a
>> majority of people would likely go through in trying to understand the
>> problem from the outside, too.
>
>yeah, I know that when parents tell their children that the stork
>brought them, they really believe it too. ;)
Exactly.
>But i foresee it going hand-in-hand
>> with why the problem is often dealt with by just throwing medication
>> at these folk.
>
>Because children don't understand the details of neurology? Because we
>need to explain things in terms they CAN understand? How so?
Because students are also potential teachers.
Consider; A parent talking to their kid "Oh, well if you heard
Dominique say that, and she is the parent of a child with Tourettes,
then she must know what she's talking about."
>> The rationale that if it's shown that a solution doesn't lie in a
>> mental disciplining of the child, in order to block out these
>> extraneous and unwanted psychological patterns through which these
>> movements arise, then there is obviously some sort of redundant
>> activity going on in the brain for which one just needs to simply
>> apply the right magic drug, thus blocking (annihilating) all those
>> naughty 'we are the extra messengers' team, sending them back into
>> extra messenger land.
>
>Hmmm.. none of the kids I told this story too seemed to make a
>correlation between unwanted psychological patterns and annihilation of
>naughty messengers. You must be hanging out with the smart kids. ;)
Nope. It's not necessarily from a child, yet it parallels the same
sort of lazy thinking that i see your story condones.
>> The fact is, this is ignorant and shallow thinking, and i think that
>> people already serve their own stupid, erroneous attitudes enough,
>> without us to have to feed them with rubbish simply to patch up
>> ungrounded ignorance with more resolute ignorance.
>
>OK. Next time I'll just read the diagnostic criteria to them. That
>should make their little eyes glaze over in like, say, 8 seconds?
And while you're there, why not tell them the one about the stork..
>> It's not that i think a story directed at children is wrong. Only when
>> it looks as though it could easily have been written by a child, also.
>
>Well, I put the story out there for anyone who might find it helpful.
>If you don't find it helpful, don't use it.
No, it's helpful alright.
Just in a way you're perhaps too ignorant to understand..
>> I've thought *much* too much about it to then be able to frame any of
>> my theories into some simple childrens' fairy tale, which actually
>> serves to contradict what i've thus far said in my other post.
>
>This only serves to confirm that you really don't have any idea what
>this thread is about.
Advice.
> Or you just don't care but see a chance to spout
>off?
And if you give me one, i'll let you know..
>> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
>>
>> Though as long it's out there, you have no excuse for not
>> understanding my stance in the matter.
>
>I'm not interested in your stance on how TS works.
You should be. I'm using it to pull down your own unmitigated
reasoning.
> I'm trying to figure
>out what you find so objectionable to simplifying tics to a concept
>that small children can understand.
See comment above (not mine, your own)
>Dominique
Lara
If I could figure out all the who said 'what's' and '>>>'s' and '>>'s' all
over the place in this thread, I would maybe find all this easier to read.
Guess it's the fog?
I said this part
> >> >Not necessarily so, in my opinion. It's not really
about
> >intelligence is
> >> >it?
I lost it after this message. Dejanews has hardly any. Remarq is a little
more up-to-date at least than my own newsreader.
I have trouble keeping the quoting in order myself sometimes, but certainly
see the merit in it lately.
Been dealing with a "rage" here at home. Might come back another time to
catch up. Maybe by the morning all the messages will have caught up and got
back in some semblance of order for me??
LOL One can only hope (o;
I know Dominique very well. I know that if my Daughter turned out to be as
terrific a person as she is I'd be very happy.
Chill out a little cobber,
Lara
Lara
"Lara" <la...@onthenet.com.au> wrote in message
news:8hih0n$2p9l$1...@corolla.OntheNet.com.au...
> <smile>
> <snip>
>
>I know Dominique very well. I know that if my Daughter turned out to be
as
> terrific a person as she is I'd be very happy.
>
hhhmmn, Quick correction.
Didn't mean of course, for either Dominique nor my darling Daughter to sound
like cakes being turned out, plus my Daughter already _is_ a terrific
person.
Have to rush.... Lara.
sound...@flash.net
Grrr wrote:
>
>
> Children don't *want* detail.
> What they ask for is the truth.
And love. And respect. And dignity.
> Your second question is what you did in your original story.
> I would rather feed them with what they need: the truth.
And love. And respect. And dignity.
And to be allowed their own thoughts and feelings.
Hae...@yahoo.com
Grrr <.@..> wrote:
> Children don't *want* detail.
> What they ask for is the truth.
> I would rather feed them with what they need: the truth.
Even the so-called 'experts' aren't really sure what the truth is, maybe
you should give them a call? ;)
> >I know what's meant by 'sitting on your laurels', but I don't know
what
> >YOU mean by it in this circumstance. Who do you think is sitting on
> >their laurels, and why?
> I didn't mean you.
Why would you throw in a reference to laurels in a response to my post
if you're not talking about me. It might make more sense to clarify
yourself when you do this so we don't think you're just pulling crap out
of the air. :)
> I'm saying people are often happy just to take in and rest on their
> own mutilated version of the truth. People want something familiar
> they can cling to and then drag down into their own little version of
> the world.
And as I said before, you really have no idea what I think. You only
know how I put it in terms that children can understand. If you feel you
have a better way, please, again, share it. We'd love to hear it.
> It's not any sort of bridge of understanding you typed out.
Hmmm.. it's a matter of opinion.
> It is simply what people want to hear, because it confirms their own
> erroneous beliefs, not any real truth.
I don't think young children really have any firm beliefs about tics,
and certainly little prior knowledge of neurology. They know where
their brain is.
Again, you really have no idea what I think. Again, you only know how I
put it in terms that children can understand. If you feel you have a
better way, please, again, share it. We'd love to hear it.
> I hope, if you have children, they don't grow up like you.
ROFL!
> >yeah, I know that when parents tell their children that the stork
> >brought them, they really believe it too. ;)
> Exactly.
Ah, I see. Hanging out with the smart kids, but the dumb parents. I hope
we haven't shattered any bubbles out there, parents. No, I'm sorry, the
stork DOESN'T bring babies. For Grrr's truth, write to Grrr. For a
detailed explanation (but leaving out perhaps the difference between
mitosis and meiosis) write to Randall. I guess if you're still having
problems, try www.drdrew.com
;)
> Consider; A parent talking to their kid "Oh, well if you heard
> Dominique say that, and she is the parent of a child with Tourettes,
> then she must know what she's talking about."
If a parent really thinks that the brain sends little messengers to the
toes, and that there's a bunch of messengers sitting bored in a corner
of the brain, that parent has bigger issues than what to think about TS.
> >> The rationale that if it's shown that a solution doesn't lie in a
> >> mental disciplining of the child, in order to block out these
> >> extraneous and unwanted psychological patterns through which these
> >> movements arise, then there is obviously some sort of redundant
> >> activity going on in the brain for which one just needs to simply
> >> apply the right magic drug, thus blocking (annihilating) all those
> >> naughty 'we are the extra messengers' team, sending them back into
> >> extra messenger land.
> >
> >Hmmm.. none of the kids I told this story too seemed to make a
> >correlation between unwanted psychological patterns and annihilation
of
> >naughty messengers. You must be hanging out with the smart kids. ;)
>
> Nope. It's not necessarily from a child, yet it parallels the same
> sort of lazy thinking that i see your story condones.
You lost me, what's not necessarily from a child, and how does it
parallel lazy thinking?
> >Well, I put the story out there for anyone who might find it helpful.
> >If you don't find it helpful, don't use it.
> No, it's helpful alright.
> Just in a way you're perhaps too ignorant to understand..
LOL!!! Perhaps, but ignorance is relative, I suppose, oh omnipotent one.
;)
> >> I've thought *much* too much about it to then be able to frame any
of
> >> my theories into some simple childrens' fairy tale, which actually
> >> serves to contradict what i've thus far said in my other post.
> >This only serves to confirm that you really don't have any idea what
> >this thread is about.
> Advice.
Advice to whom? A parent. and for whom? young children. AGAIN, if you
have a better way, let's hear it. I think by now we're all, well, some
of us, waiting with baited breath.
> > Or you just don't care but see a chance to spout
> >off?
>
> And if you give me one, i'll let you know..
Cool. In the meantime, you're cracking me up. :D
> >> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
> >>
> >> Though as long it's out there, you have no excuse for not
> >> understanding my stance in the matter.
> >
> >I'm not interested in your stance on how TS works.
>
> You should be. I'm using it to pull down your own unmitigated
> reasoning.
My reasoning is unmitigated? LOL Does that mean you consider your own
to be mitigable? Maybe you meant to use another word here?
Sorry, but I'll go to the scientists if I need any ideas on how TS
works, not a newsgroup posting.
> > I'm trying to figure
> >out what you find so objectionable to simplifying tics to a concept
> >that small children can understand.
> See comment above (not mine, your own)
The one that I'm not interested in your idea of how TS works? So it's
really about you're being insulted that I didn't read your thread?
Hae...@yahoo.com
> I know Dominique very well. I know that if my Daughter turned out
to be as
> terrific a person as she is I'd be very happy.
Thanks you Lara-san. I am honered. *heart
> Chill out a little cobber,
Cobber? LOL
>Lara
Dominique :)
Mesas
need to be superior to the hoi polloi. Though the vast majority of
Mensans are quite nice and down-to-earth (and partyers of the first
order), there are those members who think their intelligence has
bestowed upon them a certain importance and omniscience, and so aren't
receptive to different paradigms or even to the fact that one might be
misunderstanding or just plain *wrong.* Very intelligent people *can*
misunderstand or be wrong--a lot. Hard to believe, I know...
As for me, I thoroughly enjoy the company and differing opinions here on
AST. I don't always agree, but varied ideas get me to thinking--always a
profitable endeavor. We have all discovered through experience that what
works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another. I have an
autistic child for whom abstract explanations don't work--however,
unbridled mechanical truth doesn't, either. I have to get creative and
come up with something different. I have to get inside his head and
figure out how he thinks--I've been quite successful at this. But what I
do and how I do it might not work for another parent and child. Heck,
what I do with my son doesn't work for my 16yo daughter! You try it, you
see if it works. If it doesn't, you try something else. Doesn't mean the
first way was wrong. <shrug> No biggie. No shredding someone else's
attempt to make something understandable for small person. This goes for
medications AND explanations of how things work.
I'm the kind of parent who told her kids from the git-go that there was
no such thing as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy.
Hasn't interfered with our enjoyment of the holidays a bit. I *still*
don't think I'm better and smarter than everyone here.
