Hi Kelly,

Yes I very much agree with that, having myself, all of us (?) passed through
that puzzlement stage, now I just try to live it rather than try to understand
it (its easier..)..although that sounds dreadfully pretentious.

Will try to work on the first entry in next day or two.

Bear's quiet...PhD or have I upset you.

F

--- kelly rutherford <kdrn@...> wrote:
> In response to "Transcending" the need for a glossary:
>
> I agree that is the "ideal"
>
> But, as a student who had just read Martha's works, felt "the call", but
> wasn't really sure I understood anything, I signed onto the list serve and
> was overwhelmed.  A good SUHB glossary on-line would have facilitated may
> ability to intelligently interact.
>
> This group is not just for those who are already "enlightened" but should
> serve to assist all who seek.
>
> GURU
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

In response to "Transcending" the need for a glossary:

I agree that is the "ideal"

But, as a student who had just read Martha's works, felt "the call", but wasn't
really sure I understood anything, I signed onto the list serve and was
overwhelmed.  A good SUHB glossary on-line would have facilitated may ability to
intelligently interact.

This group is not just for those who are already "enlightened" but should serve
to assist all who seek.

GURU



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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

Colleagues,

I cannot locate a specific definition that Martha used for probabilistic. Thus,
I suggest that we use a dictionary definition.

My unabridged dictionary provides the following:

Probabilisitic is the adjective form for probablism.

Probalism, in philosophy, refers to the doctrine introduced by the Skeptics,
that certainty is impossible and that probability suffices to govern faith and
practice.

Probability refers to the quality or fact of being probable.

Probable refers to likely to occur or prove true.

Jacqui


	 -----Original Message-----
	 From: kelly rutherford [mailto:kdrn@...]
	 Sent: Mon 12/15/2003 1:03 AM
	 To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
	 Cc:
	 Subject: Re: [Martha_E_Rogers] glossary


	 OOOOOOOOOO...

	 Teacher already giving assignments!

	 Actually, glossary is good idea.  With all the multi-definition concepts
floating around, a good consensual glossary would help clarify our
communication.

	 I have assesment videos to grade first but will throw in my 2 cents.

	 Kelly

	 Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
	 Hi Bear et al,

	 Yes quite right Bear, and I loved the Cat link!

	 As a recent paper on Caring suggested (?author), for all the academic posturing
	 and all that has gone on with defining caring, the paper concluded, rightly or
	 wrongly, that no progress had been made (in decades) in actually, really,
	 defining it.

	 So, I suggest that we work systematically on producing a SUHB glossary. I will
	 host it on the website and we can have it on the yahoo group as well.

	 Right. Given the thread, the first word will be

	 Probablistic (or others if you so choose).

	 Anybody got a good def? Bear? Richard, John, Jacqui etc are you there...

	 Answers please by end of wk, when we'll start on new word.

	 Fran

	 --- bear <tc_spirit@...> wrote:
	 > Good points Fran...
	 >
	 > I would harken to the consideration that when it comes to inequities of
	 > access to or protection from health care services (being mindful of the
	 > fact that brother Fran has on occasion suggested that access to modern
	 > healthcare may not be in the best interest of the individual) it is
	 > analysis that leads us to conclude that people are being deprived of or
	 > perhaps being exploited by health care interventionism. However, the
	 > same analysis may dispose one group of people to correct social
	 > inequities while it may be used by another group to exploit those same
	 > inequities in some fashion. It may be inconsiderate to ignore
	 > disparities in health status in inner cities and rural areas from a
	 > social engineering standpoint - but no less inconsiderate to use the
	 > same data to develop a system of inadequate services to vulnerable
	 > populations while exploiting the revenue potentials that may be
	 > available...
	 >
	 > so it is not the analytic mind but the manner in which the analysis is
	 > to be used that ought, perhaps, to be our concern in evaluating the
	 > appropriateness of research methods...
	 >
	 > Thank you for adding an aesthetically pleasing literary reference to
	 > the dialogue...
	 >
	 > as to the issue of originality of thought... as bill the cat might
	 > suggest:
	 >
	 > http://alcyone.cc.uch.gr/~kosmas/pics/bill.gif
	 >
	 > bear
	 > --- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
	 > > Hi
	 > >
	 > > I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on
	 > > throwing
	 > > in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic
	 > > Mountain:
	 > >
	 > > "Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good,
	 > > in so far
	 > > as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural
	 > > prejudices,
	 > > and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free,
	 > > refines,
	 > > humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in
	 > > so far as
	 > > it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims
	 > > life at
	 > > its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as
	 > > death,
	 > > with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory
	 > > anatomy"
	 > >
	 > > page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub
	 > > 1924.
	 > >
	 > > Fran (B)
	 >
	 >
	 > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 > Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
	 >
	 >
	 >
	 > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
	 >
	 >


	 =====


	 __________________________________
	 Do you Yahoo!?
	 New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
	 http://photos.yahoo.com/

	 Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



	 ---------------------------------
	 Do you Yahoo!?
	 New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12c2t2fdg/M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupweb/\
S=1705061273:HM/EXP=1071554607/A=1853618/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqs\
o=60178338&partid=4116730>
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=\
:HM/A=1853618/rand=735124325>

	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hi,

Thank you for your response Savina; which ironically perhaps and as you
acknowldege, identifies the heart of the problem.

Paley, for it was him...asserted that "each successive attempt to clarify it
[caring], study it or theorize about it leads merely to the next list of
attributes [read for this discussion here - trying to define that concept
again]...which in turn makes the concept yet more elucive, yet more complex".

This I interpreted in the way I described earlier, and you interpreted the
paper in a different way. This neatly identifies the grander (?postmodern)
problem of unique interpretations and readings and ties us up in defining
things that cannot be defined (???) (we all interpret words ideas etc
differently, even when precise) when we really should be moving forward, doing
research etc. Deary et al (JAN) fell into this trap as well by expending much
energy on debunking Paley in a prime example of Foucauldian attempted
overpowering oneupmanship activity when they themselves could be out doing more
constructive things.

Sorry but I know the issues are more complex that this, but keen to join in
with little time available to do justice.

I was being genuine when suggesting a glossary, but I get no marks for doing
it, nor does Bear for starting the thread (sorry Tom, :-) - perhaps I
acknowledge though that the thread is more important than the subject), as I
must agree with you, we must get on with the real work instead, as, I think,
Savina has suggested.

