Summary of Responses/Cross-Posting
Description
Collection
Title:
Summary of Responses/Cross-Posting
Date:
1/19/2000
Text:
One fine day Bill Lifford, CP, mentioned:
BL> The main reason I didn't include names in my summary of responses to
the Gel Liners vs. TEC Interface post was for one simple reason: A
number of practitioners referred to amputees as their patients.
Kudos to Bill L. for his sensitivity to language. There is a school of
thought that suggests how we use language (choice of words) effects
perception. I once stated that frankly, I do not give a tinker's da*n
what a prosthetist calls me as long as they make me a comfortable
socket. But I am also aware of how the words we use have a direct
bearing on how we perceive and are perceived. I suspect that referring
to amputees as 'patients' rather than 'clients' is an attempt to
linguistically elevate the profession by aligning the terminology with
that used by physicians. Maybe not.
BL> The last time I responded to a post and referred to someone as my
patient I received quite a few scoldings via e-mail (6, in fact). I
did not want to open up any practitioners to criticism based on
their terminology.
Years back I caught the same sort of grief, based on perceived sexism. I
was recruiting people to work a phone bank for our local public radio
station. Talking with a woman who was a student at Vanderbilt Divinity
School, then and now a hotbed of feminism, I used the term man the
phones and was immediately interrupted. She cut my sentence off midway.
Around here, we do not 'man' anything. We 'staff' it, she quickly
informed me. Her point was they were trying to alter perception by
altering language, and while I saw her point, I wondered if her rudeness
was not more inappropriate than my sexist use of language. Ahhhh
political correctness can be a minefield of nonsense. As witness:
BL> I now use the extremely lame but politically correct
client/patient so that no one from either side of the argument
really gets too upset.
But, to the heart of the matter:
BL> So, there you have it. Names were omitted because, as I stated in
my original post, the summary was going to be cross-posted to AMP-L
and as such I was trying to respect the posters' right to privacy.
As the moderator/listowner of AMP-L, I appreciate both Bill's presence
and his sensitivity. There is a lot of cross-posting between us so
please permit me a few (more) words since this has been a wee bit
controversial.
When the professionals on OANDP-L post their summaries, if I think it
would benefit the amputee subscribers to AMP-L I always ask the poster
for permission to repost. I will sometime reformat and lightly edit
(spelling, some grammatical bugs, etc.) but never alter meaning.
Sometime the responders name is used and sometime not, but not for
reasons of PC language. If they use 'patient', patient remains. It is,
after all, the ideas that matter, not PC or the writer's name, title,
whatever. More about which later. I even ask permission from some of the
professionals (Ted Trower, Chris Johnson et.al.) who have given me
blanket permission to repost since I feel it is a courtesy I owe them.
Recently, one of our subscribers (we have more than 200) cross-posted
from this list to AMP-L without permission. I deemed it entirely
inappropriate and told the poster exactly that.
But cross-posting is a sticky wicket. I ask only the original inquirer
and NOT everyone who contributed to the response. It is impossible to do
otherwise. With that in mind, I am aware a contributor may not wish
their response to be cross-posted within the body of the response. In
more than five years I have experienced no problems with this notion,
but it could happen. But I also feel that an explanation (no matter how
long-winded) of the process is owed the professionals on this list.
One final note: (at last)
BL> If enough people ask I will re-post the summary of responses with
names added to their posts, but I think all answers should be given
some consideration regardless of who posted them. Mr. Haines just
posted a response to this thread including:
I agree. It is the ideas within the post, and not necessarily who
sprouts them, that should be given due consideration. Even the village
idiot can have good ideas.
WH> If answers must be predicated upon authoritative reply, isn't that
being a little narrow minded about the real issue of problem
solving? Frankly, on occasion I have seen some pretty clever answers
come from suspecting sources.
And some terribly goofy ideas can come from the mouths of otherwise
competent, first-rate people, both amputees and prosthetists.
BL> I think his point is extremely valid.
