| "windsor" |
01:53 |
23/11/2006 |
|
There's been another outbreak of 'nameism'. Now I'm as happy as the next
person to respect people for their insights. Which doesn't make them gods
sitting on a wall. I may wish to quote something they said or did (and I
often do) but that's it. No total worship. I don't do worship.
We need to consider the concept of Respect (I'm up for that) versus
Veneration. (I don't do that) Ideas (Yes, please) versus Names (I don't
worship mankind) I think people are losing the true perspective. 'Jo said -
- ' is an attribution. Imagining that Jo is a figure beyond reach and
whatever she / he said is a tablet of stone lacks rigour.
It could well be that Mary or Fred Smith's perception of a special moment
with a Client is of at least equal value to anything said by a Name. And so
deserves equal respect.
Please can we stop venerating names? Those so often repeated undertook much
work and shared many good ideas - for which we respect them. But gods they
cannot be. Please let us talk about just what they said - not venerate them
for existing.
I know many people will dislike this. But perhaps there may be a grain of
truth in what I say.
Old Joe down here
|
|
| "craig osment" |
03:14 |
23/11/2006 |
|
Joe
I agree to a certain extent, we all have valuable things to contribute whether we are one of the founding fathers or doing a SF session for the first time. But there is also a certain respect given by naming where a quote or a certain way of working came from, it's giving credit where its's due isn't it?
It could get a bit like quoting in an essay without crediting the author if we took the 'no veneration' idea too far. How would we know when someone is being given credit or being 'venerated' where's the line?
Speaking of credit where credits due, a 12 yr old girl who has had trouble with bullies asked me today 'what is all this Solution stuff about then?' (after 5 sessions) and i attempted some inept and long winded explanations. She said at the end of my preamble 'its focusing on what you can do and not on what you can't , isn't it?' i couldn't think of a much better way of putting what we'd been talking about. I thought it was neat and very right for her.
craig
----- Original Message -----
From: windsor
To: craig
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: [members] An upopular thought
There's been another outbreak of 'nameism'. Now I'm as happy as the next person to respect people for their insights. Which doesn't make them gods sitting on a wall. I may wish to quote something they said or did (and I often do) but that's it. No total worship. I don't do worship.
We need to consider the concept of Respect (I'm up for that) versus Veneration. (I don't do that) Ideas (Yes, please) versus Names (I don't worship mankind) I think people are losing the true perspective. 'Jo said - - ' is an attribution. Imagining that Jo is a figure beyond reach and whatever she / he said is a tablet of stone lacks rigour.
It could well be that Mary or Fred Smith's perception of a special moment with a Client is of at least equal value to anything said by a Name. And so deserves equal respect.
Please can we stop venerating names? Those so often repeated undertook much work and shared many good ideas - for which we respect them. But gods they cannot be. Please let us talk about just what they said - not venerate them for existing.
I know many people will dislike this. But perhaps there may be a grain of truth in what I say.
Old Joe down here
|
|
| "Solution News" |
03:04 |
23/11/2006 |
|
Hi Joe
I'm not sure what examples of 'nameism' you are referring to? I looked back through the recent posts to try to work out what you were referring to, and the only 'names' I could see were Greg's references (which I commented on) to a book (by O'Hanlon & Rowan) and a training video (featuring de Shazer). If that's what you meant, please note that this is a discussion about RESOURCES, their utility and the slants they place on the model, and certainly NOT any form of hero worship.
If on the other hand you meant another thread, which one? Am I missing some stuff here?
Ian
----- Original Message -----
From: windsor
To: Ian
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: [members] An upopular thought
There's been another outbreak of 'nameism'. Now I'm as happy as the next person to respect people for their insights. Which doesn't make them gods sitting on a wall. I may wish to quote something they said or did (and I often do) but that's it. No total worship. I don't do worship.
We need to consider the concept of Respect (I'm up for that) versus Veneration. (I don't do that) Ideas (Yes, please) versus Names (I don't worship mankind) I think people are losing the true perspective. 'Jo said - - ' is an attribution. Imagining that Jo is a figure beyond reach and whatever she / he said is a tablet of stone lacks rigour.
It could well be that Mary or Fred Smith's perception of a special moment with a Client is of at least equal value to anything said by a Name. And so deserves equal respect.
Please can we stop venerating names? Those so often repeated undertook much work and shared many good ideas - for which we respect them. But gods they cannot be. Please let us talk about just what they said - not venerate them for existing.
I know many people will dislike this. But perhaps there may be a grain of truth in what I say.