Hope makes some sense, Fran B

--- Savina Schoenhofer <savibus@...> wrote:
> Just a note on Fran's note regarding work on caring..."defining caring" is
> not what most scholars who study caring in nursing are interested in...what
> many are trying to do is to understand caring in its broadest dimensions and
> also in its unique dimensions in situation.  The author to whose work Fran
> has alluded might be, I think, John Paley, the article on the archeology of
> caring in JAN, and the point that John made in the article had to do with a
> critique of the idea of "knowledge of caring".  John's article wasn't
> critical of the idea that caring has not been "adequately defined", in fact,
> John's view was more like "no wonder it hasn't been defined as it is not
> amenable to definition" - at least that's my paraphrasing of John's view.
>
> I'm not real sure just how much tongue in cheek is going on in this
> thread...but I think perhaps the limits of usefulness in pinning down
> glossaries has been reached, and what we are now being called to do is
> transcend the limiting characteristics of these glossaries?  Naive perhaps,
> simple perhaps, but definitely a genuine view, with no intended effort to
> entertain.
>
> Savina Schoenhofer
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: Francis Biley
>   To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 4:24 PM
>   Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] glossary
>
>
>   Hi Bear et al,
>
>   Yes quite right Bear, and I loved the Cat link!
>
>   As a recent paper on Caring suggested (?author), for all the academic
> posturing
>   and all that has gone on with defining caring, the paper concluded, rightly
> or
>   wrongly, that no progress had been made (in decades) in actually, really,
>   defining it.
>
>   So, I suggest that we work systematically on producing a SUHB glossary. I
> will
>   host it on the website and we can have it on the yahoo group as well.
>
>   Right. Given the thread, the first word will be
>
>   Probablistic (or others if you so choose).
>
>   Anybody got a good def? Bear? Richard, John, Jacqui etc are you there...
>
>   Answers please by end of wk, when we'll start on new word.
>
>   Fran
>
>   --- bear <tc_spirit@...> wrote:
>   > Good points Fran...
>   >
>   > I would harken to the consideration that when it comes to inequities of
>   > access to or protection from health care services (being mindful of the
>   > fact that brother Fran has on occasion suggested that access to modern
>   > healthcare may not be in the best interest of the individual) it is
>   > analysis that leads us to conclude that people are being deprived of or
>   > perhaps being exploited by health care interventionism. However, the
>   > same analysis may dispose one group of people to correct social
>   > inequities while it may be used by another group to exploit those same
>   > inequities in some fashion. It may be inconsiderate to ignore
>   > disparities in health status in inner cities and rural areas from a
>   > social engineering standpoint - but no less inconsiderate to use the
>   > same data to develop a system of inadequate services to vulnerable
>   > populations while exploiting the revenue potentials that may be
>   > available...
>   >
>   > so it is not the analytic mind but the manner in which the analysis is
>   > to be used that ought, perhaps, to be our concern in evaluating the
>   > appropriateness of research methods...
>   >
>   > Thank you for adding an aesthetically pleasing literary reference to
>   > the dialogue...
>   >
>   > as to the issue of originality of thought... as bill the cat might
>   > suggest:
>   >
>   > http://alcyone.cc.uch.gr/~kosmas/pics/bill.gif
>   >
>   > bear
>   > --- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
>   > > Hi
>   > >
>   > > I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on
>   > > throwing
>   > > in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic
>   > > Mountain:
>   > >
>   > > "Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good,
>   > > in so far
>   > > as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural
>   > > prejudices,
>   > > and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free,
>   > > refines,
>   > > humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in
>   > > so far as
>   > > it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims
>   > > life at
>   > > its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as
>   > > death,
>   > > with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory
>   > > anatomy"
>   > >
>   > > page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub
>   > > 1924.
>   > >
>   > > Fran (B)
>   >
>   >
>   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   > Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>   >
>   >
>   >
>   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>   >
>   >
>
>
>   =====
>
>
>   __________________________________
>   Do you Yahoo!?
>   New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
>   http://photos.yahoo.com/
>
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
>
>   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>   Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

OOOOOOOOOO...

Teacher already giving assignments!

Actually, glossary is good idea.  With all the multi-definition concepts
floating around, a good consensual glossary would help clarify our
communication.

I have assesment videos to grade first but will throw in my 2 cents.

Kelly

Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
Hi Bear et al,

Yes quite right Bear, and I loved the Cat link!

As a recent paper on Caring suggested (?author), for all the academic posturing
and all that has gone on with defining caring, the paper concluded, rightly or
wrongly, that no progress had been made (in decades) in actually, really,
defining it.

So, I suggest that we work systematically on producing a SUHB glossary. I will
host it on the website and we can have it on the yahoo group as well.

Right. Given the thread, the first word will be

Probablistic (or others if you so choose).

Anybody got a good def? Bear? Richard, John, Jacqui etc are you there...

Answers please by end of wk, when we'll start on new word.

Fran

--- bear <tc_spirit@...> wrote:
> Good points Fran...
>
> I would harken to the consideration that when it comes to inequities of
> access to or protection from health care services (being mindful of the
> fact that brother Fran has on occasion suggested that access to modern
> healthcare may not be in the best interest of the individual) it is
> analysis that leads us to conclude that people are being deprived of or
> perhaps being exploited by health care interventionism. However, the
> same analysis may dispose one group of people to correct social
> inequities while it may be used by another group to exploit those same
> inequities in some fashion. It may be inconsiderate to ignore
> disparities in health status in inner cities and rural areas from a
> social engineering standpoint - but no less inconsiderate to use the
> same data to develop a system of inadequate services to vulnerable
> populations while exploiting the revenue potentials that may be
> available...
>
> so it is not the analytic mind but the manner in which the analysis is
> to be used that ought, perhaps, to be our concern in evaluating the
> appropriateness of research methods...
>
> Thank you for adding an aesthetically pleasing literary reference to
> the dialogue...
>
> as to the issue of originality of thought... as bill the cat might
> suggest:
>
> http://alcyone.cc.uch.gr/~kosmas/pics/bill.gif
>
> bear
> --- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on
> > throwing
> > in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic
> > Mountain:
> >
> > "Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good,
> > in so far
> > as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural
> > prejudices,
> > and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free,
> > refines,
> > humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in
> > so far as
> > it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims
> > life at
> > its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as
> > death,
> > with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory
> > anatomy"
> >
> > page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub
> > 1924.
> >
> > Fran (B)
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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

Some tentative definitions related to 'probabilistic', and I note that
the OED definitions toward the bottom probably will sustain some deep
thought about how to employ the word in our soon to be developed
glossary...

I also want to commend everyone for their thoughts and input - it is
exciting to actually be seeing people engaging again...

bear

Definition: probabilistic


Relating to, or governed by, probability. The behaviour of a
probabilistic system cannot be predicted exactly but the probability of
certain behaviours is known. Such systems may be simulated using
pseudo-random numbers. Evolutionary computation uses probabilistic
processes to generate new (potential) solutions to a problem.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/computing/probabilistic

Definition: probabilistically

[adv]  by the use of probability theory; "we can calculate the position
of the particles probabilistically"

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/computing/probabilistically


and, of course, the OED entry:

probabilistic , a. [f. probabilist: see -istic.]
1. Pertaining to probabilists or probabilism.

         1864 Chambers's Encycl. VI. 131/1 In that [R.C.] church his
         [Liguori's] moral theology,..a modification of the so-called
         `probabilistic system' of the age immediately before his own, is
         largely used in the direction of consciences.

2. Pertaining to or expressing probability; subject to or involving
chance variations or uncertainties.

         1951 Philos. of Sci. XVIII. 216 The recognition of the
         probabilistic character of environmental cue-object and
         means-end relationships through replacement of the traditional
         absolute right-wrong alternatives..by cues or means of lower
         statistical validity.
         1957 N. Chomsky Syntactic Struct. ii. 17 The development of
         probabilistic models for the use of language (as distinct from
         the syntactic structure of language) can be quite rewarding.
         1965 C. H. Springer et al. Adv. Methods & Models i. 11 Models
         which are based on the mathematics of statistics and
         probability, into which we introduce the uncertainties which
         usually accompany our observations of real events, are called
         probabilistic models.
         1966 C. G. Hempel Philos. Nat. Sci. v. 65 Many important laws
         and theoretical principles in the natural sciences are of
         probabilistic character.
         1972 Computers & Humanities VII. 17 His lengthier treatment of
         two stochastic models notes that probabilistic stylistics is
         somewhat more advanced than deterministic approaches.
         1978 Sci. Amer. Feb. 131/3 The strict determinism of classical
         mechanics is abandoned in the quantum theory and is replaced by
         a probabilistic interpretation of measurements at the
         microscopic level.
Hence

probabi'listically adv., in a probabilistic manner; in terms of
probabilities.

         1955 Science 11 Nov. 910/1 Not only perception but also thinking
         and valuing are fruitfully conceived as only in some degree
         probabilistically valid achievements.
         1965 Language XLI. 201 Between the total workings of such a
         determinate system..and the sound a speaker produces there is a
         layer of indeterminacy that can only be handled
         probabilistically.
         1975 Nature 17 July 166/2 Equations such as (2) and (3) can
         provide very simple examples of fully deterministic systems
         whose dynamics are best described probabilistically.
         1978 Sci. Amer. June 99/2 The processes that govern the placing
         of telephone calls are so complicated that it is more fruitful
         to view them probabilistically than to do so deterministically.

Just a note on Fran's note regarding work on caring..."defining caring" is not
what most scholars who study caring in nursing are interested in...what many are
trying to do is to understand caring in its broadest dimensions and also in its
unique dimensions in situation.  The author to whose work Fran has alluded might
be, I think, John Paley, the article on the archeology of caring in JAN, and the
point that John made in the article had to do with a critique of the idea of
"knowledge of caring".  John's article wasn't critical of the idea that caring
has not been "adequately defined", in fact, John's view was more like "no wonder
it hasn't been defined as it is not amenable to definition" - at least that's my
paraphrasing of John's view.

