. . . . .
Is there a reason that you don't add the www.epilepsy.com to your
reccomendations?
> . . . . .
> Is there a reason that you don't add the www.epilepsy.com to your
> reccomendations?
No there isn't. Well other than I didn't know about it. The original post
I did was one I typed out Longhand from the 4-5 sites I had seen here or
found over the last ~7 years. Once I had posted it, when I remember, I
usually repeat it each 3-4 weeks by cutting and pasting it from the older
message (unchanged) and send it up the Flagpole again.
Both Howdy Dave (who hasn't posted since about October?) and Julie's
Idaho site have other links at their sites, but if they hadn't posted for a
while and someone (like Friday or so) had been newly diagnosed, they first
want information, and are afraid.
The sites I posted or assembled in message post were intended to save me
retyping those each time, and to provide them with a short description of
what the addresses do and to give them a head start on information searches.
I also include a 1-3 sentence description of what the site has or does.
I've had several people send articles or posts like yours, but I had to
actually *go to the site to see exactly what epilepsy.com Was and what was
there. When I next post that list, I'll add it with a description of what it
contains. I used to get a Ton of stuff to my Inbox (not here), that just
said "Look at this" and a www site. But those didn't say what they
contained either. I have software now that fixes those.
There was another site posted in the last week too, I have to go look
at. I usually look (for me) at ones that can be moved within easily (like
Julie's Idaho site) and back and forward without needing a lot of geek
tricks to navigate them. If that one is easy to use too, I'll add a comment
to that effect, plus what makes it destinctive, when I next do a posting.
Thanks for the new links.
Everyone here can benefit from any that others find. Gordon./
ole kvaal - 18 Dec 2005 17:29 GMT
Thanks for your reply. On second thoughts, just to make sure no-one will
get me wrong, I am much grateful both for your replies in this group,
and also for the links to the sites you have been using up till now.
They have been tremendously useful and helpful to me.

Signature
/\,
ole kvaal
G.Ross - 18 Dec 2005 17:53 GMT
> Thanks for your reply. On second thoughts, just to make sure no-one will
> get me wrong, I am much grateful both for your replies in this group, and
> also for the links to the sites you have been using up till now. They have
> been tremendously useful and helpful to me.
I didn't take it that way. When I first joined up there was a period of
about 2-3 weeks I read the group before Howdy Dave started to add his
website at end of all his posts. Also Lulu used to post a bunch of useful
sites specific to Children with Seizures (Ashbergers syndrome /sp?) and
parent support sites she had found. (Those are on my Win.95 computer
somewhere.)
Then we seemed to get a flood of 40-50 people over a year where I found I
often was typing the same message each 4-6 weeks that had links to answer
their questions. That's the main reason I just typed the One post (note)
with the book report of the 5? sites I had found useful.
It was intended to give new people (many people get new computers over
Christmas/ Year end) a headstart if they connect up and do some searches for
information that might be of immediate help to them if they are new to
seizures. The efa links had information that would have helped me when I
started first on Dilantin then Tegretol and later Tegretol and Clobazam.
It was *here (alt.support.epilepsy) that I found that Grapefruit juice
conflicts with Tegretol. It wasn't on my Pharmacy Advisory at the time (it
is now). Some of my Random seizures, could have been prevented if I had
known that. So if we can prevent 3-4 people from having seizures they could
avoid, that's good enough for me. G./