Bingo
Wayne Renardson, BK amputee.
BL> The main reason I didn't include names in my summary of responses to
the Gel Liners vs. TEC Interface post was for one simple reason: A
number of practitioners referred to amputees as their patients.
Kudos to Bill L. for his sensitivity to language. There is a school of
thought that suggests how we use language (choice of words) effects
perception. I once stated that frankly, I do not give a tinker's da*n
what a prosthetist calls me as long as they make me a comfortable
socket. But I am also aware of how the words we use have a direct
bearing on how we perceive and are perceived. I suspect that referring
to amputees as 'patients' rather than 'clients' is an attempt to
linguistically elevate the profession by aligning the terminology with
that used by physicians. Maybe not.
BL> The last time I responded to a post and referred to someone as my
patient I received quite a few scoldings via e-mail (6, in fact). I
did not want to open up any practitioners to criticism based on
their terminology.
Years back I caught the same sort of grief, based on perceived sexism. I
was recruiting people to work a phone bank for our local public radio
station. Talking with a woman who was a student at Vanderbilt Divinity
School, then and now a hotbed of feminism, I used the term man the
phones and was immediately interrupted. She cut my sentence off midway.
Around here, we do not 'man' anything. We 'staff' it, she quickly
informed me. Her point was they were trying to alter perception by
altering language, and while I saw her point, I wondered if her rudeness
was not more inappropriate than my sexist use of language. Ahhhh
political correctness can be a minefield of nonsense. As witness:
BL> I now use the extremely lame but politically correct
client/patient so that no one from either side of the argument
really gets too upset.
But, to the heart of the matter:
BL> So, there you have it. Names were omitted because, as I stated in
my original post, the summary was going to be cross-posted to AMP-L
and as such I was trying to respect the posters' right to privacy.
As the moderator/listowner of AMP-L, I appreciate both Bill's presence
and his sensitivity. There is a lot of cross-posting between us so
please permit me a few (more) words since this has been a wee bit
controversial.
When the professionals on OANDP-L post their summaries, if I think it
would benefit the amputee subscribers to AMP-L I always ask the poster
for permission to repost. I will sometime reformat and lightly edit
(spelling, some grammatical bugs, etc.) but never alter meaning.
Sometime the responders name is used and sometime not, but not for
reasons of PC language. If they use 'patient', patient remains. It is,
after all, the ideas that matter, not PC or the writer's name, title,
whatever. More about which later. I even ask permission from some of the
professionals (Ted Trower, Chris Johnson et.al.) who have given me
blanket permission to repost since I feel it is a courtesy I owe them.
Recently, one of our subscribers (we have more than 200) cross-posted
from this list to AMP-L without permission. I deemed it entirely
inappropriate and told the poster exactly that.
But cross-posting is a sticky wicket. I ask only the original inquirer
and NOT everyone who contributed to the response. It is impossible to do
otherwise. With that in mind, I am aware a contributor may not wish
their response to be cross-posted within the body of the response. In
more than five years I have experienced no problems with this notion,
but it could happen. But I also feel that an explanation (no matter how
long-winded) of the process is owed the professionals on this list.
One final note: (at last)
BL> If enough people ask I will re-post the summary of responses with
names added to their posts, but I think all answers should be given
some consideration regardless of who posted them. Mr. Haines just
posted a response to this thread including:
I agree. It is the ideas within the post, and not necessarily who
sprouts them, that should be given due consideration. Even the village
idiot can have good ideas.
WH> If answers must be predicated upon authoritative reply, isn't that
being a little narrow minded about the real issue of problem
solving? Frankly, on occasion I have seen some pretty clever answers
come from suspecting sources.
And some terribly goofy ideas can come from the mouths of otherwise
competent, first-rate people, both amputees and prosthetists.
BL> I think his point is extremely valid.
Bingo
Wayne Renardson, BK amputee.
Citation
“Summary of Responses/Cross-Posting,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 2, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/213560.