We have an extremely sharp and wonderfully compassionate group of women
and men on AST--I wouldn't take *any* of them for granted. Going in and
methodically demeaning the regulars, especially, in an attempt to
impress us with your intelligence isn't going to make for a very happy
stay on AST. And *far too many* of us are too intelligent in our own
right to be fawning all over your offerings.
In other words, please stay with us, be nice, be a *little* humble (at
least), and back off a skosh. You might have a better time of it. This
group really is worth the effort.
Theresa
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
jai
<snip>
Grrr, I read your 2 cents post with a lot of interest and also got
sidetracked by your attempt to slam to Dominique about her explanation
to young
kids of how your brain can cause you to "tic". I loved her explanation
and it gave my 7 year old son a sense that his brain is just doing a
little extra work and this his tics are nothing to be afraid of. That is
exactly what he needed at the time, and we have gone to slightly more
complex explanations since that time. Although her explanation is not
the "literal" truth, it was a wonderful foundation to begin explaining
Tourettes. I doubt very seriously that Dominique truly believes little
messengers were running to her fingertips telling them what letters to
type. From her past posts, it is quite obvious she has a much better
understanding of the brain than that. What also has is a wonderful
ability to put complicated information into a "frame of reference" that
others, including young children can understand. If an adult asks a
question concerning TS, she is able to communicate with them on an adult
level. That is what needed. However when a child asks, she also has the
ability to relate information to them in a way they can understand. She
makes no claims that hers the only right way. But it was right for my
child. When I first read it I thought "That's it...that is the kind
of explanation that help Raymond to begin to comprehend what is
happening, without making it sound scary or bad." I think a lot of kids
become very worried when they begin to realize that they are doing
something that not everybody else does and that oftentimes they can't
control. In my opinion, at that point in their lives the most important
thing is to reassure them that they are all right and explain to them in
terms they can understand. If you get too complicated with them, it
causes more fear or stress. It does not provide them with understanding.
So, I think you are WAY off base in your thinking on this, and Dominique
is right. If your goal is to help others to understand, it would help if
you could learn to express things in a manner suitable to your
audience's "frame of reference". Back to your 2 cents post...On the day
that you posted it, I
had happened to read a newspaper article which reported on a study with
stroke patients which
showed that through intensive rehabilitation therapy, "... the brain can
be coaxed into reorganizing its circuitry so that people can regain
nearly
full use of their paralyzed limbs....In the newly reported study,
researchers made maps of the brain in the 13 chronic stroke patients
before and after the intensive therapy. Researchers found that the area,
which was responsible for arm movements on the injured side of the
brain, had nearly doubled in size after the therapy....To see if injured
networks could be made to expand, Taub and his colleagues created
constraint -induced-movement therapy....Greatly increased use of the
paralyzed arm is what drives the brain to change..." Dr.Goldstein of
Duke University said the study was promising, but definitely NOT proven
yet. There are several studies of this type of therapy in progress and a
clinical trial funded by the NIH is about to begin. Anyhow, I associated
this rewiring theory of the brain with your post on the pathways the
brain creates to let us do what we need to do. I realize we are talking
about very different things in one sense, but I see similarities in the
rewiring and circuitry pathway making portions. It seems to me that they
are saying that the brain does create pathways, and if certain pathways
are injured and then not used, the pathway becomes "impassable or
useless". However
by forcing the brain to use these pathways, they will "clear up" and
become usable again.
Possibly influenced by the article, I interpreted your theory as being
similar to theirs. It was very difficult for me to understand what you
were saying. I took a lot of time trying to figure it out, looking up
words, etc. Then with all the "posters" saying they had difficulty
understanding it also, and with your admitting that you are incapable of
framing your ideas into a form that young children could understand, I
decided I would try. Unlike you, I am very comfortable with simple words
and explanations. So my effort at explaining what I "THINK" you said is
in the form of a not so simple fairy tale, and aimed at older kids
(10 or so). It is also a simple way for me to try to explain what I got
from your post. I could be completely wrong in my interpretation of your
post...but if I am it is not for lack of trying to understand. If you'd
like to let me know I would like to know if I'm completely wrong, or
right in some
areas and wrong in the rest, and if so where... (and if you don't do
this, I guess we will all just have assume that you found my
interpretation right on target.(just kidding...<VBG> I wasn't so
concerned
with the labeling stuff, etc. at the beginning of the post. I wondered
about the pathway part. I also didn't finish my interpretation cuz there
were things that I didn't completely understand, or understand at
all. So if I felt I couldn't even make a halfway decent guess, I left it
out of my "interpretation". Obviously this leaves many holes, but, hey I
tried...
Grrr wrote:
> >> I've thought *much* too much about it to then be able to frame any of
> >> my theories into some simple childrens' fairy tale, which actually
> >> serves to contradict what i've thus far said in my other post.
<snip>
Jai's interpretation of Grrr's .02 cents worth adapted into some simple
(older) children's' fairy tale:
When a baby is first born there are lots of things it does not know how
to do.One thing a baby can do very well is feel, watch and listen to
other
people and begin to learn how to do things by itself. One important
thing that the baby has to learn to do is to control
the actions of their own body. People are not born knowing how to do
that.they have to learn it. People's brains are divided into a whole
bunch of different parts. And different parts of the brain control
different actions that the body makes. But to get the message to those
parts of the body, the brain has to make little pathways from that
certain part of the brain to the body part it wants to move. After the
path is made the brain then sends little electrical signals along it to
make the body part move. The more the brain uses that path, the faster
and easier it is for the electrical signal to travel through it, and the
easier it is to move the part the path leads to. This is why practicing
at things makes them easier and easier for you to do. And there are
millions of pathways from all different parts of the
brain that are supposed to go directly to certain parts of your body and
make those parts do what they are told to. Like if the brain wanted your
hand to move, it would send a signal along a pathway that goes from the
brain, through the neck, over the shoulder, down the arm and finally to
the hand. Each thing the brain wants the body to do should make its own
pathway, so it doesn't cross over other parts of the brain that will
make a whole different part of the body move that the brain didn't mean
to. But sometimes the brain is so busy or has to learn so much, that it
doesn't have
enough time (or energy) to create whole new paths. So it will use parts
of the old paths as bridges to new movements. These old pathways were
already made for other movements. Like the path
for making your hand move in a certain way may accidentally go through a
bridge
pathway that makes your eyes blink. So when the brain sends an
electrical signal to your hand, and on the way it crosses another part
of the brain that tells you to blink, both parts will give messages out
to do something and both parts of the body will receive orders to do
what those parts of the brain tells them to. Some times the brain will
even make more than one pathway to a certain part. When the brain takes
a pathway that causes extra movement, or even extra sounds or words to
be said, we call this extra movement or sound a "tic". Sometimes the tic
can be really simple, like blinking fast or saying a word if only one
extra pathway is used. Or if lots of pathways are used, it can be a more
complicated tic, like raising up you hands and flicking your fingers one
by one. You can never really tell which pathway(s) the brain will take.
Sometimes the electrical message(s) will go down the direct path and
nothing else will move. Sometimes it takes the more complicated path.
But if it is using one path more than the other, that path becomes
smoother and easier for the electrical signal to move through. And
sometimes the path it takes most is not the direct path, but the one
that causes other parts of you to move to or even say things you hadn't
meant to. It might seem like this is just a waste of energy, but the
brain doesn't always take these pathways for no reason at all. Because
one very important thing for the brain to do is to be sure that the body
can keep
itself safe and away from danger. This is called the fight or flight
response.So when the brain believes something could hurt you, it has to
decide very quickly what to do. Sometimes it decides the best thing to
do is run away. Sometimes it thinks it may better for you stay and
fight. And it is not always physical danger. It can something that can
hurt your feelings or makes you mad or something like that too. Since
the brain knows a lot of times the body needs to react very quickly,
just for practice, it may send messages to the body along pathways that
help the you either fight or leave.It doesn't send the messages to all
the body parts that help you protect yourself when it does this
practicing. It might just send a message over and over to your hand or
to a finger. It could be anywhere. It wants to be sure those pathways
are kept nice and clear just in case you need to react really quickly.
Now remember when I said before that sometimes there is more than one
pathway to someplace? Well, sometimes in its fight or flight response or
practice, it takes the longer, or less practical pathway and gets used
to using that one, even though it may make you blink or do something
else that you don't really need to when you are getting ready to fight
or run. The brain really doesn't worry about that too much, especially
when it is just practicing. And a lot of the time the brain will do this
practicing when it is least worried about something. It does this
because when you are relaxed, your brain doesn't have to be constantly
deciding what to do from one second to the next. It can take this "safe"
time to practice moving signals along the pathways, without worrying
about having to do a bunch of other stuff too. That's why a lot of
people
who have TS, will tic more when they are relaxed. But when they have to
concentrate on something like playing sports, or writing, sometimes the
brain doesn't have the time to practice right then, and so they might
not do their tics for a little while. But because it is so important to
the brain to keep it's safety pathways clear, when it does have the
chance, it might try to make up for the practice it missed. That's why
if you haven't ticced for a while, and then begin too, you may tic more
than usual for a while. And it's not always "safety" pathways that are
crossed. Lots of times it's just any old pathway that for some reason
happened to cross a pathway that caused a certain tic to occur. And one
of the most important things to keep in mind is that the brain never is
just using one pathway to send one message at a time. It is constantly
sending thousands and thousands of messages all over you body telling to
breathe, or swallow or laugh or jump or whatever. It is sending more
messages every second than you can imagine. And at the same time, your
body is sending messages back to the brain letting it know that
something is too hot, or it tickles or feels just right. This helps the
brain decide what to do in response to the body is feeling. So people
with TS may actually have brains that are more active than other
people's, and because they have some pathways that are used for more
than one thing, they may make connections faster than other people and
figure things out quicker than others.So even if some bothersome things
happen with TS, there is also the potential for great things too. And
there is also a potential for new types of therapy for those who feel
they need it. medicine is not the only answer. *
The End
*This interpretation of Grrr's 2 cents worth does not necessarily
reflect the views of the interpreter, or even the interpretee, for that
matter...
> Grrr wrote
> >> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
Well, *I* did...and I even took the time to "try" to figure it out...so
don't go all shouty on me if I'm all wrong...even tho I realize you
didn't make me or even ask me to read your post. You may not have even
wanted me too...but I am compelled to read ast and each and every
post...and at times I am compelled to respond...so there....
Jai
Mesas
way *at all*) and so sweet--you're the best! BTW, Great rewrite!
