From: Adrian Fogarty <[log in to unmask]>
>I didn't see any "toning down". I think you're mistaken there. Besides,
>anyone with a modicum of common sense knows that this list's archives are
>available online.
--> So were the plans for the destruction of earth in Douglas Adams's Guide
to the Galaxy... The handful of stong objections to the mere suggestion of
bringing this to the attention of certain ENPs who worked near certain
people on this list leads me to suspect that this knowledge was NOT
something they considered was going to be used... I expect that people WILL
change what they write here (AS WOULD I) if I thought this was about to be
linked to the front page of, say BBC's news website... But never mind.
>No way, that guy was serious if you ask me.
--> Our sense of humour differs.
>No, it should be obvious that he means "some consultants have issues with
>[the concept of] ENPs". Doesn't mean to say he's appraised them all as you
>suggest. Similar to me saying, "I have issues with traffic wardens, or I
>have issues with Animal Rights activists". Nothing to do with the medium of
>email; it's plain English.
--> You know... I think you're right there.
>You do talk a load of old rubbish sometimes Doc! But, I suppose if you want
>to stir, who am I to stop you?
--> Indeed... If 'stirring' was my objective, I know I can rely on you not
to stop me.
>Personally, I don't mind if you want to forward anything I write here. Am
>happy to say these things up front to all the usual suspects I criticise:
>the managers, the radiologists etc etc. I send stuff like this to them all
>the time at work anyway.
--> Well, then I expect you may well soon also be able to add ENPs to this
list
----Original Message Follows----
From: Craig Ellis <[log in to unmask]>
>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.
--> Our sense of humour differs, too.
>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.
--> Well, what can I say. AF was indeed correct, as I acknowledge above. It
seesm some EM consultants do indeed have an objection to the CONCEPT. You
are not one of them (of that I was pretty certain before and it clouded my
understanding of the statement). Obviously I do not agree with them either.
Indeed, I look forward to meeting one of the ones you guys know exist and
working with them towards making the concept more acceptable - it's no
longer a concept, but a fact, and merely "having issues" with it is
ineffective.
>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.
--> All opinios should be welcome. You're right. I think you are also
correct that the original comments did cause offence (probably to more
people that the one responder). That was my point. And we all here know
that, merely because a fact (not that this is a proven fact, but it's
evidently an opinion of more than one person) causes offence does not make
it wrong. I merely suspected that the way this was stated was going to cause
offence and would continue to do so. However, slowly, we are receiving some
replies now with data in them and a debate is developing...
>I haven't seen anything so outrageous here that people should be worried
>about the PC-Police.
--> It seems that no-one is worried indeed. Which is a good thing, because,
as I have stated, it is extremely unlikely that this thread will remain
limited to this list. Would you be surprised if I told you that I have heard
3rd hand rumours of it from people not on this list?
|