Thank you Biraj. I get very dizzy with tail chasing so I will not further this particular discussion.
I look forward to future issues that you and I will address together to improve over-all healthcare. Greg ----- Original Message ----- From: "Incandescent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 9:37 PM Subject: Re: FIM - OT/ PT and who gets there first > Greg and others who responded to my post: > > My post was NOT asking Greg to apologize. It simply expressed an opinion of the > tone of his post, most specifically where it said, "By the way, my questions > are not rhetorical. They are meant to challenge your reasoning and I do expect > answers aout of common decency and for the integrity of this discussion. I have > repeated questions I asked you that you left unanswered so you have the > opportunity to tackle them head-on.". The reason I thought it was rude is > because it presents the writer as patronizing and supercilious and the person > being addressed as someone who is being spoken down to. If I were to take the > tone that Vickie Patterson recommends in her post when she states, "I'm so tired > of being PC or being careful what I say, lest someone's feelings be hurt. Be > adult, take what is said, learn from it, get over yourself and go ahead on." In > that case perhaps I would simply be writing something to the effect "Cut the > crap man" and get it over with. If this is how we see ourselves as interacting > on a listserv then I would ask Vickie to lead by example. Doesn't seem like > such a good idea now, does it. Incidentally, I bristle at the whole idea of > being PC because I think it is pretentious, and puts the onus on correcting > problems superficially, rather than addressing underlying and complex issues. > > My apology to David was NOT made on behalf of Greg, but simply to call attention > to the fact that as a listserv member I was not party to the tone the post > took. At the same time, if I didn't say this before I enjoyed the content of > Greg's post, and the discussion thread in question. > > I am with Ann on discussing things in an "open, honest way". But I also believe > that the same rules apply here on the internet that apply in everyday life. If > in everyday interaction anyone were to tell another person that (s)he was being > given the opportunity to tackle issues, or that their questions were to > challenge someone's reasoning. It would be reasonable to conclude that the > person being addressed was somehow lacking in opportunities to tackle issues, or > that their reasoning was deficient such that it needed challenging by the > speaker. These implications made the tone of Greg's post personal in its > impact, and seemed to be talking down to David and thus - rude. This was the > underlying and basic point of my post to Greg. > > As for Greg's characterization of my post being rude, well if I am considered > rude for calling attention to an issue of common courtesy - then so be it. > However, I don't consider myself to be a self-effacing Canadian who is all > "nicey nice" or anything along those lines. In any case generalizations about > behaviour along national lines are an over generalization by any standard. As > for vigourous debate, I am all for it. However, I tend to shy away from it here > on the listserv because I have done so over the years, and find some of the > issues that emerge are often the same ones that were discussed before in some > form (even as far back as three years ago) on which I wrote quite vociferously, > but now find I don't have the time to do so to the same extent as before. > > Hope that clarifies my position. > > Best, > > Biraj > > > > McNeely wrote: > > > Biraj, I appreciate your feedback, however I do not apologize for my post. > > As Canadians, I think we do not deal well with vigourous debate. We must be > > able to disagree and to express that disagreement without wasting copious > > amounts time gingerly and indirectly avoiding a point we are trying to make. > > > > Rude? I think you are demonstrating to our American friends one of our main > > collective strengths and flaws. As I said above, vigourous debate is not > > rude. It is healthy and necessary. We must communicate directly and not > > expect people to interpret our implications correctly. > > > > Yes, I do believ it is expected that we will answer each others questions or > > directly explain why we are not. Yes, I couched my demand for answers to > > unanswered questions with a provocative term to elicit a response. They > > were serious and fundamental questions that were essential to the > > discussion. If they were not answered out of a simple debate strategy of > > letting them fall aside and be forgotten, the I challenged that head on. > > David is obviously a very intelligent person and he rose to the occasion, > > which I expressed my respect for and appreciation of. > > > > I take no offense to your post, but I will say that it was at least as > > "rude" as mine. Thank you for that. Decorum and short term courtesy, to > > me, is a close second to truth and resolution of problems. > > > > I once had a classmate who had to come late to a class when I was studying > > Carpentry (not OT). He sat down beside me and asked what the teacher was > > talking about. I said I wasn't sure. He replied "and your sitting here > > like a dummy and not asking". That was pretty rude of him to say, but he > > was exactly right. I was wasting my valuable time by not asking a necessary > > question. That situation has helped me to obtain clarity when necessary. > > As human we make mistakes and employ unpolished dialogue sometimes. To > > remove a tumour, often an incision must be made. The incision in isolation > > is extremely threatening/damaging, but in context it far outweighs the > > damage caused by the tumour. (David, I am not saying your post was > > cancerous by the way.) > > > > If I am wrong, rude or otherwise, I will apologize, I have no misconceptions > > about being perfect. But if my writing style offends you, I guess you > > probably shouldn't read them. > > > > With regard to your apology. David seems to be a pretty capable and > > understanding of a vigourous exchange of ideas. I won't presume to try to > > dictate what you should do about your apology. Feel free to apologize on my > > behalf anytime. Sometimes I mess up badly enough that I feel I do need more > > than me to apologize for my foolishness. Perhaps the next time I say > > something stupid that offends my wife I could call you to apologize on my > > behalf as well? As a matter of fact, would you mind sendin me something > > typewritten that expresses your sincere apology on my behalf with your > > signature on it, but leave the reason blank so I can photocopy it and use it > > on various occasions that I may make mistakes. > > > > Take care, > > Greg > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Incandescent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 10:02 PM > > Subject: Re: FIM - OT/ PT and who gets there first > > > > > Hello All: > > > > > > This has been an extremely interesting discussion thread and I am really > > glad > > > that David (Dr. Lehman) has been contributing to it from a PT perspective. > > > However, and I say this with due respect to Greg - in my opinion the tone > > of > > > his long post was extremely sharp, and if I may say so quite rude. > > Perhaps it > > > is just me, but as someone who has been on this and other listservs for > > some > > > time now I don't think anyone is obligated to respond to each and every > > aspect > > > of someone's posting. And even if a response is required I don't think > > the > > > person seeking answers or responses need couch it in terms of an > > expectation of > > > common decency. I think we are all entitled to disagree with others > > points of > > > view, regardless whether they are OTs, PTs or whoever it may be. But I > > don't > > > think we need to attack anyone and chastise them for not responding to our > > post > > > in every detail. > > > > > > I think David has been extremely gracious in his reply to Greg's post. > > > Certainly, I am no authority on netiquette, but I did feel offended > > reading > > > Greg's post and for this reason I would like to apologize to David, and > > want him > > > to know that his opinions are valued and respected, whether I agree with > > them or > > > not is altogether a different matter. > > > > > > At the same time I would like to say that I do not mean any offense to > > Greg > > > either, however I am calling it as I see it. Hope you won't mind this > > feedback > > > Greg. > > > > > > Thanks and regards, > > > > > > > > > Biraj Khosla > > > OT - Reg. - (Ont.) > > > Canada > > > > *********��*********** > > > > Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > > > > ** List messages are archived at: > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > > > *********��*********** > > > *********��*********** > > Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist > > ** List messages are archived at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > > *********��*********** > > *********��*********** Unsubscribe? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the message's *body*, put the following text: unsubscribe OTlist ** List messages are archived at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] *********��***********
