Incandescent wrote: > > Well said Greg. I look forward to such future discussions. > > Best, > > Biraj > > McNeely wrote: > > > 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] > > > > *********��*********** > > *********��*********** > > 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] > > *********��***********
"Communicating directly", as ObeWan Kanobi suggested, email communication is best done SHORT and SWEET. That is the whole point of electronic communication; quickly. Writing dissertations on a listserve that no one reads is pointless. No wonder one gets 'dizzy' with the communication format of , You said.... Then I said.... And, I was like, "Whatever!"..... Cut the crap, man and go to the bar to discuss lengthy matters over a beer. Otherwise, keep it simple...... *********��*********** 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] *********��***********