I'm not real sure just how much tongue in cheek is going on in this thread...but
I think perhaps the limits of usefulness in pinning down glossaries has been
reached, and what we are now being called to do is transcend the limiting
characteristics of these glossaries?  Naive perhaps, simple perhaps, but
definitely a genuine view, with no intended effort to entertain.

Savina Schoenhofer
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Francis Biley
   To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 4:24 PM
   Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] glossary


   Hi Bear et al,

   Yes quite right Bear, and I loved the Cat link!

   As a recent paper on Caring suggested (?author), for all the academic
posturing
   and all that has gone on with defining caring, the paper concluded, rightly or
   wrongly, that no progress had been made (in decades) in actually, really,
   defining it.

   So, I suggest that we work systematically on producing a SUHB glossary. I will
   host it on the website and we can have it on the yahoo group as well.

   Right. Given the thread, the first word will be

   Probablistic (or others if you so choose).

   Anybody got a good def? Bear? Richard, John, Jacqui etc are you there...

   Answers please by end of wk, when we'll start on new word.

   Fran

   --- bear <tc_spirit@...> wrote:
   > Good points Fran...
   >
   > I would harken to the consideration that when it comes to inequities of
   > access to or protection from health care services (being mindful of the
   > fact that brother Fran has on occasion suggested that access to modern
   > healthcare may not be in the best interest of the individual) it is
   > analysis that leads us to conclude that people are being deprived of or
   > perhaps being exploited by health care interventionism. However, the
   > same analysis may dispose one group of people to correct social
   > inequities while it may be used by another group to exploit those same
   > inequities in some fashion. It may be inconsiderate to ignore
   > disparities in health status in inner cities and rural areas from a
   > social engineering standpoint - but no less inconsiderate to use the
   > same data to develop a system of inadequate services to vulnerable
   > populations while exploiting the revenue potentials that may be
   > available...
   >
   > so it is not the analytic mind but the manner in which the analysis is
   > to be used that ought, perhaps, to be our concern in evaluating the
   > appropriateness of research methods...
   >
   > Thank you for adding an aesthetically pleasing literary reference to
   > the dialogue...
   >
   > as to the issue of originality of thought... as bill the cat might
   > suggest:
   >
   > http://alcyone.cc.uch.gr/~kosmas/pics/bill.gif
   >
   > bear
   > --- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
   > > Hi
   > >
   > > I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on
   > > throwing
   > > in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic
   > > Mountain:
   > >
   > > "Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good,
   > > in so far
   > > as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural
   > > prejudices,
   > > and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free,
   > > refines,
   > > humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in
   > > so far as
   > > it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims
   > > life at
   > > its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as
   > > death,
   > > with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory
   > > anatomy"
   > >
   > > page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub
   > > 1924.
   > >
   > > Fran (B)
   >
   >
   > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   > Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   >
   >
   >
   > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
   >
   >


   =====


   __________________________________
   Do you Yahoo!?
   New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
   http://photos.yahoo.com/

         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Hi Bear et al,

Yes quite right Bear, and I loved the Cat link!

As a recent paper on Caring suggested (?author), for all the academic posturing
and all that has gone on with defining caring, the paper concluded, rightly or
wrongly, that no progress had been made (in decades) in actually, really,
defining it.

So, I suggest that we work systematically on producing a SUHB glossary. I will
host it on the website and we can have it on the yahoo group as well.

Right. Given the thread, the first word will be

Probablistic (or others if you so choose).

Anybody got a good def? Bear? Richard, John, Jacqui etc are you there...

Answers please by end of wk, when we'll start on new word.

Fran

--- bear <tc_spirit@...> wrote:
> Good points Fran...
>
> I would harken to the consideration that when it comes to inequities of
> access to or protection from health care services (being mindful of the
> fact that brother Fran has on occasion suggested that access to modern
> healthcare may not be in the best interest of the individual) it is
> analysis that leads us to conclude that people are being deprived of or
> perhaps being exploited by health care interventionism. However, the
> same analysis may dispose one group of people to correct social
> inequities while it may be used by another group to exploit those same
> inequities in some fashion. It may be inconsiderate to ignore
> disparities in health status in inner cities and rural areas from a
> social engineering standpoint - but no less inconsiderate to use the
> same data to develop a system of inadequate services to vulnerable
> populations while exploiting the revenue potentials that may be
> available...
>
> so it is not the analytic mind but the manner in which the analysis is
> to be used that ought, perhaps, to be our concern in evaluating the
> appropriateness of research methods...
>
> Thank you for adding an aesthetically pleasing literary reference to
> the dialogue...
>
> as to the issue of originality of thought... as bill the cat might
> suggest:
>
> http://alcyone.cc.uch.gr/~kosmas/pics/bill.gif
>
> bear
> --- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on
> > throwing
> > in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic
> > Mountain:
> >
> > "Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good,
> > in so far
> > as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural
> > prejudices,
> > and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free,
> > refines,
> > humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in
> > so far as
> > it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims
> > life at
> > its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as
> > death,
> > with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory
> > anatomy"
> >
> > page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub
> > 1924.
> >
> > Fran (B)
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Good points Fran...

I would harken to the consideration that when it comes to inequities of
access to or protection from health care services (being mindful of the
fact that brother Fran has on occasion suggested that access to modern
healthcare may not be in the best interest of the individual) it is
analysis that leads us to conclude that people are being deprived of or
perhaps being exploited by health care interventionism. However, the
same analysis may dispose one group of people to correct social
inequities while it may be used by another group to exploit those same
inequities in some fashion. It may be inconsiderate to ignore
disparities in health status in inner cities and rural areas from a
social engineering standpoint - but no less inconsiderate to use the
same data to develop a system of inadequate services to vulnerable
populations while exploiting the revenue potentials that may be
available...

so it is not the analytic mind but the manner in which the analysis is
to be used that ought, perhaps, to be our concern in evaluating the
appropriateness of research methods...

Thank you for adding an aesthetically pleasing literary reference to
the dialogue...

as to the issue of originality of thought... as bill the cat might
suggest:

http://alcyone.cc.uch.gr/~kosmas/pics/bill.gif

bear
--- Francis Biley <sys812000@...> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on
> throwing
> in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic
> Mountain:
>
> "Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good,
> in so far
> as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural
> prejudices,
> and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free,
> refines,
> humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in
> so far as
> it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims
> life at
> its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as
> death,
> with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory
> anatomy"
>
> page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub
> 1924.
>
> Fran (B)

Hi

I am not capable of original thought like Bear, so have to depend on throwing
in a quote from somebody else, in this case from Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain:

"Analysis as an instrument of enlightenment and civilization is good, in so far
as it shatters absurd convictions, acts as a solvent upon natural prejudices,
and undermines authority; good, in other words, in that it sets free, refines,
humanises, makes slaves ripe for freedom. But it is bad, very bad, in so far as
it stands in the way of action, cannot shape the vital forces, maims life at
its roots. Analysis can be a very unappetizing affair, as much so as death,
with which it may belong - allied to the grave and its unsavory anatomy"

page 222, vintage classics ed, 1999, trans Lowe-Porter; first pub 1924.