Old Joe down here
|
|
| "greg vinnicombe" |
07:57 |
23/11/2006 |
|
Lost me here Joe - can you indicate what you want to say in a couple of sentences. This would really help me.
Greg
PS I hope you haven't got a gun in your hand! (Any offers? - Guy)
----- Original Message -----
From: windsor
To: Greg
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: [members] An upopular thought
There's been another outbreak of 'nameism'. Now I'm as happy as the next person to respect people for their insights. Which doesn't make them gods sitting on a wall. I may wish to quote something they said or did (and I often do) but that's it. No total worship. I don't do worship.
We need to consider the concept of Respect (I'm up for that) versus Veneration. (I don't do that) Ideas (Yes, please) versus Names (I don't worship mankind) I think people are losing the true perspective. 'Jo said - - ' is an attribution. Imagining that Jo is a figure beyond reach and whatever she / he said is a tablet of stone lacks rigour.
It could well be that Mary or Fred Smith's perception of a special moment with a Client is of at least equal value to anything said by a Name. And so deserves equal respect.
Please can we stop venerating names? Those so often repeated undertook much work and shared many good ideas - for which we respect them. But gods they cannot be. Please let us talk about just what they said - not venerate them for existing.
I know many people will dislike this. But perhaps there may be a grain of truth in what I say.
Old Joe down here
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 23/11/2006
|
|
| "Guy Shennan" |
01:15 |
27/11/2006 |
|
Hey Joe!
And to name him ( :-) ) - Hendrix.
________________________________
From: members@ukasfp.co.uk [mailto:members@ukasfp.co.uk] On Behalf Of
greg vinnicombe
Sent: 23 November 2006 19:58
To: Guy Shennan
Subject: [members] An upopular thought
Lost me here Joe - can you indicate what you want to say in a couple of
sentences. This would really help me.
Greg
PS I hope you haven't got a gun in your hand! (Any offers? - Guy)
----- Original Message -----
From: windsor
To: Greg
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:53 PM
Subject: [members] An upopular thought
There's been another outbreak of 'nameism'. Now I'm as happy as
the next person to respect people for their insights. Which doesn't make
them gods sitting on a wall. I may wish to quote something they said or
did (and I often do) but that's it. No total worship. I don't do
worship.
We need to consider the concept of Respect (I'm up for that)
versus Veneration. (I don't do that) Ideas (Yes, please) versus Names (I
don't worship mankind) I think people are losing the true perspective.
'Jo said - - ' is an attribution. Imagining that Jo is a figure beyond
reach and whatever she / he said is a tablet of stone lacks rigour.
It could well be that Mary or Fred Smith's perception of a
special moment with a Client is of at least equal value to anything said
by a Name. And so deserves equal respect.
Please can we stop venerating names? Those so often repeated
undertook much work and shared many good ideas - for which we respect
them. But gods they cannot be. Please let us talk about just what they
said - not venerate them for existing.
I know many people will dislike this. But perhaps there may be a
grain of truth in what I say.
Old Joe down here
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date:
23/11/2006
|
|
| "windsor" |
03:14 |
27/11/2006 |
|
Hi Hendrix & Greg -
Firstly please re-read my mail below. So now we have my remarks in
perspective. Forgive me, Greg, but I can't see why my message is unclear. I
have read it over and over and it seems very simple.
Well, why 'name him'? Please let us stay gender neutral. (It works for me)
Which male had you in mind?
Loved the 'gun' concept. Amongst the things you don't want to know, I'm a
qualified small arms instructor and clay pigeon shooting coach. And I used
to shoot rifles at Bisley in competition. The one I loved was the 1,000 yard
range (about 2/3 of a mile) mainly because the wind varies all down that
range in both direction and strength. And the target at the end looks v.
small!! When I read that people miss targets at 100 yds I wonder what
they're doing. But as you will know I deplore violence. Shooting at targets
or flying clay ashtrays is OK. Not shooting other people.
Couple of sentences Greg? I'll try.
When Diana died, the effusion of feeling expressed by the media and some
people was quite sickening. SdeS and Insoo (and others) did good work, for
which they should be respected. The terms and tones used when their names
are mentioned imply some holy vision of wonderment. They are just two people
who deserve respect - not veneration. Think about the un-named amongst us
who have done sterling work, too.
5 sentences. Sorry about that. Clear enough?
Joe
_____
Hey Joe!
And to name him ( :-) ) - Hendrix.
_____
Lost me here Joe - can you indicate what you want to say in a couple of
sentences. This would really help me.
