I agree completely with Violet. We can embrace "neo-Rogerians" with grace and
graditude for advancing nursing knoweldge! Jacqui


________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Violet Malinski
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 2:28 PM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver



Hi,

Personally I think what matters is that folks present what/why of the
changes they are making, identifying what is different from Rogers' original
formulations.

Violet

Violet Malinski, PhD, RN

Hunter-Bellevue School of Nursing

425 E. 25th Street

New York, New York 10010-2590

212 481-7585

_____

From: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jacqueline Fawcett
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:57 PM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Pam, Thank you for your very prompt reply. I agree re: evolution of the
SUHB. The question now is: What aspects of Rogerian science need to evolve?
Best regards, Jacqui

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@ <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com on behalf of Reed, Pamela
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 12:37 PM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@ <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Jacqui,
This is a wonderful question! As a Rogerian, I'd like to see her conceptual
system live forever. It was and is my sine qua non for being in nursing and
for pursuing a doctoral degree in nursing as opposed to another helping
discipline for example. But alas, as the philosopher said, all theories are
born to die. Though I think it better to say that conceptual systems
continue evolving and can't remain static - both in their content and in the
ways they inspire their practitioners... And Martha would be the first to
agree, given her 'open systems' view of knowledge, science, and human
beings. Good reason to continue the dialogue.

Pam

Pamela Reed

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@ <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of
Jacqueline Fawcett
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 9:09 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@ <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

I would be disappointed if the listserv went away but I certainly understand
Bear's point about his efforts. Perhaps each of us who would like the
listserv to remain could pose a question for dialogue. I'll start:

How open are Rogerians to changes in the content of the Science of Unitary
Human Beings? Is what Martha wrote "set in stone" or should revisions be
made in content as needed?

Jacqui

Jacqueline Fawcett

________________________________

From: Martha_E_Rogers@ <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com> on behalf of bear
Sent: Thu 9/6/2007 10:32 AM
To: Martha_E_Rogers@ <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com <mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:Martha_E_Rogers%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] The future of the listserver

Hi all

I have been looking over the activity level for the listserver and
wondering whether it is still performing any useful function.

Most of the posts to it are from spammers trying to market some sort
of goods or services and it has been a very long time since there have
been any extended dialogues. My hunch is that as people have become
more email savvy and their interests have broadened, the benefits of
the listserver in facilitating communication are being replaced by off
list communications or that people are congregating on other listservers.

It would seem to be an appropriate forum for communications from the
officers or board but I can't really remember when last there was such
communication.

So, the question: Is it worthwhile to maintain the listserver when
there is so little use being made of it? Most of my work on the
listserver at this point is dedicated to identifying and deleting
spammers - which is not quite the way I want to spend my time and very
little time is spent reading interesting posts from colleagues.

So, I suggest that we engage in a dialogue about the utility of
maintaining the listserver and if that dialogue fails to generate
appropriate interest and responses, we agree to let the listserver go
on in a relatively unmoderated manner - unfortunately that would
likely eventually result in a lot of spam. The upside would be that
the older messages would remain intact - as opposed to formally
shutting down the listserver which would mean that the 1200 messages
would be lost.

Another option would be that someone else step up to be moderator.

bear

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]