Fran (B)

--- bear <tc_spirit@...> wrote:
> Some thouhts that have been swimming around.
>
> I checked the OED... as i suspected improbable refers to unlikely in an
> extreme form. so, for example - the crumbling of the WTC buildings was
> improbable on 9/10/01 but neither unpredictable nor impossible.
>
> unpredictability, on the other hand describes a situation in which it
> is impossible to predict, which i would argue strongly against on the
> basis that prediction is always possible even if it later, by whatever
> arbitrary standard has been agreed to in advance, turns out to have
> been incorrect...
>
> Than there is also a temporal issue that i suspect may be important to
> consider. If i am doing polling data on election day, and I choose my
> sampling frame well, and i am not doing the polling in the state of
> florida in 2000, then when i draw my inference from my sample to the
> whole population of voters - anywhere but florida, i am not predicting
> in terms of a future state of the world, but merely describing
> something that has already happened. i am still likely to be wrong
> about the estimate though the 95% confidence interval will likely be
> very accurate, tho potentially useless information if it is not
> sufficiently narrow for whatever decision-making has to occur in
> reporting, interpreting, or acting on my results...
>
> On the other hand, when i am trying to forecast a future state of the
> world (i am mindful that some may argue that there is no such thing as
> objective, forward moving time, but that is another discussion
> entirely, and i am already on record as ridiculing victor stenger for
> his 'backward traveling in time particles' thesis, anyway), and this is
> the area that I, were I in martha's purple dress, would be more
> concerned about. Suppose, for example, I were talking with a student in
> the 1950s or 1960s and they, having just run a statistical regression
> on teachers salaries and liquor sales. I would be very concerned if
> their proposed solution to excessive alcohol drinking was to recommend
> that teachers salaries be lowered on the presumption that there was a
> causal link between salaries and drinking that might be rectified in
> the future by adjusting teachers' salaries. That is a wholly different
> matter than reporting about the current state of affairs to making a
> prediction that, based on a certain intervention - a future state of
> affairs would come to exist.
>
> I think there are also some issues in terms of how we approach
> knowledge - rather than asking about our ability to produce unitary
> knowledge by building up, one dimension at a time, perhaps we ought to
> think of it the same way that galileo did when considering the ages old
> proposition that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. In
> his 'thought experiment', galileo reportedly argued thusly - if a
> heavier object falls faster than a light object, then if I put both
> objects together they will be heavier than the heavier object and ought
> to fall faster. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to assume
> that the lighter object, which on its own would fall more slowly, would
> not hold the combined object back because of its slower speed. The only
> way to view the situation more accurately would be to assume that they
> all fall at the same rate of speed...
>
> Now, shifting to the question of excluding any form of 'knowing', if we
> assumed we had 'unitary knowledge' that just happened to incorporate
> inferential statistics or any quantified knowledge, would it be
> justifiable to exclude that knowledge from our unitary knowledge? If
> so, on what basis would that exclusion be made? Could we then transfer
> the same justification for excluding any other aspect of knowledge -
> aesthetic representation, phenomenological inquiry, one 'qualitative'
> method after another on the basis that its contribution was
> reductionistic compared to the remaining wholeness?
>
> Then there is yet another issue - are all things inherently
> immeasurable? I used to have polite discussions with a peer about this
> issue all the time a few years ago. The question of something being
> immeasurable is, at best, temporally determined. Could I have measured
> X-rays in 200 BC? probably not. Can I do that in 2004 AD? Yes. Can I
> measure the time til death of a healthy human being, barring knowing
> that they are on death row in texas? No, not unless I have prior
> knowledge of the exact moment of their death. I would argue that the
> assertion that things are 'not measurable' must be no less justified
> than that they are measurable - perhaps more so. Person X may not have
> the skills, aptitude, tools, or technical efficiency to measure a
> phenomena - but that does not automatically translate to the phenomena
> not being measurable by someone who possesses the appropriate skills,
> aptitude, tools, or technical efficiency to measure the phenomena. So
> someone says they want to study sadness but feels that no extant
> approach to measurement is appropriate. On further discussion they say
> they want to compare sadness in two populations, high school graduates
> five years after graduation, and their HS peers who did not graduate at
> the same time. Either qualitative or quantitative methods might be used
> to do this. We might seek to interview 8 people from each group about
> the experience of post-hs sadness. the problem, of course, is that the
> only people who will show up will be people who identify with sadness -
> so the comparison may be flawed if our interest was to compare the
> percent of people who are sad in each group. If, on the other hand, we
> are more interested in the unique ways that sadness might manifest and
> be reported by HS grads v HS non-completers, it would likely be foolish
> to ask a randomly selected portion of each group to take the Beck
> Depression Inventory...
>
> I think the appropriateness of either qualitative or quantitative (or
> both) methods is ALWAYS dependent on 'what is the research question.'
>
> One additional point for reflection - when we conduct an inquiry
> seeking to capture wholeness - are we not always basing our assessment
> of wholeness on a snapshot, a sampling of all possible snapshots that
> we, or others, might have ever taken? Here I will acknowledge one of my
> more embarrassing moments. In my youth, as a young cub just out of
> school, I worked for the department of social services. I had a client
> who had been convicted of second-degree manslaughter. He had 7 children
> with one woman and was reputed to have fathered many other children in
> the area. I did the good liberal thing of rationalizing and justifying
> behavior, which I personally found somewhat troubling and formed an
> image of him that I thought to be accurate, positive, and balanced. I
> held him in positive regard, did everything I could to help him and his
> family deal with the rigors of life… One day, as I walked through the
> local 'community action agency' building, I heard a voice that sounded
> familiar. I retraced my steps and looked into a meeting of the
> community action board. There, wielding the gavel, was my client, the
> president of the board. Now a simple measurement incorporated into my
> prior thinking would have produced a radically different portrait - How
> many local community action boards do you chair? __ (0=none; 1= one or
> more). This answer would not have made any qualitative distinctions
> between how well he performed in that role - but it would certainly
> have fleshed out the unitary portrait of his life that I had woven
> based on obviously extremely limited information. That my client served
> in so responsible a position and held such positive regard in the
> community was improbable earlier that day - but clearly not impossible.
> That he held such a position and such regard was predictable - tho my
> personal prediction might have been on the order of 1/1000 or less with
> a 99% confidence interval… The prediction would clearly have been
> proven false based on a little inquiry however - as premature
> predictions are from time to time…
>
> Like it or not, all of our data collection is constrained. I am color
> blind, there are color vision based distinctions I will never be able
> to make that another person can. I could, perhaps substitute
> measurement of wavelengths but I may miss the affective response to
> gradations of color that are appreciated by a non-colorblind person.
> But certainly understanding that there is a difference in wavelength
> will help me to appreciate the distinction between my own perceptions
> and those of my less-impaired colleagues. On a related note - I once
> pondered the implications of the crackpot former prestidigitator, 'the
> amusing randi' possessing the ability to detect and manipulate a human
> energy field. What I argued, would the errant  assumptions of skeptics
> turn out to be if randi was so skilled at observing and modifying the
> HEF that he could actually modify choices made by TT practitioners in
> performing an experiment such as the rosa tt test, just by being in the
> room - or anywhere else for that matter? What if he was able to do this
> but for purely selfish and gratuitous reasons, chose to deny something
> that he could actually prove to be true based on his profoundly
> extra-normal skills?
>
> In the end, it is not, I suspect, whether we predict but what we do
> with and assume about our predictions. Teachers salaries ought not be
> lowered when workers salaries overall have risen and fed the increase
> in alcohol consumption, quite apart from the salary rise among
> teachers…
>
> In any event - before we could defend a position that there is no place
> for inferential statistics in the suhb, I think we would have to
> distinguish between the different types of inferential statistics,
> their actual meaning and interpretation, and how the knowledge derived
> was to be employed. I would also add as a footnote to all of this, that
> it may be a mistake to prematurely write off quantitative research and
> quantitative measurement. I fear that this is often done simply on the
> basis that some people are outsiders to the millenia old hermeneutic
> circles (yes I know heidegger did not mean 'circle') of mathematics,
> philosophy, and more recently statistics and probability theory. Our
> decision, I think, ought not be based on the lack of understanding of
> outsiders to those dialogues - that the dialogical circles are ongoing
> and that the insiders to the discussions have their own understanding
> that the grasp of the statements of number, measurement, inference, are
> incomplete and open to endless redefining. We should never, I think,
> suggest that the current shorthand linguistic conventions of
> statistical inference (p-values, confidence intervals, bias, estimates,
> certainty, uncertainty…) are anything more or less than the current
> 'state of the art' in statistical and epistemological theory…
>
> Just a couple of errant thoughts to add to the dialogue…
>
> bear
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Some thouhts that have been swimming around.

I checked the OED... as i suspected improbable refers to unlikely in an
extreme form. so, for example - the crumbling of the WTC buildings was
improbable on 9/10/01 but neither unpredictable nor impossible.

unpredictability, on the other hand describes a situation in which it
is impossible to predict, which i would argue strongly against on the
basis that prediction is always possible even if it later, by whatever
arbitrary standard has been agreed to in advance, turns out to have
been incorrect...

