Dear List Members,
I've bee a new member for five months, and found the discussion and
knowledge sharing are insightful and absorbing in here. I'm not to defend
for or accuse of anyone's opinion about the case of Ken and Cindy. I recall
an important learning experience in my PhD journey which is in progress.
Ethical consideration for getting informant consensus is the top priority in
doing research, in particular for social research. I'm not to make Ken/Cindy
case equivalent to the issue of getting informant consensus, but rather to
underpin the issue of trust. Without trust, the discussion would be
meaningless and grounded on nothing because we'd not sure who I am
discussing with. The original idea of the PhD List to promote, share and
contribute about various issues of design community around the world
(hopefully) would be fallen apart. I agree with the idea, so I join the
List. Neither because would I like to engage in discussion with fake
identity which isn't new in ICQ chatting; nor would I like to pretend
another identity to say irresponsible words regardless of sensible claim or
not and attacking other PhD colleagues personally or embarrassing someone by
being discovered as fake at the end of dialogue.
I wish that the List members concerned can recover from the shock, hurt or
surprise. We can move on to engage in constructive and solid dialogues in
the year to come.
Best wishes,
Elson Szeto
PhD Candidate
School of Education and Life-long Learning
University of East Angela
-----Original Message-----
From: Rosan Chow [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2004 12:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Cindy sez
i would like to make it very very clear that i agree that everyone makes
mistakes and let's forgive and move on. and i think it is perfectly fine
to defend ken and to say good things about him for i have said all these.
what it is not bearable for me, is for some people to suggest what ken
has done is ok, and there was no manipluation and that it should be
taken as a model for communication among people on the list. to me,
these are totally insensitive to people who have truly felt manipulated.
and for your information, ken had written to me offlist to talk about
cindy and my relationship with 'her' and every time when i think about
that, i feel completely violated. so please if you are to help me and
others heal, and to re-establish our relationship with ken in trusting
terms, please no more celebration on ken as cindy. it is not funny.
and i am still waiting for the directives from the list owners.
rosan
> Thomas Rasmussen wrote:
>
> Laugh or listen.
>
> Leave it be or think of Cindy every time you see Ken.
>
> Whatever.
>
> Professor Friedman was bashful afterwards - and perhaps a bit naive
> before,
> thinking he could cover his prose behind a corny name (an excuse to
> all
> real-life Cindys out there - the name is only corny if you try to
> imagine
> Ken in slippers and a tutu) - but this discussion hardly merits our
> attention.
>
> So let's design a Hall of Fame for Stooopid Sayings in Design Research
> - and
> stick a picture of Ken - next to the one of me expressing a wish to
> aim a
> kick at intuition's fat ass to a bunch of designers....
>
> We all learn. Some of us learn the hard way.... I, for instance,
> didn't have
> an ass where intuition - (in the shape of a bunch of designers) -
> kicked
> back...
>
> Mistakes happen. But let me wish a happy new year to us all,
>
> thomas
>
> Best regards,
>
> Thomas Schødt Rasmussen
> Research Director, PhD
>
> Danmarks Designskole
> Strandboulevarden 47
> 2100 København Ø
> Denmark
>
> Ph (+45) 3527 7593
> Sec (+45) 3527 7509
> Fax (+45) 3527 7601
|