Theresa
jai <jais...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Grrr wrote
> > >> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
>
> Well, *I* did...and I even took the time to "try" to figure it out...so
> don't go all shouty on me if I'm all wrong...even tho I realize you
> didn't make me or even ask me to read your post. You may not have even
> wanted me too...but I am compelled to read ast and each and every
> post...and at times I am compelled to respond...so there....
>
> Jai
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Lara
Dominique wrote >
>
> > Chill out a little cobber,
>
> Cobber? LOL
>
> >Lara
> Dominique :)
cobber = mate cobber = friend.
The chill out cobber part wasn't for you.
Lara
sound...@flash.net
Hae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> Grrr <.@..> wrote:
>
> > Children don't *want* detail.
> > What they ask for is the truth.
> > I would rather feed them with what they need: the truth.
>
> Even the so-called 'experts' aren't really sure what the truth is, maybe
> you should give them a call? ;)
Not yet. I would be inclined to leave them out of it, for now.
> > >I know what's meant by 'sitting on your laurels', but I don't know
> what
> > >YOU mean by it in this circumstance. Who do you think is sitting on
> > >their laurels, and why?
>
> > I didn't mean you.
>
> Why would you throw in a reference to laurels in a response to my post
> if you're not talking about me. It might make more sense to clarify
> yourself when you do this so we don't think you're just pulling crap out
> of the air. :)
What does 'sitting on one's laurels' mean?
> > I'm saying people are often happy just to take in and rest on their
> > own mutilated version of the truth.
Is that what it means?
> > People want something familiar
> > they can cling to and then drag down into their own little version of
> > the world.
>
> And as I said before, you really have no idea what I think. You only
> know how I put it in terms that children can understand. If you feel you
> have a better way, please, again, share it. We'd love to hear it.
>
> > It's not any sort of bridge of understanding you typed out.
>
> Hmmm.. it's a matter of opinion.
Dominique, in your story, I didn't necessarily hear you saying that the
eye blinking represents a tic, but more of how messengers will send
signals without the person being completely in charge. A demonstration
of an action that is partly voluntary, but partly involuntary. And that
the involuntary part can't be fought off for too long.
To me, making this reference still doesn't represent MY ticcing very
well at all. And if you mean for the blinking to represent a tic, than
even less so. I'm not so sure that my ticcing isn't way different than
most other ticcers'. I'm wondering if you feel it really captures
something accurate about YOUR tics. What do you think? If it DOES,
then it is a great way for you to help a child gain a bit of
understanding about YOUR tics, and tics of others who experience tics
like you do. If it does NOT, I think there is an important point being
made about kids wanting and needing the truth as best as you can relate
it to them. That is a big part of treating them with love and respect.
If it doesn't represent your tics very well, I still think you would be
the first person I would look to for coming up with a way to teach kids
about how it feels to tic, should we ever find a way that would be able
to help adults gain some understanding.
Well, there's a good point to consider. Doesn't this suggest that kids
are less deserving of truth?
<snip>
jai
>
> Jai--you're so cute (meant in the lovingest of ways--not in a demeaning
> way *at all*) and so sweet--you're the best! BTW, Great rewrite!
Thank you Theresa!!!! It was kind of fun to write...besides that I am
taking some meds that have my mind really going, egging on my obsessions
and compulsions and causing my brain to take pathways that no human
being should ever be forced to deal with!LOL...I'll just bet that deep
down inside (after reading my 2 cents response), Leslie will be glad
that I haven't found a question from her advocacy board that I *thought*
I could respond to for the past few days!!!!<VBG> (though there was tons
of good info posted there in the past week by Leslie, Brenda and
others...) Especially since, writing "tone" to the contrary, I was
serious in a very real sense in my post to Grrr's post!!!!!
YIKES!!!<smile>
Jai
>
> Theresa
>
> jai <jais...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > > Grrr wrote
> > > >> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
> ><snip>
sound...@flash.net
Grrr wrote:
>
> >
> >I hope you don't have any children. LOL!!!
If David DOES have any children, now or in the future, there'd be a good
chance of them having some really great qualities. And maybe a good
chance of them being rather rude at times.
> I hope, if you have children, they don't grow up like you.
>
I hope they do. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be their own unique
persons, but if they were to resemble Dominique, that would be great.
Josh
jai
>
> Grrr wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I hope you don't have any children. LOL!!!
>
> chance of them having some really great qualities. And maybe a good
> chance of them being rather rude at times.
I think David would be surprised about how much his children will be
able to teach HIM...
Jai
>
> > I hope, if you have children, they don't grow up like you.
> >
>
Mesas
> Mesas wrote:
> >
> > Jai--you're so cute (meant in the lovingest of ways--not in a demeaning
> > way *at all*) and so sweet--you're the best! BTW, Great rewrite!
>
> Thank you Theresa!!!! It was kind of fun to write...besides that I am
> taking some meds that have my mind really going, egging on my obsessions
> and compulsions and causing my brain to take pathways that no human
> being should ever be forced to deal with!LOL...
LOL! I know what you mean!
> I'll just bet that deep
> down inside (after reading my 2 cents response), Leslie will be glad
> that I haven't found a question from her advocacy board that I *thought*
> I could respond to for the past few days!!!!<VBG>
LOL!
> Especially since, writing "tone" to the contrary, I was
> serious in a very real sense in my post to Grrr's post!!!!!
> YIKES!!!<smile>
>
I know--a lot of people have been...> Jai
Theresa
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Mesas
themselves.
> > > I'm saying people are often happy just to take in and rest on their
> > > own mutilated version of the truth.
>
> Is that what it means?
>
Kind of, but not really.
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Mesas
about Dominique! And I agree...
Theresa
<sound...@flash.net> wrote:
> Grrr wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >I hope you don't have any children. LOL!!!
>
> If David DOES have any children, now or in the future, there'd be a good
> chance of them having some really great qualities. And maybe a good
> chance of them being rather rude at times.
>
> > I hope, if you have children, they don't grow up like you.
> >
>
> I hope they do. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be their own unique
> persons, but if they were to resemble Dominique, that would be great.
>
> Josh
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Its the coffee talking
<snip>Well, there's a good point to consider. Doesn't this suggest that kids
>are less deserving of truth?
>
><snip>
>
else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's... The sun is gone at night is a
*truth/fact?* for a child. For an adult....or I should say for those who would
have the tools to gather information beyond this truth... telescopes, and moon
expeditions covered on TV expand this truth to: the sun is not *gone* in the
way it may be for a child,... it is still *gone* hence a truth, but the truth
expands to it's *gone to the other side*, or perhaps more accurately, it hasn't
gone, rather the earth has spun away from it. The *truth* will change based on
one's exposures to tools and development, (if you consider then that a *child*
could *know* the truth as an adult if provided with the same tools of the
telescopes and TV broadcasts... you must also consider development... a very
young child, (1 - 5?) does not have the capacity to use a telescope, [at least
not in the way the *adults* intend for it to be used! <G>] and as they grow and
develop so does their comprehension of what they are viewing. And I don't
think this ability to *comprehend* and *view* ever becomes static... as our own
development continues to change.... let's say senility hits in one's later
years, the truth again changes for that individual, as their perception
changes... then again you must also take into consideration that *my* truth for
a senile person/child may very well be different than their truth. And what
about the truth for a blind person? The heat of the sun may be gone at night,
but not the light of the sun....
So, when folks suggest that children want "truth", I have to question, "which"
truth are you talking about? Your truth? Or their truth? I would imagine
that they already have *their* truth... wether or not I can *perceive* it may
be the *true* question.
Marietta
Hae...@yahoo.com
> > What does 'sitting on one's laurels' mean?
> To rest on one's accomplishments, making no further effort to better
> themselves.
I THINK this came from the Greeks, or was it the Romans?, when they'd
play their athletic games, winners would recieve those wreaths of
laurel. Anyway, I guess some guys would no longer train or compete, and
just sit watching the rest. I guess the idea was that they'd won once,
so why bother training or trying anymore? Hence, sitting on one's
laurels.
Dominique :)
Hae...@yahoo.com
> > Even the so-called 'experts' aren't really sure what the truth is,
maybe
> > you should give them a call? ;)
> Not yet. I would be inclined to leave them out of it, for now.
Good idea. They scare me.. talk about 'curing' me and such.
> Dominique, in your story, I didn't necessarily hear you saying that
the
> eye blinking represents a tic, but more of how messengers will send
> signals without the person being completely in charge. A
demonstration
> of an action that is partly voluntary, but partly involuntary. And
that
> the involuntary part can't be fought off for too long.
Basically. Young kids aren't interested in exactly what it's like to
tic.
> To me, making this reference still doesn't represent MY ticcing very
> well at all. And if you mean for the blinking to represent a tic,
than
> even less so. I'm not so sure that my ticcing isn't way different
than
> most other ticcers'. I'm wondering if you feel it really captures
> something accurate about YOUR tics. What do you think?
Well, yeah, some of them.. the eye-blinking ones, anyway. LOL The only
way I was SURE I had eye-blinking tics was cuz I do them when my eyes
are shut, too. :)
If it DOES,
> then it is a great way for you to help a child gain a bit of
> understanding about YOUR tics, and tics of others who experience tics
> like you do. If it does NOT, I think there is an important point
being
> made about kids wanting and needing the truth as best as you can
relate
> it to them. That is a big part of treating them with love and
respect.
I guess it depends on who you're telling the story to? If you're
telling it to a child who HAS tourette's, and he/she says, "hey, my
tics don't feel like that', then I guess you try something else? but if
it's the neighborhood kids and you're using the story to help them
understand and show compassion for little Billy down the street, does
it really matter if you captured the exact essence of Billy's tics? Or
does it matter that you've made it into something that the kids can
relate too and doesn't sound so scary or exotic, and will therefore
hopefully improve how they relate to him?
> If it doesn't represent your tics very well, I still think you would
be
> the first person I would look to for coming up with a way to teach
kids
> about how it feels to tic, should we ever find a way that would be
able
> to help adults gain some understanding.
Thanks Jzosh! My actual intention wasn't even to explain what it FEELS
like to tic, but to give the kids an idea of WHY I tic.
<major snip>
> > If a parent really thinks that the brain sends little messengers to
the
> > toes, and that there's a bunch of messengers sitting bored in a
corner
> > of the brain, that parent has bigger issues than what to think
about TS.
> Well, there's a good point to consider. Doesn't this suggest that
kids
> are less deserving of truth?