Than there is also a temporal issue that i suspect may be important to
consider. If i am doing polling data on election day, and I choose my
sampling frame well, and i am not doing the polling in the state of
florida in 2000, then when i draw my inference from my sample to the
whole population of voters - anywhere but florida, i am not predicting
in terms of a future state of the world, but merely describing
something that has already happened. i am still likely to be wrong
about the estimate though the 95% confidence interval will likely be
very accurate, tho potentially useless information if it is not
sufficiently narrow for whatever decision-making has to occur in
reporting, interpreting, or acting on my results...

On the other hand, when i am trying to forecast a future state of the
world (i am mindful that some may argue that there is no such thing as
objective, forward moving time, but that is another discussion
entirely, and i am already on record as ridiculing victor stenger for
his 'backward traveling in time particles' thesis, anyway), and this is
the area that I, were I in martha's purple dress, would be more
concerned about. Suppose, for example, I were talking with a student in
the 1950s or 1960s and they, having just run a statistical regression
on teachers salaries and liquor sales. I would be very concerned if
their proposed solution to excessive alcohol drinking was to recommend
that teachers salaries be lowered on the presumption that there was a
causal link between salaries and drinking that might be rectified in
the future by adjusting teachers' salaries. That is a wholly different
matter than reporting about the current state of affairs to making a
prediction that, based on a certain intervention - a future state of
affairs would come to exist.

I think there are also some issues in terms of how we approach
knowledge - rather than asking about our ability to produce unitary
knowledge by building up, one dimension at a time, perhaps we ought to
think of it the same way that galileo did when considering the ages old
proposition that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects. In
his 'thought experiment', galileo reportedly argued thusly - if a
heavier object falls faster than a light object, then if I put both
objects together they will be heavier than the heavier object and ought
to fall faster. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to assume
that the lighter object, which on its own would fall more slowly, would
not hold the combined object back because of its slower speed. The only
way to view the situation more accurately would be to assume that they
all fall at the same rate of speed...

Now, shifting to the question of excluding any form of 'knowing', if we
assumed we had 'unitary knowledge' that just happened to incorporate
inferential statistics or any quantified knowledge, would it be
justifiable to exclude that knowledge from our unitary knowledge? If
so, on what basis would that exclusion be made? Could we then transfer
the same justification for excluding any other aspect of knowledge -
aesthetic representation, phenomenological inquiry, one 'qualitative'
method after another on the basis that its contribution was
reductionistic compared to the remaining wholeness?

Then there is yet another issue - are all things inherently
immeasurable? I used to have polite discussions with a peer about this
issue all the time a few years ago. The question of something being
immeasurable is, at best, temporally determined. Could I have measured
X-rays in 200 BC? probably not. Can I do that in 2004 AD? Yes. Can I
measure the time til death of a healthy human being, barring knowing
that they are on death row in texas? No, not unless I have prior
knowledge of the exact moment of their death. I would argue that the
assertion that things are 'not measurable' must be no less justified
than that they are measurable - perhaps more so. Person X may not have
the skills, aptitude, tools, or technical efficiency to measure a
phenomena - but that does not automatically translate to the phenomena
not being measurable by someone who possesses the appropriate skills,
aptitude, tools, or technical efficiency to measure the phenomena. So
someone says they want to study sadness but feels that no extant
approach to measurement is appropriate. On further discussion they say
they want to compare sadness in two populations, high school graduates
five years after graduation, and their HS peers who did not graduate at
the same time. Either qualitative or quantitative methods might be used
to do this. We might seek to interview 8 people from each group about
the experience of post-hs sadness. the problem, of course, is that the
only people who will show up will be people who identify with sadness -
so the comparison may be flawed if our interest was to compare the
percent of people who are sad in each group. If, on the other hand, we
are more interested in the unique ways that sadness might manifest and
be reported by HS grads v HS non-completers, it would likely be foolish
to ask a randomly selected portion of each group to take the Beck
Depression Inventory...

I think the appropriateness of either qualitative or quantitative (or
both) methods is ALWAYS dependent on 'what is the research question.'

One additional point for reflection - when we conduct an inquiry
seeking to capture wholeness - are we not always basing our assessment
of wholeness on a snapshot, a sampling of all possible snapshots that
we, or others, might have ever taken? Here I will acknowledge one of my
more embarrassing moments. In my youth, as a young cub just out of
school, I worked for the department of social services. I had a client
who had been convicted of second-degree manslaughter. He had 7 children
with one woman and was reputed to have fathered many other children in
the area. I did the good liberal thing of rationalizing and justifying
behavior, which I personally found somewhat troubling and formed an
image of him that I thought to be accurate, positive, and balanced. I
held him in positive regard, did everything I could to help him and his
family deal with the rigors of life… One day, as I walked through the
local 'community action agency' building, I heard a voice that sounded
familiar. I retraced my steps and looked into a meeting of the
community action board. There, wielding the gavel, was my client, the
president of the board. Now a simple measurement incorporated into my
prior thinking would have produced a radically different portrait - How
many local community action boards do you chair? __ (0=none; 1= one or
more). This answer would not have made any qualitative distinctions
between how well he performed in that role - but it would certainly
have fleshed out the unitary portrait of his life that I had woven
based on obviously extremely limited information. That my client served
in so responsible a position and held such positive regard in the
community was improbable earlier that day - but clearly not impossible.
That he held such a position and such regard was predictable - tho my
personal prediction might have been on the order of 1/1000 or less with
a 99% confidence interval… The prediction would clearly have been
proven false based on a little inquiry however - as premature
predictions are from time to time…

Like it or not, all of our data collection is constrained. I am color
blind, there are color vision based distinctions I will never be able
to make that another person can. I could, perhaps substitute
measurement of wavelengths but I may miss the affective response to
gradations of color that are appreciated by a non-colorblind person.
But certainly understanding that there is a difference in wavelength
will help me to appreciate the distinction between my own perceptions
and those of my less-impaired colleagues. On a related note - I once
pondered the implications of the crackpot former prestidigitator, 'the
amusing randi' possessing the ability to detect and manipulate a human
energy field. What I argued, would the errant  assumptions of skeptics
turn out to be if randi was so skilled at observing and modifying the
HEF that he could actually modify choices made by TT practitioners in
performing an experiment such as the rosa tt test, just by being in the
room - or anywhere else for that matter? What if he was able to do this
but for purely selfish and gratuitous reasons, chose to deny something
that he could actually prove to be true based on his profoundly
extra-normal skills?

In the end, it is not, I suspect, whether we predict but what we do
with and assume about our predictions. Teachers salaries ought not be
lowered when workers salaries overall have risen and fed the increase
in alcohol consumption, quite apart from the salary rise among
teachers…

In any event - before we could defend a position that there is no place
for inferential statistics in the suhb, I think we would have to
distinguish between the different types of inferential statistics,
their actual meaning and interpretation, and how the knowledge derived
was to be employed. I would also add as a footnote to all of this, that
it may be a mistake to prematurely write off quantitative research and
quantitative measurement. I fear that this is often done simply on the
basis that some people are outsiders to the millenia old hermeneutic
circles (yes I know heidegger did not mean 'circle') of mathematics,
philosophy, and more recently statistics and probability theory. Our
decision, I think, ought not be based on the lack of understanding of
outsiders to those dialogues - that the dialogical circles are ongoing
and that the insiders to the discussions have their own understanding
that the grasp of the statements of number, measurement, inference, are
incomplete and open to endless redefining. We should never, I think,
suggest that the current shorthand linguistic conventions of
statistical inference (p-values, confidence intervals, bias, estimates,
certainty, uncertainty…) are anything more or less than the current
'state of the art' in statistical and epistemological theory…

Just a couple of errant thoughts to add to the dialogue…

bear

As an admirer, not a practitioner of SUHB, some thoughts  on Jacqui's questions
have occurred to me.

