In article <v01540b00aed4f87eee8a@[194.222.16.1]>,
[log in to unmask] writes
>I must say I was surprised by the contents of Ahmad's reply to my last
>email,as it seemed rather heated and not what I had hoped for (a serious
>discussion).
>
>1. I think you HAVE fallen into the gadget-trap - like many of the EU
>projects in AIM, etc. Yes, there are many alternative paradigms and
>methodologies which should be explored, but I am fed up to the back teeth
>of half baked, expensive and ultimately unhelpful (in the sense they turn
>clinicians off) activities seeking to push one technology over another.
>And I speak from experience when I say deja vu.
>
>2. There is a world of difference between looking at innovative means of
>communication (passing messages is one of these) and applying a particular
>technology to achieve a goal. Pushing one technology over and above
>another as an "answer" just closes other avenues and reduces opportunities.
>
>3. Gung-ho (never mind the theory, let's just try it) and introspective
>(let's see what we can come up with by looking at what has been done
>before) ways are complementary, and should feed off each other.
>
>4. Standards are important (your PC is a good example of an evolved
>"standard"). Many standards are bad. Some are good. Let's try to push
>the good ones.
>
>5. Radical ideas are needed, but must be looked at critically. There is
>very little that is really new under the sun.
>
>6. Innovation is not an excuse for throwing out rationality.
>
>
>Andrzej Glowinski
>
>
I would fully support the above - very well put. We need both to learn
from the past and the present AND to be innovative, prepared to take
some risks. But points 5 and 6 should be particularly noted
--
John Williams
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01483 440928
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|