>
> <snip>
Jzosh, this is where the post stopped, but somehow I don't think this
is where you ended it? ... anyway, what do you mean that kids are less
deserving of the truth? Is this a typo? Otherwise, I don't get it.
Dominique :)
Mesas
Theresa
<Hae...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > What does 'sitting on one's laurels' mean?
>
> > To rest on one's accomplishments, making no further effort to better
> > themselves.
>
> I THINK this came from the Greeks, or was it the Romans?, when they'd
> play their athletic games, winners would recieve those wreaths of
> laurel. Anyway, I guess some guys would no longer train or compete, and
> just sit watching the rest. I guess the idea was that they'd won once,
> so why bother training or trying anymore? Hence, sitting on one's
> laurels.
>
> Dominique :)
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Hae...@yahoo.com
sound...@flash.net wrote:
> Grrr wrote:
> > I hope, if you have children, they don't grow up like you.
> I hope they do. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be their own
unique
> persons, but if they were to resemble Dominique, that would be great.
>
> Josh
Thanks Jzosh. :) It's funny how posts you think will spark a debate
just sit there, but something you don't expect to go far at all will
result in all this fuss... AST, like life, is weird. That's why I like
it. Hehehe
sound...@flash.net
Hae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> > Dominique, in your story, I didn't necessarily hear you saying that
> the
> > eye blinking represents a tic, but more of how messengers will send
> > signals without the person being completely in charge. A
> demonstration
> > of an action that is partly voluntary, but partly involuntary. And
> that
> > the involuntary part can't be fought off for too long.
>
> Basically. Young kids aren't interested in exactly what it's like to
> tic.
Yeah, maybe most kids aren't, I guess. BTW, I'm not trying to talk
*exactness*. And I will make no assumptions that my ticcing experiences
are very similar to those of others. But, I am saying that the
eye-blinking thing does not AT ALL relate to what goes on when I tic, as
far as I can tell. Not saying it doesn't EXACTLY relate - I'm saying I
don't perceive it to bear ANY resemblance. As far as MY tics go, it is
very misleading for people to believe the process is anything like that,
OR that it feels anything like that. I first heard of this analogy in
regards to demonstrating how difficult it can be to concentrate on
anything else when someone is holding back tics. But I also don't think
it is a good demonstration, as far as my own holding back tics goes,
either.
> > To me, making this reference still doesn't represent MY ticcing very
> > well at all. And if you mean for the blinking to represent a tic,
> than
> > even less so. I'm not so sure that my ticcing isn't way different
> than
> > most other ticcers'. I'm wondering if you feel it really captures
> > something accurate about YOUR tics. What do you think?
>
> Well, yeah, some of them.. the eye-blinking ones, anyway. LOL The only
> way I was SURE I had eye-blinking tics was cuz I do them when my eyes
> are shut, too. :)
>
> If it DOES,
> > then it is a great way for you to help a child gain a bit of
> > understanding about YOUR tics, and tics of others who experience tics
> > like you do. If it does NOT, I think there is an important point
> being
> > made about kids wanting and needing the truth as best as you can
> relate
> > it to them. That is a big part of treating them with love and
> respect.
>
> I guess it depends on who you're telling the story to? If you're
> telling it to a child who HAS tourette's, and he/she says, "hey, my
> tics don't feel like that', then I guess you try something else? but if
> it's the neighborhood kids and you're using the story to help them
> understand and show compassion for little Billy down the street, does
> it really matter if you captured the exact essence of Billy's tics?
Exactness is too unrealistic a goal, and no way am I saying that that's
what the issue is. I can't even think of a way to get across a VAGUE
sense of what my ticcing process is like, including why I tic and how it
feels for me to tic.
> Or
> does it matter that you've made it into something that the kids can
> relate too and doesn't sound so scary or exotic, and will therefore
> hopefully improve how they relate to him?
Good point, and I haven't lost sight of that in hearing your story and
what you have to say about it.
>
> > If it doesn't represent your tics very well, I still think you would
> be
> > the first person I would look to for coming up with a way to teach
> kids
> > about how it feels to tic, should we ever find a way that would be
> able
> > to help adults gain some understanding.
>
> Thanks Jzosh! My actual intention wasn't even to explain what it FEELS
> like to tic, but to give the kids an idea of WHY I tic.
OK, I hear you, and I DO believe that it is a great way to demonstrate
that the brain takes automatic control in some situations.
>
> <major snip>
>
> > > If a parent really thinks that the brain sends little messengers to
> the
> > > toes, and that there's a bunch of messengers sitting bored in a
> corner
> > > of the brain, that parent has bigger issues than what to think
> about TS.
>
> > Well, there's a good point to consider. Doesn't this suggest that
> kids
> > are less deserving of truth?
> >
> > <snip>
>
> Jzosh, this is where the post stopped, but somehow I don't think this
> is where you ended it? ...
Well, that's the point where I suddenly felt overwhelmed trying to
express myself, and instead of responding to more of the post like I had
intended, I just hit send. Sorry, I guess it came out harsher sounding
than what I was feeling or had meant.
> anyway, what do you mean that kids are less
> deserving of the truth? Is this a typo? Otherwise, I don't get it.
Deserving was a poor choice there. I wasn't saying that I don't believe
they are less deserving of truth, nor that you believe that, but that
that statement maybe sounded a bit like that to me. But more what it
sounded like to me would be more accurately said something like this:
That statement suggests that kids aren't ready for something a bit
closer to truth, though I believe they might be, but I'm not sure, and
of course I think it would be different with different kids and
different ages. To tell you MY truth, I'm not sure where to draw the
line in a matter like that. I trust your judgment in the situation,
where YOU know the kids involved, and would have a much better idea of
their needs in the matter. And it was why YOU tic that you were trying
to explain to them, and *I* surely couldn't tell you why you tic. I
can't tell you why *I* tic. I CAN however tell you when an explanation
doesn't fit MY tics.
>
> Dominique :)
Thanks for opening the door for me to try to elaborate.
Josh
MGa23
is also at the age where he is very aware
of it.His mother and i noticed it when he
was in second grade and had a doctor look
at him then. He is in sixth grade now and
very aware of the tics.My son is very involved in sports and Scouts etc.He is a
good student and has a tremendous amount of friends.With all of that and the
love he gets from us he still notices the tics.
We have talked to our son and listened
to him about his tics.We realize that he
CAN NOT control the tics and have never
made an issue of it.
In the past three months we have seen
two Neurologist and a therapist !! We have
learned so much about tourette's i could wright a paper on it. The long and
short of
this is that Tourette's in a minor case such
as a tic or an eye twitch can be treated with medication. I know as parents
medication is an option we don't like to think of but the news may get better.
Tourette's has no cure but if all your son has is a tic he may out grow the tic
to a point where it's un noticable.
A point you need to make to your husband is that Tourette's will be more
noticable when your son is nervouse or anxious and even scared. Now is the
time
when he needs to know that he has a place
to go and not wory about if he tics or not!!
I am not a doctor but i am a parent who puts in alot of time with not just my
son but
all of the kids that come into our life.
Your question was what do you say to him? Tell him that you understand he
can't help it and it's OK. Then you talk to your husband and remind him a
father is there to protect his child and if the guy in the movies has a problem
with his son then he now has a problem with his father too!!
I am about to see another doctor about my son and if you would like to keep
in touch i would be happy to give you all of the info i can get!?
Good Luck....
KJ
On 07 Jun 2000 06:53:37 GMT, mg...@aol.com (MGa23) wrote:
> Your question was what do you say to him? Tell him that you understand he
>can't help it and it's OK. Then you talk to your husband and remind him a
>father is there to protect his child and if the guy in the movies has a problem
>with his son then he now has a problem with his father too!!
> I am about to see another doctor about my son and if you would like to keep
>in touch i would be happy to give you all of the info i can get!?
Thanks for the advice (from everyone, actually), I appreciate it. And
I forgot to mention it, but my husband did apologize to my son the
next day about telling him to stop ticcing in the movie theater, and
hasn't done it since.
BTW, something strange I noticed the other day. When my son is on the
computer playing games (and this is only on the PC, not if he plays
video games), his ticcing is almost nonexistent. Usually, he probably
sniffs/smells things up to 5 or so times *a minute*. But when he's on
the computer - it's almost nothing. If he wakes up in the middle of
the night and comes to talk to me or give me a hug he doesn't tic
either. It's interesting.
KJ
BlessedBy2
> The long and
> short of
> this is that Tourette's in a minor case such
> as a tic or an eye twitch can be treated with medication.
>
Hello, MGa.
Whoa .. the statement above really caught my eye.
Medication for TS is a hit-and-miss proposition at best, and the side effects of
medication can be worse than the minor tics themselves.
What other tics does your son have, and what medication is he on or are you
considering?
>
> I am about to see another doctor about my son
That sounds like it might be a great help.
I'm not sure why your current Dr. thinks that minor tics should be treated with
medication, but this is a common approach among some doctors who aren't as well
versed in Tourette syndrome as others.
Perhaps your new Dr. will have a more enlightened view, or perhaps your son's tics
interfere more with his life than you have indicated in this post?
It would be great to hear more from you.
>
> Good Luck....
Best of luck to you. Perhaps some of the stories on my website will be of interest
to you.
--
BB2
Tourette Syndrome - Now What?
http://members.home.net/blessedby2
BlessedBy2
> Thanks for the advice (from everyone, actually), I appreciate it. And
> I forgot to mention it, but my husband did apologize to my son the
> next day about telling him to stop ticcing in the movie theater, and
> hasn't done it since.
>
> BTW, something strange I noticed the other day. When my son is on the
> computer playing games (and this is only on the PC, not if he plays
> video games), his ticcing is almost nonexistent. Usually, he probably
> sniffs/smells things up to 5 or so times *a minute*. But when he's on
> the computer - it's almost nothing. If he wakes up in the middle of
> the night and comes to talk to me or give me a hug he doesn't tic
> either. It's interesting.
>
> KJ
Some tic more while playing video game, some tic less, and some tic the same.
But tics often decrease while one is absorbed in an enjoyable activity that requires
intense concentration, and what you have observed is common.
BlessedBy2
> treadi...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > I still have the book. Two things that I don't like about the book
> are:
> >
> > 1. The child uses a med patch. This depiction backfired for us,
> > because it implied that the med *makes it go away* and that isn't what
> > happened for my daughter. And ......
> >
> > 2. It discusses rage as *part* of TS, which I think is an absolute
> > injustice for all of the reasons previously discussed at length on
> ast.
