> These are my feelings: I would actually dislike the name being changed at
> all. For one, when I say TM to my family and friends or to others I am
> telling about my disorder, I dont' want to have to tell them, 'well, it
> used to be TM, but now its TMS or DTM'. Also, if the name changes now, then
> all the new people looking for TM in books or internet, just might wonder
> if this TMS is actually what they have, they might think TM and TMS are two
> different things. A note would have to be put near every reference to TM
> that the name has since been changed. Also, would the medical profession
> (neuro's) change their name for it too? It all just seems a little strange
> to me to be changing the name after so many years of being TM.
I agree. Especially since some TM folks are going to Washington, I think the
issue should be clear communication, and I think that would be best
accomplished by calling transverse myelitis what it has always been called and
what it is known as. I'm not against change per se, but I don't think this is
the right time -- I think changing the name right before lobbying efforts in
Washington would only cause confusion. And I don't think this is the right
way, for a handfull of people to change it for everyone else involved. I think
I've read more e-mail here against changing it than
for changing it. I really don't know how lobbying works, but if those lobbying
for it in all their speech and writing refer to it as "transverse myelitis," I
really don't think anyone will associate "TM" with "transcendental
meditation."
Barbara