If anyone had actually bothered to ask me directly (as Simon McCormick did)
then I would have told them my true intentions... but never let the truth
get in the way of a good moan eh...? as I said to Simon I wanted to draw
attention to some of the dinosaur-like opinions being voiced on the list and
the potential consequences of ill-considered comments on the recipients
So thank you all for your concern (aaah) but my skin is thick enough
certainly to deal with the sort of postings that have been sent to date.
All I wanted was objective considered debate and I am pleased to see that
there is now at least some considered discussion now taking place and if
that has been an (indirect) effect of my intervention then so much the
better...
Can we please get back to the grown up debate now?
RL
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Craig Ellis
Sent: 17 August 2006 00:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I think we have this all wrong - far from final thoughts
-----Original Message-----
From: Accident and Emergency Academic List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Doc Holiday
Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 3:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: I think we have this all wrong - far from final thoughts
From : Craig Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
>I think everyone would accept this is a public list with a public archive.
--> I agree fully. And it is evident how a fresh reminder of this has now
toned down quite a few of the more bitter expressions. I wonder how many
have rushed back through their archives to check on how they have expressed
themselves and to make sure they know what (could be) coming in reply...
>However joke or not, it is very poor form to suggest widespread
>recirculation and goes against the spirit of discussion groups.
--> Well, I must say that it was VERY obvious to me that it was a joke,
especially as it clearly then indicated that it was. As such, I took it to
be intended as a jovial reminder to all that this forum IS open and, as
stated above, it seems to have worked... Agree that it would not have been
good form to suggest it or follow-up on the suggestion IF IT WERE NOT a
jest.
It wasn't to me. I don't have the original post, but I recall the last line
may have been an attempt to turn it into a joke - but I don't think it was
that clear from the overall tone of the post.
>I think you need to get a thicker skin.
--> I don't think we have evidence about skin thickness here. I am 100% sure
that no-one here knows everyone who's lurking and, if you follow my train of
thought, lurkers are more likely to be only lurking BECAUSE of skin
thinness!!!
No the OP had taken offence at the comments relating to ENP's and was pissed
off. The fact they were upset at the thought that some consultants still
hold traditional views about doctors and nurses roles suggests a relatively
thin skin IMO.
>Some Consultants have issues with ENPs. You dont have to agree (and I dont
>completely), but these are experienced Emergency Medicine doctors and they
>have reasons for there views.
--> I hope you mean "some consultants have issues with SOME ENPs" - surely
it is only the poor medium of e-mail which made it SOUND as if they could be
generalising to the whole group, the vast majority of whom they have never
laid eyes on or apprasied... e-mail does this...
No I didn't. Some of our colleagues object to the basic concept. This isn't
news is it?
I don't take that position. But I have several respected colleagues who do
and can present a very informed and rational debate as to why they hold that
view and think it was and still is a bad idea. And while I don't agree with
them - I don't belittle them for holding it.
>I am appalled you suggest they shouldnt be able to voice them here.
--> Do not be appalled. It is evident that this was not suggested. In
summary, it seems a reminder that:
1. This is a public forum
2. The fact that so many have rushed to condemn the MERE IDEA of e-mails
being copied to others suggest that they know how easy and possible that
would be.
3. If you stop and think you'll realise that the most likely people to
ACTUALLY forward these inflammatory items are the ones who HAVE NOT
suggested that they would, be it in jest or not, i.e. a lurker or some such
4. My 6-year old probably knows how to forward the worst bits WITHOUT it
being evident who it was who forwarded them...
5. The rapid-fire reaction to this has probably made many sit up and take
notice and will now INCREASE the likelihood of it being forwarded by anyone
who, until now, was not sure of the potential for mischief this would have -
they now KNOW we have people here worried about this...
My take was the OP was upset the opinions were voiced. Hence they are
suggesting they shouldn't have been. Robust discussion is why I subscribe to
mailing lists. I don't have any problem with the OP debating the merits of a
position - but the suggestion was that they were not valid and shouldn't
have been raised.
>The reality is that 15+ years of medical and emergency medicine education
>and subsequent years of consultant experience gives you the right to have
>opinions on those with considerably less education and experience working
>in a Specialty and the development of the Specialty in general.
-> ... and the understanding, through experience, of what effect
politically-incorrect statements will have on the person making them and the
ones they are made about, REGARDLESS of factuality or truth. I think SpRs
get taught this rather well at some courses when dealing with media
relations, including the medium of e-mail.
Im having a flash back to the "Emperor's new clothes". I haven't seen
anything so outrageous here that people should be worried about the
PC-Police.
cheers
Craig
|