>
> Bummer. Maybe I should be more careful about recommending books I'd
> never seen? This is the first time I'd heard anything negative about
> it, that I can recall. :)
>
> > There is another book Adam and the Magic Marble (or something like
> > that). I haven't seen that one, though.
> >
> > Unfortunately, there is no book out there for any age of kids reflects
> > current information. Maybe someone should write one :)
OK, I got a copy of the book from my friend. Her copy used to belong to our
children's therapist, who purged it from her library. I remembered it was
bad, but whoa ...
The copyright date on "Hi, I'm Adam" by Adam Buehrens is 1991, and it was
published by Hope Press. I'm reminded of good general info: take care with
any TS books published before 1995 or 6, and remember that Hope Press is a
self-founded press (founded by David Comings, M.D., who works at a clinic in
... ahem ... Duarte).
IMO, what H2O said above is an understatement. Not only does the book
discuss "rage" as "part of" TS, the book is almost entirely about "rage,"
and only marginally related to Tourette syndrome. It does not *imply* that
"rage" is part of TS: it unequivocally states that it is. No other
diagnoses are ever mentioned -- not once -- in the book. All of the
statements in the book are written as if they apply exclusively to the
diagnosis of TS. The book has very little to say about tics, obsessions and
compulsions, and a lot to say about temper tantrums, explosions, and
outbursts. I did not find statements in the book which reflect my son's
experience with TS, and I'm thankful I got him through most of his childhood
without exposing him to this sort of literature about TS.
I just don't understand why Hope Press continues to turn out books that are
out of date, but maybe it's something about the way contracts work in the
publishing business.
The happily-ever-after ending of the book is that the patch fixed everything
for Adam.
Here are some snips from the forward by the parents (recall that TS is the
ONLY diagnosis discussed anywhere in the book: no OCD, no ADHD, no other
diagnoses):
"His primary difficulty, though, is dealing with his explosive tantrums.
Now, at the age of ten, his behaviors have become increasingly aggressive.
... We have found this behavioral aspect of Tourette syndrome mostly
undocumented ... The initial diagnosis of Tourettesyndrome (sic) really did
not help us, as the doctor discounted the behavior as part of the syndrome.
It was only after our friend's insistance (sic) that Tourette syndromewas
(sic) much more than 'tics' that we learned everything was indeed related."
Here are some snips from the book:
"One day we were so crazy. My mom and me were yelling at each other, and I
was kicking and hitting her. She even put soap in my mouth because of my
words. Finally my mom called a clinic in Duarte that specialized in
Tourette syndrome. She talked to a very special doctor."
"
Ugh ...
Marietta, wanna get published?
Here's a press which badly needs for someone to update their offerings, and
I have a hard time believing they turn down anything even marginally related
to TS. Just do it. At least yours will be edited.
Anne Smith
wrote:
>The End
no. And not everyone lived happily ever after, either.
>*This interpretation of Grrr's 2 cents worth does not necessarily
>reflect the views of the interpreter, or even the interpretee, for that
>matter...
>
>
>
>> Grrr wrote
>> >> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
>
> Well, *I* did...and I even took the time to "try" to figure it out...so
>don't go all shouty on me if I'm all wrong...
No, but your explanations did seem to get almost close to some of the
stuff i spouted.
>even tho I realize you
>didn't make me or even ask me to read your post. You may not have even
>wanted me too...but I am compelled to read ast and each and every
>post...and at times I am compelled to respond...so there....
Be well, my friend.
Anne Smith
> Grrr <.@..> wrote:
>
>> Children don't *want* detail.
>> What they ask for is the truth.
>> I would rather feed them with what they need: the truth.
>
>Even the so-called 'experts' aren't really sure what the truth is,
Yes they are.
I'm sure they'd pick out a half-assed truth a mile off if they saw
that, too.
> maybe you should give them a call? ;)
No i shouldn't.
>> >I know what's meant by 'sitting on your laurels', but I don't know
>what
>> >YOU mean by it in this circumstance. Who do you think is sitting on
>> >their laurels, and why?
>
>> I didn't mean you.
>
>Why would you throw in a reference to laurels in a response to my post
>if you're not talking about me.
Because i can.
> It might make more sense to clarify
>yourself when you do this so we don't think you're just pulling crap out
>of the air. :)
The two can not be synonymous?
I think you've already demonstrated otherwise.
BTW, How many sledge-hammers taken to your head = clarity?
>> I'm saying people are often happy just to take in and rest on their
>> own mutilated version of the truth. People want something familiar
>> they can cling to and then drag down into their own little version of
>> the world.
>
>And as I said before, you really have no idea what I think.
Methinks that is a good thing.
> You only
>know how I put it in terms that children can understand.
No i don't.
> If you feel you
>have a better way, please, again, share it. We'd love to hear it.
Yes: "Duh.. i don't know. Because i'm not a freakin expert."
>> It's not any sort of bridge of understanding you typed out.
>
>Hmmm.. it's a matter of opinion.
Yes. That's why i typed understanding and not opinion.
>> It is simply what people want to hear, because it confirms their own
>> erroneous beliefs, not any real truth.
>
>I don't think young children really have any firm beliefs about tics,
>and certainly little prior knowledge of neurology. They know where
>their brain is.
>Again, you really have no idea what I think.
Again, good.
> Again, you only know how I
>put it in terms that children can understand.
Again, i don't care. You know how i thought it was crap, and told you
so you would understand that it is crap.
>If you feel you have a
>better way, please, again, share it. We'd love to hear it.
See above.
>> I hope, if you do have children, they don't grow up like you.
>
>ROFL!
>
>> >yeah, I know that when parents tell their children that the stork
>> >brought them, they really believe it too. ;)
>
>> Exactly.
>
>Ah, I see. Hanging out with the smart kids, but the dumb parents. I hope
>we haven't shattered any bubbles out there, parents. No, I'm sorry, the
>stork DOESN'T bring babies.
We do like to cling to our elusive stork when we're flailing with the
issue at hand, don't we?
> For Grrr's truth, write to Grrr. For a
>detailed explanation (but leaving out perhaps the difference between
>mitosis and meiosis) write to Randall. I guess if you're still having
>problems, try www.drdrew.com
>;)
>> Consider; A parent talking to their kid "Oh, well if you heard
>> Dominique say that, and she is the parent of a child with Tourettes,
>> then she must know what she's talking about."
>
>If a parent really thinks that the brain sends little messengers to the
>toes, and that there's a bunch of messengers sitting bored in a corner
>of the brain, that parent has bigger issues than what to think about TS.
Your story was crap; for reasons i've already mentioned.
Shut up. You're flailing.
>> >> The rationale that if it's shown that a solution doesn't lie in a
>> >> mental disciplining of the child, in order to block out these
>> >> extraneous and unwanted psychological patterns through which these
>> >> movements arise, then there is obviously some sort of redundant
>> >> activity going on in the brain for which one just needs to simply
>> >> apply the right magic drug, thus blocking (annihilating) all those
>> >> naughty 'we are the extra messengers' team, sending them back into
>> >> extra messenger land.
>> >
>> >Hmmm.. none of the kids I told this story too seemed to make a
>> >correlation between unwanted psychological patterns and annihilation
>of
>> >naughty messengers. You must be hanging out with the smart kids. ;)
>>
>> Nope. It's not necessarily from a child, yet it parallels the same
>> sort of lazy thinking that i see your story condones.
>
>You lost me,
I guessed as much.
> what's not necessarily from a child, and how does it
>parallel lazy thinking?
These correlations, and by reasons i've already mentioned.
>> >Well, I put the story out there for anyone who might find it helpful.
>> >If you don't find it helpful, don't use it.
>
>> No, it's helpful alright.
>> Just in a way you're perhaps too ignorant to understand..
>
>LOL!!! Perhaps, but ignorance is relative, I suppose, oh omnipotent one.
>;)
Yes, i suppose, if non sequiturs are what this thread is about.
>> >> I've thought *much* too much about it to then be able to frame any
>of
>> >> my theories into some simple childrens' fairy tale, which actually
>> >> serves to contradict what i've thus far said in my other post.
>
>> >This only serves to confirm that you really don't have any idea what
>> >this thread is about.
>
>> Advice.
>
>Advice to whom? A parent. and for whom?
Read the FAQ
> young children. AGAIN, if you
>have a better way, let's hear it. I think by now we're all, well, some
>of us, waiting with baited breath.
>
>> > Or you just don't care but see a chance to spout
>> >off?
>>
>> And if you give me one, i'll let you know..
>
>Cool. In the meantime, you're cracking me up. :D
You flatter yourself.
Give it up. You're not worth it.
>> >> I'm not advocating you read *my* lengthy and tedious thing i wrote.
>> >>
>> >> Though as long it's out there, you have no excuse for not
>> >> understanding my stance in the matter.
>> >
>> >I'm not interested in your stance on how TS works.
>>
>> You should be. I'm using it to pull down your own unmitigated
>> reasoning.
>
>My reasoning is unmitigated? LOL Does that mean you consider your own
>to be mitigable?
No. But that's not always a bad thing.
> Maybe you meant to use another word here?
No.
>Sorry, but I'll go to the scientists if I need any ideas on how TS
>works, not a newsgroup posting.
Nobody here said otherwise, idiot. You just make up stuff as you go
along then.
>> > I'm trying to figure
>> >out what you find so objectionable to simplifying tics to a concept
>> >that small children can understand.
>
>> See comment above (not mine, your own)
>
>The one that I'm not interested in your idea of how TS works? So it's
>really about you're being insulted that I didn't read your thread?
You write too much for a stupid person.
Anne Smith
>Basically. Young kids aren't interested in exactly what it's like to
>tic.
Apparently a stork comes down the chimney in the middle of the night
and delivers them.
sound...@flash.net
Josh
sound...@flash.net wrote:
>
> Grrr wrote:
> >
> >
> > Children don't *want* detail.
> > What they ask for is the truth.
>
> And love. And respect. And dignity.
>
> > Your second question is what you did in your original story.
> > I would rather feed them with what they need: the truth.
>
> And love. And respect. And dignity.
>
> And to be allowed their own thoughts and feelings.
Mesas
they tend not to tic.
In fact, this is how we figured out that my breathing problem was a tic.
If I truly had a breathing problem, it wouldn't matter what I was doing.
But it went away while I was on the computer or engrossed in something
else.
Theresa
KJ <HSM...@aol.comeandplay> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the advice (from everyone, actually), I appreciate it. And
> I forgot to mention it, but my husband did apologize to my son the
> next day about telling him to stop ticcing in the movie theater, and
> hasn't done it since.
