Welcome aboard Robert Upshall of Darlington. You posted
>I have also just joined GP-UK and I am rather disappointed with the
apparent
>exclusivity and cliqueyness of it
see later, but it does grow on you, a bit like other large
fraternal orgs
>as well as the small-mindedness of some of the postings.
see later flagged [*near1]
>There are a few members who seem to dominate the list by posting half
a dozen
see [main point]
>emails every day - you know who you are so I won't embarrass you by
naming
>you.
Surely one of the characteristics of that vocal minority is that it
is hard to embarrass them, whoever they might be, by naming them or
indeed by almost anything one might do with an email.
Some older members of the club do tend to be found in the same chair
by the fire each day and are generally let have that seat ...<g>
>As this is my third posting today I feel rather self-conscious about
>saying this but I will try to impose some self-restraint in future.
you must do whatever {you think fit|turns you on}
[*near1]^^
predictable, yes<g>
[Main Point]
Explore this one a bit further for us please...
How do you get dominated by some teletyporhoeic posting a lot?
In a meatspace meeting a loud voice can hamper proceedings, somebody
who talks a lot can restrict others' opportunity. Not in
cyberspace.
Are you shy? A certain hesitancy is becoming, but distinguish that
from being suppressed or dominated. Any restraints you feel are
self-imposed.
One of the topics taking a certain amount of my attention at present
is the operation of a virtual committee, as I feel there is neither
time nor money to justify the members of the Exeter PCG IT task
group meating as often as would be needed to make things work, nor
is it remotely probable that all members could be free at the same
time.
The main point above is I think a serious area of academic
exploration and bears on the evolution of the administration of the
NHS, and of the development of the profession.
The tools required should mould the development of the NHS
Networking Services (NHSNetS) and there is evidence (as the prolific
Ewan Davies opined earlier today) that this is occurring.
>Certain of the culprits who suffer from "emailorrhoea" - which must
interfere
>with normal life - do occasionally have interesting things to say to
all of us
This _is_ normal life.
>but a lot of their postings are written mainly for their fellow
sufferers so
>why don't they confine some of their rather arcane comments to private
>communication? I'm sure they've all got each other's addresses on file
anyway.
>I joined the list hoping to see a wide discussion of GP issues - a
sharing of
>information about day to day practise as well as a place to open up a
bit
we are all in the same boat and must practice pulling together
Distinguish between number of postings and volume posted.
Peopleinterested in several topics and dealing with colleaugues who
use threading mail clients will try to post individually per topic,
which is appreciated better than combining several topics into one
post, particularly of the subject heading is then not reflective of
the true content.
You may see 100 messages a day, others see 100 mail headers, and
look at perhaps 2-3 threads.
Still others will not see this message since they have taken the
prudent measure of putting its originator in a killfile (you can
help them by quoting it in full, and putting a one word comment at
the very bottom.
> I'm not that interested in hearing about every new
>piece of kit etc. - there are plenty of places on the net where such
>information is easily accessible.
Ah, but I am, and so are others. Moreover, can you give some
pointers to good places to get interactive feedback on the
usefulness of particular bits of kit to British GPs working in the
NHS?
>By posting this I am not attacking any individual but I do feel it
important
>to share with certain members my impression the effect that their
behaviour
>does have on the whole tone of the list. I suspect some people may
>understandably feel put off from contributing and snide postings in
response
>to valid points add nothing to the accessibility of this list to Joe
>AverageGP.
Agreed. There is a tendency to make snide comments which could
usefully be lowered.
>I'm sure I am out of order here in criticising the inner sanctum of
>officionados and will immediately be blackballed but I doubt that I am
>speaking solely for myself. If I am I apologise.
Why do you feel you need to speak for anyone else? To save
bandwidth? Because here we are in a meeting with a limited time to
get through an agenda and only one person can speak at once? Get
free of the meat. I am pleased to see you saying what you think, in
a thoughtful way.
>Finally if anyone wants to get really nasty perhaps they would do
everyone the
>courtesy of emailing me privately and not sharing it with the whole
list.
cc to me, I hate to miss a nastygram<g>
Andrew Herd re-posted what might still be the ultimate, a while back in
another thread.
--
"That a comprehensive national health service will ensure
that for every citizen there is available whatever medical
treatment he requires, in whatever form he requires it...
Beveridge 1942"
--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