In reverse order, in re qualitative approaches only: although I am definitely
not "up to speed" on cutting edge thinking beyond complexity theory, I am
hopeful that some one, some day will be able to put together an idea that will
clearly, that is, clearly for me and for most of us, show how to transcend
current technical understanding; also...I recall the advances in thinking about
SUHB that have swirled around the early days of quantitative work in SUHB, and
so would be reluctant to take an "either/or" position on "correct" modes of
inquiry.  It seems to me that our current line of dialogue, initiated on the ls
by Bear, can bring some new thinking to the meanings we all seek, meanings that
are signaled by the terms predictable/probable but that are probably obscured by
those very terms.

As for the second question...I appreciate the jolt Jacqui has tossed our way,
with the unabashedly hopelessly dead-end characterization of the problem we are
addressing in this thread.  This jolt may be an early warning of a break-through
in thinking!  Exciting!

Savina Schoenhofer
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Jacqueline Fawcett
   To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com ; Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:07 AM
   Subject: RE: [Martha_E_Rogers] Probabilistic v Unpredictability


   Colleagues,

   Based on the dialogue following my keynote address at the Savannah SRS
Conference in November, my understanding is that we are exploring the
appropriateness of  the use of the terms, unpredictable and probabilistic.
Martha left us with unpredictable but some of us wonder what the meaning of that
term is for SUHB based research.

   For example, does unpredictable permit the use of any inferential statistical
tests?

   Would SUHB be best served by adopting a qualitatively oriented research
approach that would not require the use of any inferential statistics?

   Jacqui

   Jacqueline Fawcett


         -----Original Message-----
         From: kelly rutherford [mailto:kdrn@...]
         Sent: Thu 12/11/2003 4:12 PM
         To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
         Cc:
         Subject: Re: [Martha_E_Rogers] Probabilistic v Unpredictability



         OK, this backwoods brother will bite.

         I tend to agree with Brother Bear's assessment about use of the term
unpredictable.  The term does seem to have multi-conceptual use.  As an excuse
to not "Scientifically" explore a pattern or phenomenon I would substitute the
concept of "Objectively Unmeasurable".  When something cannot be reduced to a
number in an equation or a figure on a graph it is often deemed unworthy of
"Proper Scientific Research".  I feel the key word in the last sentence is
"reduce", a concept among Unitary Scientist often considered "Sin" or "Fightin'
Words".

         I'm not sure where this discussion began Bear, but it reminds me of
defending my Masters thesis against a panel of die hard, femanist, objective,
reductionists.  Oops, my wife will kill me for that one, but it was a traumatic
experience.  One lone, younger, male nurse practioner student against all those
old........ I digress.  They are all respected friends and know how I like to
tease them about their horror when I presented a Unitary based position to my
arguments that none were prepared to discuss.  I passed and survived well for
the experience.  Back on topic.  When arguments about statistical concepts
errupt we usually end up trying to defend the Unitary perspective.  I took the
opposite approach and presented my position from the standpoint that they were
using the out-dated concepts of a paternalistic system that bases worth on
objective measurement with the admitted inability to measure significant ph!
enomena.  Without being condescending I presented an integrated approach
         that allowed acknowledgment of the unmeasurable and value to all pattern
manifestations, measureable and unmeasurable.  A few of you may have seen my
model back in 1999? at convention.

         So, I guess my question would be this.  With this discussion are we
defending the Unitary position or exploring the use of statistical concept
within the SUHB?


         Any takers?

         GURU


         ---------------------------------
         Do you Yahoo!?
         New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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



   Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
   ADVERTISEMENT
   click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cqfpm55/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/\
S=1705061273:HM/EXP=1071274935/A=1853619/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqs\
o=60178356&partid=4116732>
  
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=\
:HM/A=1853619/rand=280142923>

         To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
         Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



         Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .



         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Colleagues, The idea of improbables is most interesting! Jacqui

	 -----Original Message-----
	 From: mahanley [mailto:mahanley@...]
	 Sent: Fri 12/12/2003 12:59 AM
	 To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
	 Cc:
	 Subject: Re: [Martha_E_Rogers] Probabilistic v Unpredictability


	 Dear B & G - I'm not sure if this is a bit or a bite, but here goes. Pondering
the penchant to dichotomize on unitary phenomenon I wonder why we don't talk
about improbables and predictables. As a person who tries to understand
manifestations of the immeasurable, I wonder about the explanatory nature of
statistics. As was mentioned in GA, statistics and measurement may help us
understand aspects of pattern manifestations, mayhap, even explain relationships
among those manifestations. Is it our intention to reduce the phenomenon or
separate it from its environment? If our intention is to reduce and
decontextualize the phenomenon, we may fall off the unitary wagon. I think our
job is to think beyond the pattern to the emerging patterning - which may be
light years beyond the capacity to enumerate, much less measure.  [i am getting
ready for vacation and all associations are really loose right now] Back to
improbables. If Martha was thinking about the world as probablistic, expected,
anticipated events would be the norm. Where do improbables fit? How is
improbable different from unpredictable? are there statistical improbabilities? 
Why would these be important to us? Perhaps we need to look at what we want to
accomplish in new ways, rather than, as our Guru suggests, use outdated
approaches to inquiry. As usual, I have more questions than anything else. mah
	   ----- Original Message -----
	   From: kelly rutherford
	   To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
	   Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:12 PM
	   Subject: Re: [Martha_E_Rogers] Probabilistic v Unpredictability



	   OK, this backwoods brother will bite.

	   I tend to agree with Brother Bear's assessment about use of the term
unpredictable.  The term does seem to have multi-conceptual use.  As an excuse
to not "Scientifically" explore a pattern or phenomenon I would substitute the
concept of "Objectively Unmeasurable".  When something cannot be reduced to a
number in an equation or a figure on a graph it is often deemed unworthy of
"Proper Scientific Research".  I feel the key word in the last sentence is
"reduce", a concept among Unitary Scientist often considered "Sin" or "Fightin'
Words".

	   I'm not sure where this discussion began Bear, but it reminds me of defending
my Masters thesis against a panel of die hard, femanist, objective,
reductionists.  Oops, my wife will kill me for that one, but it was a traumatic
experience.  One lone, younger, male nurse practioner student against all those
old........ I digress.  They are all respected friends and know how I like to
tease them about their horror when I presented a Unitary based position to my
arguments that none were prepared to discuss.  I passed and survived well for
the experience.  Back on topic.  When arguments about statistical concepts
errupt we usually end up trying to defend the Unitary perspective.  I took the
opposite approach and presented my position from the standpoint that they were
using the out-dated concepts of a paternalistic system that bases worth on
objective measurement with the admitted inability to measure significant
phenomena.  Without being condescending I presented an integrated approach
	   that allowed acknowledgment of the unmeasurable and value to all pattern
manifestations, measureable and unmeasurable.  A few of you may have seen my
model back in 1999? at convention.

	   So, I guess my question would be this.  With this discussion are we defending
the Unitary position or exploring the use of statistical concept within the
SUHB?


	   Any takers?

	   GURU


	   ---------------------------------
	   Do you Yahoo!?
	   New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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


	         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
	               ADVERTISEMENT




	   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	   Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



	   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cq87vl8/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/\
S=1705061273:HM/EXP=1071295203/A=1853618/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqs\
o=60178338&partid=4116732>
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=\
:HM/A=1853618/rand=975291455>

	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Hi all,

Glad to see some discussion starting.

As i mentioned on the old ls, there is a collection of emails dating
back to 1997. It would likely be a big job to migrate them from the
current computer and email program to files that can be accessed on the
new ls... but i am willing to attempt that if there are no big
objections.

However, we should all be aware that most of us have made the usual
mistakes of posting personal material to the list when we thought we
were writing to an individual in private.

If i don't hear to the contrary I will assume that nobody wants to
withdraw their erroneous emails from the archive that would be created.
But i think it may be worth some discussion. It would, be very difficult
to separate out emails that were mistakes from those intended to be sent
without some more specific information about content and approximate
dates. As well, I am not even certain that there is any good way to do
this and won't be trying until my last edit of my dissertation is
complete.

So let me/us know what you think about attempting to restore a permanent
archive.

bear

Colleagues,

Based on the dialogue following my keynote address at the Savannah SRS
Conference in November, my understanding is that we are exploring the
appropriateness of  the use of the terms, unpredictable and probabilistic.
Martha left us with unpredictable but some of us wonder what the meaning of that
term is for SUHB based research.