>
> BTW, something strange I noticed the other day. When my son is on the
> computer playing games (and this is only on the PC, not if he plays
> video games), his ticcing is almost nonexistent. Usually, he probably
> sniffs/smells things up to 5 or so times *a minute*. But when he's on
> the computer - it's almost nothing. If he wakes up in the middle of
> the night and comes to talk to me or give me a hug he doesn't tic
> either. It's interesting.
>
> KJ
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Mesas
He works at the City of Hope, a rather large and very well-known medical
facility in Duarte.
>
> Ugh ...
> Marietta, wanna get published?
> Here's a press which badly needs for someone to update their offerings, and
> I have a hard time believing they turn down anything even marginally related
> to TS. Just do it. At least yours will be edited.
> --
> BB2
> Tourette Syndrome - Now What?
> http://members.home.net/blessedby2
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Its the coffee talking
<snip>Well, there's a good point to consider. Doesn't this suggest that kids
>are less deserving of truth?
>
><snip>
>
sound...@flash.net
Its the coffee talking wrote:
>
> >
> Until we can agree on *truth* how do we know if we can offer it to anyone
> else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
>
> I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's...
And sometimes some parents SEE to it that their child's truth is not the
same as an adult's.
I think we can all agree that there is no tooth fairy, storks don't
bring babies, and most people would agree that the world wasn't created
in seven days. Not all parents teach their kids things they themselves
don't believe.
Josh
Mesas
Theresa
Its the coffee talking <marie...@aol.com> wrote:
> Until we can agree on *truth* how do we know if we can offer it to anyone
> else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
>
> I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's... The sun is gone at night
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
pwi...@inetnebr.com
Its the coffee talking wrote:
(snip for brevity, but not for lack of brilliance)
>
> So, when folks suggest that children want "truth", I have to question, "which"
> truth are you talking about? Your truth? Or their truth? I would imagine
> that they already have *their* truth... wether or not I can *perceive* it may
> be the *true* question.
And thank goodness for our children who have the patience to explain it to
us more than once -- each time hoping and praying that maybe this time we
WILL get it. Eh, Marietta???
FlyingHi
jai
>
> <snip>Well, there's a good point to consider. Doesn't this suggest that kids
> >are less deserving of truth?
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
>
> I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's... The sun is gone at night is a
> *truth/fact?* for a child. For an adult....or I should say for those who would
> have the tools to gather information beyond this truth... telescopes, and moon
> expeditions covered on TV expand this truth to: the sun is not *gone* in the
> way it may be for a child,... it is still *gone* hence a truth, but the truth
> expands to it's *gone to the other side*, or perhaps more accurately, it hasn't
> gone, rather the earth has spun away from it. The *truth* will change based on
> one's exposures to tools and development, (if you consider then that a *child*
> could *know* the truth as an adult if provided with the same tools of the
> telescopes and TV broadcasts... you must also consider development... a very
> young child, (1 - 5?) does not have the capacity to use a telescope, [at least
> not in the way the *adults* intend for it to be used! <G>] and as they grow and
> develop so does their comprehension of what they are viewing. And I don't
> think this ability to *comprehend* and *view* ever becomes static... as our own
> development continues to change.... let's say senility hits in one's later
> years, the truth again changes for that individual, as their perception
> changes... then again you must also take into consideration that *my* truth for
> a senile person/child may very well be different than their truth. And what
> about the truth for a blind person? The heat of the sun may be gone at night,
> but not the light of the sun....
>
> truth are you talking about? Your truth? Or their truth? I would imagine
> that they already have *their* truth... wether or not I can *perceive* it may
> be the *true* question.
>
> <a href=http://www.thecoffeechronicles.com>The Coffee Chronicles</a> Living
> with Tourettes - a different perspective.<br><br>
> <font size=2>All rights reserved, post not to be reproduced without permission,
> except for quoting to respond on AST.</font>
Very well said Marietta!!!
Jai
jai
> >
> > truth are you talking about? Your truth? Or their truth? I would imagine
> > that they already have *their* truth... wether or not I can *perceive* it may
> > be the *true* question.
>
> us more than once -- each time hoping and praying that maybe this time we
> WILL get it. Eh, Marietta???
>
> FlyingHi
LOL, This is an ultimate truth...I love it!!!!!!
Jai
Pokemom
>"Its the coffee talking" wrote
"which"
> truth are you talking about? Your truth? Or their truth? I would
imagine
> that they already have *their* truth... wether or not I can *perceive* it
may
> be the *true* question.
>
> <a href=http://www.thecoffeechronicles.com>The Coffee Chronicles</a>
Living
> with Tourettes - a different perspective.<br><br>
> <font size=2>All rights reserved, post not to be reproduced without
permission,
> except for quoting to respond on AST.</font>
In my experience, *the* truth is something that can almost never be taught
or told to someone. *My* truths have evolved day by day, year by year--not
through the teaching of others--rather as a result of new awarenesses and
perceptions, changing consciousness and new experiences.
*My* truths as to friendship, morality, being a woman, and my own medical
conditions (asthma, migraines) have undergone drastic changes through the
years.
Even *my* truth as to my own childhood is different today than it was at,
say, the age of 15, 20, 25 or 30. The childhood itself obviously didn't
change--only my perceptions changed. Hence for me, the truth changed.
The challenge for me, as a parent is to be able to convey information to my
children in a way that is both understandable to them and consistent with my
*current* truths. Then I need to make a leap of faith--trusting that my
children will come to their own truths in their own time, and--I
hope--understand that I imparted the truth in the best way I knew how at the
time.
Sandi
Vickser
> (founded by David Comings, M.D., who works at a clinic in
>... ahem ... Duarte).
The City of Hope happens to be a world renowned (sp?) medical center.
Vicki
jai
>
> Its the coffee talking wrote:
> >
> > >
> > Until we can agree on *truth* how do we know if we can offer it to anyone
> > else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
> >
> > I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's...
>
> same as an adult's.
>
> I think we can all agree that there is no tooth fairy, storks don't
> bring babies, and most people would agree that the world wasn't created
> in seven days. Not all parents teach their kids things they themselves
> don't believe.
>
> Josh
Josh, Josh, Josh, so we disagree again!!!<smile on my face and a twinkle
in my eye...I still adore you!!!)... Some of us still believe in our own
way and teach our kids the spirit of those beliefs through faith in
things they can't actually see, but only feel...SO.....
Okay,all you non-believers... now use your imaginations...
I wrote a letter to the Editor of "The Sun" and asked if it was wrong to
teach my son to believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, and
Guardian Angels..., or to let him believe in his other imaginary
friends. Especially since he could never really see them and we all know
they only exist only inside of us. This was his reply; (With both Thanks
and apologies to Francis P. Church, Editor of The Sun)<VBG>
Yes, Jai...you are right to teach your child that there
is more than just what he can see....
Some of your AST friends are wrong. They have been affected by the
skepticism of a skeptical age.
They do not believe except they see. They think that nothing can be
which is not comprehensible by
their own minds. All minds, Jai, whether they be men's or children's,
are little. In this great
universe of ours, man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect as
compared with the boundless world
about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole
of truth and knowledge.
Yes, Jai, these things you ask of do exist. They exist as certainly as
love and generosity and devotion
exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest
beauty and joy. So why not share these with your child in a childlike
way that your son can enjoy and explore and learn from.
Alas! how
dreary would be the world if there were no Sandman, no tooth fairies, no
imaginary friends! It would be as dreary as if there were no
Joshs, Laras, Jais, Ellens, Theresas, BB2s, KATS, Alex's, Grrrs, Dereks,
Mariettas, Chaims and all your other new friends on AST. There would be
no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this
existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The
external light with which
childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies or
a child's imagination. You might get your papa to hire
men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas eve to catch Santa Claus,
but even if you did not see
Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus,
but that is no sign
that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are
those that neither children nor men
can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not,
but that's no proof that they
are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are
unseen and unseeable in
the world.
You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside,
but there is a veil covering the
unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength
of all the strongest men that
ever lived could tear apart. Only faith, poetry, love, romance, can push
aside that curtain and view
and picture the supernatural beauty and glory beyond. Is it real? Ah,
Jai, in all this world there is
nothing else more real and abiding.
No Santa Claus! No fairies! They live and live forever. A thousand years
from now, Jai, nay
10 times 10,000 years from now, they will continue to make glad the
heart of childhood. (Or as long as there are parents who do not fear
teaching their children that there are as many things to believe in and
as many ways to believe in them as there are people.)
F.P. Church, Editor of the Sun...(with some help from MY
imagination...)<smile>
Jai, Who cannot bring herself to explain to Raymond the odds of his
being the first person on Mars, while leading his team to the World
Series and running his own store where he gives stuff away for free to
people who can't afford to buy it. Not to mention curing sickness and
pain in his spare time...AND lowering taxes...(seriously!!!) and having
the fastest car in the world, which can go underwater so we don't have
to wait for the Ferries any more...and so on and so on and so on....
BlessedBy2
I know ... :-)
My point was a reference to a plug in the book:
"One day we were so crazy. My mom and me were yelling at each other, and I
was kicking and hitting her. She even put soap in my mouth because of my
words. Finally my mom called a clinic in Duarte that specialized in
Tourette syndrome. She talked to a very special doctor."
JBene43090
>out of date,
Because they are still making money on it?
I bought this book when my son was first dx'd. I knew it was written by a
child, had a childs view, and may help him understand about TS. I believe i
read it and promptly threw it in the garbage. As an uninformed parent of a
newly dx'd TS child, the book scared me with the possible outlook of my son's
future.
Jodi
Hae...@yahoo.com
sound...@flash.net wrote:
>
> Its the coffee talking wrote:
> > >
> > Until we can agree on *truth* how do we know if we can offer it to
anyone
> > else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
> >
> > I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's...
> And sometimes some parents SEE to it that their child's truth is not
the
> same as an adult's.
I congratulate the parents that see their child's truth is not an
adult's truth. An adult's truth is to know violence that goes beyond
the schoolyard bully. To know the true meaning of the word mortality as
they watch friends die from bullet wounds. To know of a world full of
drugs and prostitution and exploitation. To know rape and murder and
war.
> I think we can all agree that there is no tooth fairy, storks don't
> bring babies, and most people would agree that the world wasn't
created
> in seven days. Not all parents teach their kids things they
themselves
> don't believe.
I'm grateful that I didn't learn that I would be discriminated because
of my gender until I was older. I'm grateful that I didn't learn even
of racism until quite late in high school. I'm mostly grateful that I
got to believe in Unicorns and Vampires.
