[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Thank you - inexpensive aids -Was off-list

Hear hear! (so to speak) - I feel that some very interesting perspectives
came out of the recent spate of postings, and would be sorry if bruised
feelings were to obstruct this process.
Actually, the psychology of e-mail spats is an interesting phenomenon,
though I observe this type of misunderstanding seems rarer now than, say, 3
years ago. It is really something to do with the difference between giving
offence and taking offence - these are not the same thing, nor reciprocal.
Its possible to take offence where non was being given, and vice versa.
Underneath the disagreements was something else that was quite important. In
all endeavours there are those who excel in selflessly applying a strict,
non-partisan, objective methodology to the n-th degree, and there are others
who can utilise an immense capacity for caring. Occasionally, someone can do
both or choose either for the occasion. The rest of us have to compromise.
The point is that it takes all flavours; science needs inspiration and
inspiration needs science. This isn't an argument for woolly-minded
'everything is as true as everything else' relativism, but if one is to be
truly rigorous, one simply has to accept that there are other truths than
one's own.
In the light of the recent discussion, it seems that there are reasonable
grounds for saying that the completely 'proper way' to approach the problems
of hearing aids has not been arrived at yet, which suggests the problem is
more complex (and interesting) than at first glance. I don't think anyone
was actually arguing towards ignoring existing methods, merely that they
shouldn't be regarded as definitive; is that right?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Bregman" <al.bregman@mcgill.ca>
Sent: 31 March 2004 19:37
Subject: Re: Thank you - inexpensive aids -Was off-list

> Dear Barbara,
> I have been very favorably impressed by your postings, though not
> always agreeing in every detail.  I, and I assume most other list
> members, try to focus on the content and don't try to discredit
> the person who sends the information (called the "ad hominem"
> fallacy in philosophy).  So you shouldn't assume that the people
> who wrote to you represent a cross-section of the list. It would
> be a
> shame if these responses discouraged you from fully participating
> in the list whenever you had something that you wanted to say.
> Al
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Barbara Reynolds" <br_auditory@hotmail.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 8:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Thank you - inexpensive aids -Was off-list
> > Dear Dr. Jacobster and List:
> >
> > I deeply regret posting my reply to your private e-mail.  I
> apologize for that.  I admit that the reactions this has caused
> within myself and from other people has been unusually intense.
> I was not expecting the reactions I received from Mr. Brennan
> especially his comment on witchcraft.
> >
> > I apologize for the knee jerk reactions and in no way was I
> intending to offend you or anyone else.  Please accept this
> apology with all its intended sincerity.
> >
> > I feel very passionate about helping people and I've put a lot
> of work into continuing my education beyond the normal audiology
> channels and sources of information.  I'm sorry you feel that
> this concern I have about improving the quality of care to
> hearing impaired individuals was self-aggrandizing.  I do admit
> that sometimes my desire to bring forth the information I have
> learned results in putting people off and can be overwhelming in
> its intensity.  The example I used in regards to college was not
> intended to "puff myself up" but I thought it would serve as my
> motivating factor of why I read so much and try so hard to
> understand this field and anything that would relate to it.
> >
> > I don't always have the patience or the political personality
> to go through the "proper" channels which is more appropriate,
> but also takes longer.  Whatever you may think of me, please do
> not dismiss the material.  I really don't care how this
> information is eventually disseminated, but it is my greatest
> hope that someday this is the route that education takes in
> regards to understand auditory perception.
> >
> > This will be my last response on this subject.  At this pointI
> feel I've done damage than benefit and I deeply regret that.
> That was not my intent at all.
> >
> > Very Truly Sorry
> >
> > Barb Reynolds.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> > Get reliable access on MSN 9 Dial-up. 3 months for the price of
> 1! (Limited-time offer)