For example, does unpredictable permit the use of any inferential statistical
tests?

Would SUHB be best served by adopting a qualitatively oriented research approach
that would not require the use of any inferential statistics?

Jacqui

Jacqueline Fawcett


	 -----Original Message-----
	 From: kelly rutherford [mailto:kdrn@...]
	 Sent: Thu 12/11/2003 4:12 PM
	 To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
	 Cc:
	 Subject: Re: [Martha_E_Rogers] Probabilistic v Unpredictability



	 OK, this backwoods brother will bite.

	 I tend to agree with Brother Bear's assessment about use of the term
unpredictable.  The term does seem to have multi-conceptual use.  As an excuse
to not "Scientifically" explore a pattern or phenomenon I would substitute the
concept of "Objectively Unmeasurable".  When something cannot be reduced to a
number in an equation or a figure on a graph it is often deemed unworthy of
"Proper Scientific Research".  I feel the key word in the last sentence is
"reduce", a concept among Unitary Scientist often considered "Sin" or "Fightin'
Words".

	 I'm not sure where this discussion began Bear, but it reminds me of defending
my Masters thesis against a panel of die hard, femanist, objective,
reductionists.  Oops, my wife will kill me for that one, but it was a traumatic
experience.  One lone, younger, male nurse practioner student against all those
old........ I digress.  They are all respected friends and know how I like to
tease them about their horror when I presented a Unitary based position to my
arguments that none were prepared to discuss.  I passed and survived well for
the experience.  Back on topic.  When arguments about statistical concepts
errupt we usually end up trying to defend the Unitary perspective.  I took the
opposite approach and presented my position from the standpoint that they were
using the out-dated concepts of a paternalistic system that bases worth on
objective measurement with the admitted inability to measure significant
phenomena.  Without being condescending I presented an integrated approach
	 that allowed acknowledgment of the unmeasurable and value to all pattern
manifestations, measureable and unmeasurable.  A few of you may have seen my
model back in 1999? at convention.

	 So, I guess my question would be this.  With this discussion are we defending
the Unitary position or exploring the use of statistical concept within the
SUHB?


	 Any takers?

	 GURU


	 ---------------------------------
	 Do you Yahoo!?
	 New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
click here
<http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cqfpm55/M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupweb/\
S=1705061273:HM/EXP=1071274935/A=1853619/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqs\
o=60178356&partid=4116732>
 
<http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116732.5333197.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=\
:HM/A=1853619/rand=280142923>

	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
	 Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

Dear B & G - I'm not sure if this is a bit or a bite, but here goes. Pondering
the penchant to dichotomize on unitary phenomenon I wonder why we don't talk
about improbables and predictables. As a person who tries to understand
manifestations of the immeasurable, I wonder about the explanatory nature of
statistics. As was mentioned in GA, statistics and measurement may help us
understand aspects of pattern manifestations, mayhap, even explain relationships
among those manifestations. Is it our intention to reduce the phenomenon or
separate it from its environment? If our intention is to reduce and
decontextualize the phenomenon, we may fall off the unitary wagon. I think our
job is to think beyond the pattern to the emerging patterning - which may be
light years beyond the capacity to enumerate, much less measure.  [i am getting
ready for vacation and all associations are really loose right now] Back to
improbables. If Martha was thinking about the world as probablistic, expected,
anticipated events would be the norm. Where do improbables fit? How is
improbable different from unpredictable? are there statistical improbabilities? 
Why would these be important to us? Perhaps we need to look at what we want to
accomplish in new ways, rather than, as our Guru suggests, use outdated
approaches to inquiry. As usual, I have more questions than anything else. mah
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: kelly rutherford
   To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2003 3:12 PM
   Subject: Re: [Martha_E_Rogers] Probabilistic v Unpredictability



   OK, this backwoods brother will bite.

   I tend to agree with Brother Bear's assessment about use of the term
unpredictable.  The term does seem to have multi-conceptual use.  As an excuse
to not "Scientifically" explore a pattern or phenomenon I would substitute the
concept of "Objectively Unmeasurable".  When something cannot be reduced to a
number in an equation or a figure on a graph it is often deemed unworthy of
"Proper Scientific Research".  I feel the key word in the last sentence is
"reduce", a concept among Unitary Scientist often considered "Sin" or "Fightin'
Words".

   I'm not sure where this discussion began Bear, but it reminds me of defending
my Masters thesis against a panel of die hard, femanist, objective,
reductionists.  Oops, my wife will kill me for that one, but it was a traumatic
experience.  One lone, younger, male nurse practioner student against all those
old........ I digress.  They are all respected friends and know how I like to
tease them about their horror when I presented a Unitary based position to my
arguments that none were prepared to discuss.  I passed and survived well for
the experience.  Back on topic.  When arguments about statistical concepts
errupt we usually end up trying to defend the Unitary perspective.  I took the
opposite approach and presented my position from the standpoint that they were
using the out-dated concepts of a paternalistic system that bases worth on
objective measurement with the admitted inability to measure significant
phenomena.  Without being condescending I presented an integrated approach
   that allowed acknowledgment of the unmeasurable and value to all pattern
manifestations, measureable and unmeasurable.  A few of you may have seen my
model back in 1999? at convention.

   So, I guess my question would be this.  With this discussion are we defending
the Unitary position or exploring the use of statistical concept within the
SUHB?


   Any takers?

   GURU


   ---------------------------------
   Do you Yahoo!?
   New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

OK, this backwoods brother will bite.

I tend to agree with Brother Bear's assessment about use of the term
unpredictable.  The term does seem to have multi-conceptual use.  As an excuse
to not "Scientifically" explore a pattern or phenomenon I would substitute the
concept of "Objectively Unmeasurable".  When something cannot be reduced to a
number in an equation or a figure on a graph it is often deemed unworthy of
"Proper Scientific Research".  I feel the key word in the last sentence is
"reduce", a concept among Unitary Scientist often considered "Sin" or "Fightin'
Words".

I'm not sure where this discussion began Bear, but it reminds me of defending my
Masters thesis against a panel of die hard, femanist, objective, reductionists. 
Oops, my wife will kill me for that one, but it was a traumatic experience.  One
lone, younger, male nurse practioner student against all those old........ I
digress.  They are all respected friends and know how I like to tease them about
their horror when I presented a Unitary based position to my arguments that none
were prepared to discuss.  I passed and survived well for the experience.  Back
on topic.  When arguments about statistical concepts errupt we usually end up
trying to defend the Unitary perspective.  I took the opposite approach and
presented my position from the standpoint that they were using the out-dated
concepts of a paternalistic system that bases worth on objective measurement
with the admitted inability to measure significant phenomena.  Without being
condescending I presented an integrated approach
  that allowed acknowledgment of the unmeasurable and value to all pattern
manifestations, measureable and unmeasurable.  A few of you may have seen my
model back in 1999? at convention.

So, I guess my question would be this.  With this discussion are we defending
the Unitary position or exploring the use of statistical concept within the
SUHB?


Any takers?

GURU


---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing

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

Hi all,

We have hit the entirely arbitrary and capricious magical number of 30
members.

During our meeting in Savannah we spent a few minutes following
Jacqui's excellent keynote, discussing issues of our language and how
it relates to other scientific enterprises. As a statistician and a
probabilist I have always felt uncomfortable with the use of the terms
'unpredictable' and 'unpredictability'. My discomfort has several
facets that will emerge in the future. However, to get the ball
rolling it occurred to me that it would be appropriate if some of the
people far better imbued with knowledge about Martha's use of these
terms and her transition in thinking from probabilistic to
unpredictable would share their knowledge as a summary of the
background.

I have some material i am putting together from a statistical and
probability theory perspective but want a context for that material in
terms of a summary of martha's and current theorists' positions.

Then I would really like it if everyone would just jump in and speak
their mind - lurkers and newbies like myself especially. It has been a
long time since the basic issues of language in the suhb have been
discussed in depth and we are all well aware that a major issue that
skeptics have used in the past to engage in their unreasoned bashing
of our work has been the intentional misinterpretation of language and
ideas such as the HEF. However, their misinterpretations have garnered
a fair amount of support and if nothing else, that may be sufficient
reason to consider how our language may present problems that may be
non-existent if we either better define the manner in which our
terminology is applied or change certain issues to better communicate
with other disciplines.