Hae...@yahoo.com
sound...@flash.net wrote:
> But, I am saying that the
> eye-blinking thing does not AT ALL relate to what goes on when I tic,
as
> far as I can tell. Not saying it doesn't EXACTLY relate - I'm saying
I
> don't perceive it to bear ANY resemblance. As far as MY tics go, it
is
> very misleading for people to believe the process is anything like
that,
> OR that it feels anything like that.
I know what you mean. It really doesn't relate to much to my tics
either, except the eye-blinking ones. They really DO feel the same as
blinking, except more forceful, and like I said, it's only because I
have to do it when my eyes are shut too that I could be sure they were
tics. But the eye blinking one is the only one I felt I could use, like
you said, to get these non-ticcing children to understand the idea of
compulusion.
I first heard of this analogy in
> regards to demonstrating how difficult it can be to concentrate on
> anything else when someone is holding back tics. But I also don't
think
> it is a good demonstration, as far as my own holding back tics goes,
> either.
In some ways it fits my situation, in some ways it doesn't. It does
because ticcing feels as natural to me as blinking, and yes, it'd be as
ridiculous for someone to expect me to stop ticcing as it would be for
me to expect them to stop blinking. And my blinking tics ARE just like
blinking, there's simply no way I could NOT do them. But then there's
other tics that fit that itching/scratching analogy. Where one has an
itch, and could go without scratching if absolutely necessary, but at
the same time, it'd be incredibly uncomfortable. And even that doesn't
address all my tics. But then, that's not really the point I'm trying
to get across when I related this story to those kids.
> Exactness is too unrealistic a goal, and no way am I saying that
that's
> what the issue is.
I'm still not sure what the issue is. Dave has me totally confused as
to just what his problem is with the story. I'm thinking he's objecting
to it because it's not accurate? (shoot, I never claimed it was
accurate. LOL)
> > > <snip>
> > Jzosh, this is where the post stopped, but somehow I don't think
this
> > is where you ended it? ...
> Well, that's the point where I suddenly felt overwhelmed trying to
> express myself, and instead of responding to more of the post like I
had
> intended, I just hit send. Sorry, I guess it came out harsher
sounding
> than what I was feeling or had meant.
I didn't take it that way at all. I just assumed something happened
because there was a big snip and then you didn't even sign your name.
Was worried I missed something.
> > anyway, what do you mean that kids are less
> > deserving of the truth? Is this a typo? Otherwise, I don't get it.
> Deserving was a poor choice there. I wasn't saying that I don't
believe
> they are less deserving of truth, nor that you believe that, but that
> that statement maybe sounded a bit like that to me. But more what it
> sounded like to me would be more accurately said something like this:
> That statement suggests that kids aren't ready for something a bit
> closer to truth, though I believe they might be, but I'm not sure, and
> of course I think it would be different with different kids and
> different ages.
I think so too. :)
To tell you MY truth, I'm not sure where to draw the
> line in a matter like that. I trust your judgment in the situation,
> where YOU know the kids involved, and would have a much better idea of
> their needs in the matter. And it was why YOU tic that you were
trying
> to explain to them, and *I* surely couldn't tell you why you tic. I
> can't tell you why *I* tic. I CAN however tell you when an
explanation
> doesn't fit MY tics.
Nor does it fit mine, exactly.
> Thanks for opening the door for me to try to elaborate.
>
> Josh
*vampyreheart
Hae...@yahoo.com
Anne Smith <anne-...@eisa.net.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 03:59:32 GMT, Hae...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >Basically. Young kids aren't interested in exactly what it's like to
> >tic.
>
> and delivers them.
LOL Grrr! I wonder if a study has ever been done about the correlation
between Tourette's and fireplaces?
Hae...@yahoo.com
> >Even the so-called 'experts' aren't really sure what the truth is,
>
> Yes they are.
> I'm sure they'd pick out a half-assed truth a mile off if they saw
> that, too.
Are they? I was under the impression they still weren't really sure.
Can you direct me to a URL so I can read up on this? Thanks.
> >Why would you throw in a reference to laurels in a response to my
post
> >if you're not talking about me.
>
> Because i can.
>
> > It might make more sense to clarify
> >yourself when you do this so we don't think you're just pulling crap
out
> >of the air. :)
>
> The two can not be synonymous?
> I think you've already demonstrated otherwise.
Oh geez, I hope not. Does that mean it's time to run out and play?
<grimace>
> BTW, How many sledge-hammers taken to your head = clarity?
Less and less, the older I get. ;)
> >And as I said before, you really have no idea what I think.
> Methinks that is a good thing.
Me too. :)
> > If you feel you
> >have a better way, please, again, share it. We'd love to hear it.
> Yes: "Duh.. i don't know. Because i'm not a freakin expert."
No, I mean some other 'better way'. That just doesn't work for me.
> Your story was crap; for reasons i've already mentioned.
>
> Shut up. You're flailing.
No, I'm doing fine. Thanks. :)
> >> >> The rationale that if it's shown that a solution doesn't lie in
a
> >> >> mental disciplining of the child, in order to block out these
> >> >> extraneous and unwanted psychological patterns through which
these
> >> >> movements arise, then there is obviously some sort of redundant
> >> >> activity going on in the brain for which one just needs to
simply
> >> >> apply the right magic drug, thus blocking (annihilating) all
those
> >> >> naughty 'we are the extra messengers' team, sending them back
into
> >> >> extra messenger land.
Why couldn't this be interpreted in terms of mental disciplining of a
child. Why do you feel this has to lead to the conclusion of drugs? I
don't take drugs for my TS, nor do I condone them (though I do
understand that for a small few it's an unfortunate, but preferable
choice.)
> >> Nope. It's not necessarily from a child, yet it parallels the same
> >> sort of lazy thinking that i see your story condones.
> >
> >You lost me,
>
> I guessed as much.
Well, sure, I think that was your intention? ;)
>
> > what's not necessarily from a child, and how does it
> >parallel lazy thinking?
> These correlations, and by reasons i've already mentioned.
I understand that you're worried about how the parents will interpret
it. I just don't see my story as having that much influence. On one
hand, the little kids I've told this story too have nothing to do with
TS themselves, and their parents already know me and know I've never
taken meds myself. On the other hand, most parents here I think are
savy enough about TS to know that my story is an explanation for very
young children and I don't see it influencing their choice to med or
not to med in any way.
> >> >Well, I put the story out there for anyone who might find it
helpful.
> >> >If you don't find it helpful, don't use it.
> >> No, it's helpful alright.
> >> Just in a way you're perhaps too ignorant to understand..
I just think you're giving the story a little too much credit? ;)
> >> >> I've thought *much* too much about it to then be able to frame
any
> >of
> >> >> my theories into some simple childrens' fairy tale, which
actually
> >> >> serves to contradict what i've thus far said in my other post.
Then the only answer you would have would be to tell children we don't
know because we're not experts? That doesn't sound fair.
> You flatter yourself.
> Give it up. You're not worth it.
I must be. You're responding. and I AM flattered, thank you. :)
> >Sorry, but I'll go to the scientists if I need any ideas on how TS
> >works, not a newsgroup posting.
> Nobody here said otherwise, idiot. You just make up stuff as you go
> along then.
:)
> >The one that I'm not interested in your idea of how TS works? So it's
> >really about you're being insulted that I didn't read your thread?
>
> You write too much for a stupid person.
Aww.. you are insulted. :(
Hae...@yahoo.com
> I wrote a letter to the Editor of "The Sun" and asked if it was wrong
to
> teach my son to believe in Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy, and
> Guardian Angels..., or to let him believe in his other imaginary
> friends. Especially since he could never really see them and we all
know
> they only exist only inside of us. This was his reply; (With both
Thanks
> and apologies to Francis P. Church, Editor of The Sun)<VBG>
<snip>
Jai, that was beautiful.
Dominique :)
jai
>
> sound...@flash.net wrote:
> >
> > Its the coffee talking wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > Until we can agree on *truth* how do we know if we can offer it to anyone
> > > else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
> > >
> > > I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's...
> >
> > And sometimes some parents SEE to it that their child's truth is not the
> > same as an adult's.
> >
> > bring babies, and most people would agree that the world wasn't created
> > in seven days. Not all parents teach their kids things they themselves
> > don't believe.
> >
<snip>
YIKES!!!!
I've found out that it was not obvious to everybody that I basically
plagiarized the "Answer" I put in my post to my fictional letter to the
editor concerning teaching children to believe in Santa and Fairies (and
Unicorns and Vampires, right Dominique)<smile> The Original letter was
written in 1897 to Francis P. Church, Editor of The New York Sun
Newspaper. The question was if there really was a Santa Claus. F.P.
Church's reply went way beyond the question of Santa Claus and became
rather well known by the title "Yes, Virginia... There is a Santa
Claus." I was goofing around and changed the name to my own and changed
a few other details of the original. The spirit of F.P. Church's reply
has always meant a lot to me and expresses how I feel about believing in
more than I can see. So I used his words to express my feelings on this
subject...Sorry for any confusion...
Jai
<snip>
Lara
I've believed in faeries most all of my life in fact. My Mother died when
I was 4 yrs old. I went to the garden at that age to find my Mother. I
didn't really
find her there, yet couldn't find her anywhere else. I did did instead find
a beauty and a world that would keep her.... and me.... alive for all time.
I see her face in every flower everywhere. Let's never ever stop believing
in
"fairy-tales" please. :o)
Lara
Its the coffee talking
>I've found out that it was not obvious to everybody that I basically
>plagiarized the "Answer" I put in my post to my fictional letter to the
>editor concerning teaching children to believe in Santa and Fairies (and
>Unicorns and Vampires, right Dominique)<smile> The Original letter was
>written in 1897 to Francis P. Church, Editor of The New York Sun
>Newspaper.
I thoroughly enjoyed your rendition Jai, and I knew where it came from... but I
had forgotten how much it applied to so much more than Santa, thanks for your
version.
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
<pwi...@inetnebr.com> wrote in message
news:393E20DC...@inetnebr.com...
>
>
> Its the coffee talking wrote:
> (snip for brevity, but not for lack of brilliance)
> >
> > So, when folks suggest that children want "truth", I have to question,
"which"
> > truth are you talking about? Your truth? Or their truth? I would
imagine
> > that they already have *their* truth... wether or not I can *perceive*
it may
> > be the *true* question.
I may be a little late getting in on this thread, but I'm gonna' do it
anyway.
I would have given anything for THE answer, instead of the ones I got "No
one knows what's wrong."
