Dear Helen,
Everyone's personal email address appears at the top of the posting.
For instance I know that yours is [log in to unmask] right?
I think you have put it all very nicely. Although I personally don't
worry, nor feel irritated, or excluded by the chattiness of this group
at times, I can see that others clearly do feel some of these things,
and am happy therefore, to be flexible in my responses, and inclusive
when someone enters with something to reply to. That is, of course, if
I am able to respond. It might be that I am neither interested,
qualified, of even present during the thread.
However, all things evolve, including the cat that is parading her
bottom in front of my face every few seconds as she TRIES to settle
between me and the keyboard! She will evolve on to the floor in a
minute. Oh, does this chattiness, constitute something that is
superfluous to the scope of the group?
Sorry, I think I am being a little obtuse ..... probably because I am
thinking as I go along with this, that all the above, would mean
treading on eggshells. Perhaps we could therefore just get on with
being part of the diverse group that this is, and stop worrying about
whether we are being excluded or not. If you do not contribute, for
whatever reason, how are we supposed to know that you feel this way, or
for that matter that you exist as a member at all? Afterall (just put
the cat on the floor!), are we all not completely responsible for our
own process, our own feelings, and the extent to which we contribute or
not.
If you want a serious discussion, then create one! and those who wish
to contribute to it, will do so.
Regards
Amanda
On Sunday, April 13, 2003, at 02:26 pm, helen hannick wrote:
> Hello everyone.
> I've just returned to my pc and perused the postings regarding Nick's
> departure.
> One way or another it seems some 'group process time' emerged after
> Nick left. What I've picked up is the way some of us feel that top
> heavy- lightweight exchanges (!?)can potentially put some people off,
> either because they feel excluded or are disinterested in the
> non-content (or perceived lack of substance) of the exchanges.
> The proposed solutions to this seem to be that we introduce ourselves
> when we come on the scene and try to contribute frequently
> meanwhile responding to personalised postings 'backchannel',-thus
> respecting the overall aim of this e group without becoming too
> rigid thereby losing our spontaneity and the space to let off steam.
>
> This is my spontaneous contribution. And if there's anyone on the list
> out there who feels daunted by the perceived 'clubiness'
> I'm encouraging you not to hold back for as long as I have.
>
> A question: how can we respond backchannel if an individuals email
> address doesn't appear on the posting?
>
> Helen
>
>
>
> From: G.F. Phillips
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 5:07 PM
> Subject: Nick Totton
>
> Hello Folks
> Just to let you know that I have taken it off my own bat to write to
> Nick saying that there were numerous responses asking him not to
> leave. I added that his would be a valuable voice in any future
> discussions about Psych-Couns and essentially asked 'Will you come
> back'
>
> I've told Nick that I would let everyone know of my post to him.
> Kindest
> Gerald
>
|