As an incentive let me just suggest that unpredictable conjures up two
major issues for me: First, is that we do not know, with certainty,
what the outcome of any situation may be. A human being with an
alcohol use problem shows up at detox for the 100th time seeking
sobriety. Will this time result in a complete cessation of alcohol use
or will the human being with the alcohol use problem return to old
patterns? We cannot be certain that it will/won't be a magical
experience but if we had to decide between providing service to this
person vs a person on their first admission we might be derelict if we
selected them and denied service to someone with a higher likelihood
of success.

The second way that I have seen 'unpredictable' used seems to be as a
justification for either not exploring or not studying phenomena in a
scientific manner. The argument here apparently being that
unpredictability as a basic tenet justifies exclusion of traditional
scientific (read 'randomized clinical trials') methods in favor of
other approaches. This use troubles me greatly but it may be that I am
over-reacting.

So, if some people will address the history and current status I will
add my two cents on the way probabilists, philosophers, and
statisticians view probability, predictability, and unpredictability,
and everyone can contribute their two cents...

Maybe if we can get a spirited discussion going we will have some
archived material that will be available for the foreseeable future
and for newcomers or which might find its way into a piece for visions
or some other venue...

Just one thought - sometimes it is tempting to cite references - but
let's try to avoid that as many people may not have access to such
sources as was the case when I was a BSN student. Listservers are
great places to just dialogue. However, it is also okay to copy and
paste your own or other's electronic pieces in an email as long as it
is not done excessively and original sources are cited and credited.
Another thing that listservers are great for is just shooting from the
hip and making mistakes. I certainly intend to make a fair share of
such blunders myself and encourage others to do the same. Sometimes we
learn far more from our own and others mistakes than we learn from our
best, most polished, and most consistent work...

bear

Hi

I will gladly be of all the help I can with putting up these pdf's, they will
provide an invaluable historical reference resource.

Fran


--- sonyahardin4388 <srhardin@...> wrote:
> During our fall conference, I told Richard Cowling that would work
> toward getting all the newsletters converted to .pdf files. Our
> department is in the process of purchasing adobe 6.0, once this is
> purchased and loaded, I will begin having the graduate assistant work
> on getting the past newsletters into .pdf. Fran Biley has agreed to
> place the newsletters on the homepage. We hope that this archive of
> newsletters will help to stimulate discussion and provide a
> historical context for all.
>
> Sonya Hardin RN PhD
> Assistant Professor
> School of Nursing
> Adult Health Nursing Department
> University of NC at Charlotte
> srhardin@...
> 704-687-4388
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.com/

Thank you, Sonya.
Elizabeth
----- Original Message -----
From: "sonyahardin4388" <srhardin@...>
To: <Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 10:17 PM
Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] SRS Newsletters


> During our fall conference, I told Richard Cowling that would work
> toward getting all the newsletters converted to .pdf files. Our
> department is in the process of purchasing adobe 6.0, once this is
> purchased and loaded, I will begin having the graduate assistant
work
> on getting the past newsletters into .pdf. Fran Biley has agreed to
> place the newsletters on the homepage. We hope that this archive of
> newsletters will help to stimulate discussion and provide a
> historical context for all.
>
> Sonya Hardin RN PhD
> Assistant Professor
> School of Nursing
> Adult Health Nursing Department
> University of NC at Charlotte
> srhardin@...
> 704-687-4388
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or
Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US &
Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/ZuSolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
-~->
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

During our fall conference, I told Richard Cowling that would work
toward getting all the newsletters converted to .pdf files. Our
department is in the process of purchasing adobe 6.0, once this is
purchased and loaded, I will begin having the graduate assistant work
on getting the past newsletters into .pdf. Fran Biley has agreed to
place the newsletters on the homepage. We hope that this archive of
newsletters will help to stimulate discussion and provide a
historical context for all.

Sonya Hardin RN PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Nursing
Adult Health Nursing Department
University of NC at Charlotte
srhardin@...
704-687-4388

During our fall conference, I told Richard Cowling that would work
toward getting all the newsletters converted to .pdf files. Our
department is in the process of purchasing adobe 6.0, once this is
purchased and loaded, I will begin having the graduate assistant work
on getting the past newsletters into .pdf. Fran Biley has agreed to
place the newsletters on the homepage. We hope that this archive of
newsletters will help to stimulate discussion and provide a
historical context for all.

Sonya Hardin RN PhD
Assistant Professor
School of Nursing
Adult Health Nursing Department
University of NC at Charlotte
srhardin@...
704-687-4388

Bear,

I think that having chats is an excellent idea.  Count me in!
Valerie Eschiti
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bear
   To: Martha_E_Rogers@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 7:01 PM
   Subject: [Martha_E_Rogers] Re: way to go!!


   Thanks Ali, Kelly, Diane etc

   As I have realized the emails make roundtrips a lot slower I have had
   some doubts - but i am also heartened by the fact that there is a chat
   capability as well. so i was thinking it might be interesting to have
   some scheduled 'chats'.

   They could be set up and promoted around themes (probabilitistic v
   unpredictable) or around rogerian scholars (hah! thought i would
   specify some people and incur the wrath of others who i had blatantly
   ignored - no way) who would 'guest' for a chat session and discuss
   their work, views, practice. That would address the need for a faster
   turnaround at times. It would also be a nice way for people to promote
   and refine their work and maybe encourage more email dialogue.

   Be interested to see what others think of the idea.

   It would be ideal to have some time preferences - weekdays/nights vs
   weekends...

   also, any other ideas for promoting the listserver will be appreciated...

   bear

   > bear,
   >
   > many thanks for switching over---hope everyone likes this new format
   >
   >                 alison


         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT




   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
   Martha_E_Rogers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Thanks Ali, Kelly, Diane etc

As I have realized the emails make roundtrips a lot slower I have had
some doubts - but i am also heartened by the fact that there is a chat
capability as well. so i was thinking it might be interesting to have
some scheduled 'chats'.

They could be set up and promoted around themes (probabilitistic v
unpredictable) or around rogerian scholars (hah! thought i would
specify some people and incur the wrath of others who i had blatantly
ignored - no way) who would 'guest' for a chat session and discuss
their work, views, practice. That would address the need for a faster
turnaround at times. It would also be a nice way for people to promote
and refine their work and maybe encourage more email dialogue.

Be interested to see what others think of the idea.

It would be ideal to have some time preferences - weekdays/nights vs
weekends...

also, any other ideas for promoting the listserver will be appreciated...

bear

> bear,
>
> many thanks for switching over---hope everyone likes this new format
>
>                 alison

bear,

many thanks for switching over---hope everyone likes this new format

                 alison

Change is good.  Haven't been very active lately but this could be a
time to change that as well.  Thanks for the invite Mr. Bear.  Is it
Dr. Bear yet?

Glad to see the list growing in spite of individual computer
complications. I have been a "lurker" on the fringe.. but always (4-5
years now?) enjoyed the ideas and personalities on this listserve.
Its been intimidating for me to ever talk.. but thats ok.. I have had
much to learn and this is a wonderful place for that.

Just a quick note to thank the early migrators - 8 people signed up
in the last 20 hours.

Going to wait until there are 20 - 30 people on the list before
trying to get the promised discussion going - tho there is no need
for anyone else to hold back...

bear

Thanks for the heads up Bear.. this was easy to do! I like change!

Almost ten years ago I started the first listserv, using very basic
software, but it attracted phenomenal discussion, and opened up the
SUHB to the whole world. A couple of years later I built the first
Rogers webpage, having had to learn html first in order to do it,
complimenting the newsletter and Visions. Version 3 of the page
still lives; the first listserv still has over 130 members, and now
Bear adds a yahoo page to the list of resources, congratulations
Bear. We can now have an online live news section, resource sections
and of course the message board. Has anybody thought of opening a
paypal account to attract more members (having to pay by card really
is the only way nowadays). Come on everybody, join!!  Love Fran