I waited till I was 38 to get that answer, and the relief was indescribable.
Not to mention the vindication (I KNEW I wasn't crazy).
If kids don't have answers, they will make up their own. In my case, there
was 'something wrong with my mind and brain.'
I struggled against that false perception for years. The only good thing to
come out of it was that I became very well read on the subject, immersing
myself in books about the mind and brain, among other things, always seeking
answers.
I found them in an issue of Science magazine when I was 38 years old.
My point is this: in my case, my parents did not have a DX for my condition
either. And they did the same thing I did. They made up their OWN answers:
("I must have done some in utero to hurt her" (Mother) or "Maybe I shouldn't
have punished her by making her go to her room" (Daddy).
They were told only that I'd had a 'shock to my nervous system' before,
during or at birth.
Tell your children, using age specific words, of their DX. Tell them what
they need to know, and no more. Do it in a way that seems 'matter of fact.'
Don't couch it in 'feelings' that suggest it's something to be afraid of or
ashamed of. And prepare yourself for the day when they will want to know
more. And what, IMHO, is 'truth?'
It's what is. Perceptions aside, it's the facts.
It's just that simple.
KAT in CT
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
I'm mostly grateful that I
> got to believe in Unicorns and Vampires.
>
> Dominique :)
I still recall the day I found out that there was no Santa Claus. When my
sister told me, and I confirmed it with my mother, I asked "Then I guess
there's no Easter Bunny either." Sadly, gently, she said, "No Kathryn, there
isn't. "
I lost something that day.
But then I discovered Lord of the Rings....and found new fantasies about
which to dream.
KAT in CT
KATHRYN A TAUBERT
> > >> >> The rationale that if it's shown that a solution doesn't lie in
> a
> > >> >> mental disciplining of the child, in order to block out these
> > >> >> extraneous and unwanted psychological patterns through which
> these
> > >> >> movements arise, then there is obviously some sort of redundant
> > >> >> activity going on in the brain for which one just needs to
> simply
> > >> >> apply the right magic drug, thus blocking (annihilating) all
> those
> > >> >> naughty 'we are the extra messengers' team, sending them back
> into
> > >> >> extra messenger land.
I have not been keeping up with this thread. I just scanned it today. I do
not know who wrote this, and it does not matter until and unless that person
wishes to pursue this discussion here.
What I see, however, in this paragraph is someone who may be resisting all
attempts to have someone 'change' him or her, or others like him. Perhaps
because he had some bad experiences with folks who have attempted to
eradicate tics, through one means or another, against his or her will, or by
means that he perceived as worse than the tics themselves.
I may be WAYYY off base here, but I can identify with this. I had every
experimental drug in the book as a child. I sat for hours in psychiatrists'
office while they stared at me, asked me questions, made me draw
pictures..all in the name of trying to 'fix' me. I fell asleep in the middle
of the dinner table (literally), gained 25 pounds (as a child, this was
deadly for my self esteem), couldn't think straight, I could go on and on.
One day, I said "No More, Please."
I think my parents were as relieved as I was.
They never pressured me.
In fact, when I went to the doctor the first time, it was because I wanted
them to take me.
My point is this: when I see this kind of anger, I understand it. I may be
wrong in my interpretations of this post, as I said, but it strikes me as
very familiar.
Perhaps what this person is saying is this:
"Let me be. Let your children be. Attempt to fix the society that makes us
the 'outsiders' instead of trying to conform the child to fit the society."
Tall order, yes.
But we'll never know how well it might work if we don't try it.
And in order to do it, we will need to make some compromises to get there
(sometimes, everybody needs a little help, and that may include meds.)
It's called habituation.
It's what got Blacks out of the back of the bus.
Women in business.
Latinos in government.
And while 'they' have a long way to go yet, look at the progress that has
been made.
Perhaps the same for us?
KAT in CT ...musing...
Vicki Hill
meant more to my son than any other book in our ever-growing library
addressing neuropsych issues. My son happens to fit the mold that Adam
describes: TS+++. It was tremendously reassuring for my son when I
handed him that book at age 8 - there were other kids in the world
like him! . I bet he read it 50 times. The book was almost always open
near his bed, where he re-read it at night. In 4th grade he chose to
take it to school and asked his 4th grade teacher to read it to the
class. (I didn't even know about it until after he had done this.) He
also left it on the 4th grade reading shelf at school for a few weeks,
in case any other kids wanted to pick it up and read it. It helped his
peers understand him and accept him. And teachers have commented to me
ever since about how those kids would stand up for my son if kids from
other grades picked on him.
When I get a call from a mom of a newly diagnosed kid WITH SIMILAR
TRAITS...I recommend the book. When I get a call where the kid in
question doesn't have similar traits, I don't mention the book. Yes,
it was written in 1991...but there isn't anything else written more
recently that specifically is geared to the 10 yo audience of readers.
So, bash away...but I can tell you that this little book does
tremendous good for the understanding and ego of some kids who fit
this pattern. And I for one am delighted that it is still available
for sale.
Vicki H.
Anne Smith
talking) wrote:
>So, when folks suggest that children want "truth", I have to question, "which"
>truth are you talking about? Your truth? Or their truth? I would imagine
>that they already have *their* truth... wether or not I can *perceive* it may
>be the *true* question.
"
Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of to-morrow,
which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent
forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends
you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the Archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as He loves the arrow the arrow that flies, so He loves also
the bow that is stable.
"
(Taken from the same book Ellen's using to try to justify her crap
with.)
sound...@flash.net
Sound familiar Marietta?
Josh
Its the coffee talking
>It's what is. Perceptions aside, it's the facts.
>It's just that simple.
>KAT in CT
I think this issue is the *facts*.
Some things are easier to obtain the facts about.
"You twitch"... a fact.
"Why do you twitch?" ... not so clearly a fact.
"Is your twitching a problem?".... different facts for different folks.
So perhaps the *simplicity* of the facts depends on the questions?
In the scenario, "are tics a problem", in relationship to a child and a
parent... child is teased, that's a fact, it's a problem for the child (another
fact... but how big? Depends on the child I suppose). A doctor asks the
parents if the tics are a problem for the child, (the parent doesn't know about
the teasing), and answers that the tics aren't too troublesome, (to them... and
that's a fact), except for the high pitched squeal when in the car, (another
fact... that the child is now hearing for the first time and now incorporates
as a fact) ... the doctor asks the child if the tics are a problem, and
depending on the age you are likely to get a range of responses.... a young
child 4-5 may not correlate, or even remember the teasing incident to the tics
and may answer that the tics are no problem, or they may answer that they don't
have "bugs".... or since hearing (very recently) from their parents that the
squealing tic is a problem, they nod their head in agreement, afterall... the
parents *said so*. On the other hand a 12 year old may find everything that's
different about them to be a problem, and in addition to the tics, they might
add that their acne, height, weight, and hair color are also a BIG problem for
them. At 9, my son and a few kids in his class have tics, no big deal, but at
8 he thought he was one of those kids who *needed help* because of his TS
because his teacher told him so. (Was it a fact that he need help? Or did she
need help? ) So what is the truth/fact about the tics being a problem or not
for this child? It depends on who you ask, and when you ask, and probably most
importantly *what* you ask them. I don't think the facts are always so
simple.
I agree with KAT in that it was helpful for us to know early on what was going
on... but I believe I would have been the only one making up *truths*, (my
husband certainly wouldn't have been... he's very laid back), in the early
years had I not known... and my son was not aware that there was any *truth's*
to be had... he thought everyone ticced, and didn't fully become aware that
they didn't until he was 6-7. This may very likely be different for different
children, children mature and develop at different rates... this is not an
insignificant fact... and when taking advice in a book or over the internet...
these things are not always indicated as things THAT MUST BE added to the
mix...IMHO If I tell you what worked for my son, who happens to be very mature
for his age, and didn't mention this... you might think your child was ready
for the same information, when in fact they might not be if they were not very
mature in their development. This is when you have to have faith that you know
your child best, and don't forget to adjust the advice to fit your situation,
even when the books, and the experts, and posts *forget* to tell you to do so,
or don't tell you loud enough for you to hear. <g>
And this is why I think it important to realize the differences in each
situation, everyone is affected by TS differently, and environment is a
significant factor, (ones parents, neighborhoods, the prevalence of other
strife's). TS doesn't exist in a vacuum, (that's *not* a fact, that's a
cliche <G>)
And, by my logic, in all likelihood *I*have not assessed all the facts as they
*were* for my child, perhaps no more than he was able to assess the fact that
at 4-6 he had something that he needed to make up answers for... the question
had to be posed first, something he wasn't doing until later in his childhood.
(And I think this is the point as to which KAT pointed out -- not having the
answers was a problem... I'm thankful that my son will have the *answer* when
he needs it.)
>The only good thing to
>come out of it was that I became very well read on the subject,
And the knowledge that you have passed on to everyone else,<g> ... I'm thinking
ripples in a pond... hence the statement "The only good thing"... may be
*only* to you, but it is also *huge* to me.
>I think is immersing
>myself in books about the mind and brain, among other things, always seeking
>answers.
Did you find more answers or questions on a whole? I always find more
questions when I embark on journey's such as these... but the few answers found
are often well worth it.
Mesas
this look on his face like, "I'm not alone! I'm not the only one!" It
was a great comfort to him.
Theresa
Vicki Hill <vlh...@airmail.net> wrote:
--
Theresa clan...@earthlink.net
Its the coffee talking
Marietta
The passage from Gibran was read at my Grandmother's funeral, it struck me as
if the arrows from the bow were still thick in the air... I asked for a copy of
Gibran's book that Christmas,... it sits on my nightstand today.... but then
again - you couldn't have known this Josh?!
Its the coffee talking
>From: sound...@flash.net
>Date: 06/07/2000 1:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <393E824E...@flash.net>
>
>
>
>Its the coffee talking wrote:
>>
>> >
>> else?, (this would apply to all - not just children)
>>
>> I'm thinking a child's truth is not an adult's...
>
>
>And sometimes some parents SEE to it that their child's truth is not the
>same as an adult's.
>
>I think we can all agree that there is no tooth fairy, storks don't
>bring babies, and most people would agree that the world wasn't created
>in seven days. Not all parents teach their kids things they themselves
>don't believe.
>
>Josh
>
I hope I haven't gotten the title switched again, (with It's a Beautiful
Life)... have you seen the Italian movie that I think is called, <g> Life is
Beautiful? If you haven't you really should... but bring a box of tissue,
(sorry Dominique should have warned you!)
Marietta