Greg
PS I hope you haven't got a gun in your hand! (Any offers? - Guy)
There's been another outbreak of 'nameism'. Now I'm as happy as the next
person to respect people for their insights. Which doesn't make them gods
sitting on a wall. I may wish to quote something they said or did (and I
often do) but that's it. No total worship. I don't do worship.
We need to consider the concept of Respect (I'm up for that) versus
Veneration. (I don't do that) Ideas (Yes, please) versus Names (I don't
worship mankind) I think people are losing the true perspective. 'Jo said -
- ' is an attribution. Imagining that Jo is a figure beyond reach and
whatever she / he said is a tablet of stone lacks rigour.
It could well be that Mary or Fred Smith's perception of a special moment
with a Client is of at least equal value to anything said by a Name. And so
deserves equal respect.
Please can we stop venerating names? Those so often repeated undertook much
work and shared many good ideas - for which we respect them. But gods they
cannot be. Please let us talk about just what they said - not venerate them
for existing.
I know many people will dislike this. But perhaps there may be a grain of
truth in what I say.
Old Joe down here
_____
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 23/11/2006
|
|
| "Rayya Ghul" |
04:05 |
27/11/2006 |
|
Joe,
>
> When Diana died, the effusion of feeling expressed by the media and some
> people was quite sickening. SdeS and Insoo (and others) did good work, for
> which they should be respected. The terms and tones used when their names
> are mentioned imply some holy vision of wonderment. They are just two
> people
> who deserve respect - not veneration. Think about the un-named amongst us
> who have done sterling work, too.
Given that this is a forum that uses writing as its medium I don't know
how you decide what tone someone is using and how you are making the
judgement that people view them as a 'holy vision of wonderment'. Seems
to me that's probably more likely to be your reading of it.
I certainly haven't picked up any of this so-called veneration that you
mention. SdeS was an extremely modest man who never put himself on any
kind of pedestal or demanded special respect. People were often very
surprised to discover they'd been sitting next to him at a conference or a
workshop. Insoo is an incredibly gracious lady who will speak to anyone
and treat them with genuine interest and respect.
I wonder why you feel the need to go on and on about this anyway. I've
noticed plenty of respect for people on this list and I've noticed plenty
of compliments to people on this list regardless of how you might see
their SF standing
Instead of telling us all what we should be doing all the time, perhaps
you could just do what you're suggesting and tell us about people on this
list whose 'sterling work' you'd like to draw to our attention. We always
like to hear about and celebrate success.
Rayya
--
Rayya Ghul
Senior Lecturer, Occupational Therapy Pathway
Recruitment Lead, Occupational Therapy
Canterbury Christ Church University
)
|
|
| "greg vinnicombe" |
08:44 |
27/11/2006 |
|
Hi Joe
Is there anything you haven't done? We'll have to meet up sometime and discuss things over a decent bottle of malt.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: windsor
To: Greg
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: [members] An upopular thought
Hi Hendrix & Greg -
Firstly please re-read my mail below. So now we have my remarks in perspective. Forgive me, Greg, but I can't see why my message is unclear. I have read it over and over and it seems very simple.
Well, why 'name him'? Please let us stay gender neutral. (It works for me) Which male had you in mind?
Loved the 'gun' concept. Amongst the things you don't want to know, I'm a qualified small arms instructor and clay pigeon shooting coach. And I used to shoot rifles at Bisley in competition. The one I loved was the 1,000 yard range (about 2/3 of a mile) mainly because the wind varies all down that range in both direction and strength. And the target at the end looks v. small!! When I read that people miss targets at 100 yds I wonder what they're doing. But as you will know I deplore violence. Shooting at targets or flying clay ashtrays is OK. Not shooting other people.
Couple of sentences Greg? I'll try.
When Diana died, the effusion of feeling expressed by the media and some people was quite sickening. SdeS and Insoo (and others) did good work, for which they should be respected. The terms and tones used when their names are mentioned imply some holy vision of wonderment. They are just two people who deserve respect - not veneration. Think about the un-named amongst us who have done sterling work, too.
5 sentences. Sorry about that. Clear enough?
Joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Joe!
And to name him ( J ) - Hendrix.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lost me here Joe - can you indicate what you want to say in a couple of sentences. This would really help me.
Greg
PS I hope you haven't got a gun in your hand! (Any offers? - Guy)
There's been another outbreak of 'nameism'. Now I'm as happy as the next person to respect people for their insights. Which doesn't make them gods sitting on a wall. I may wish to quote something they said or did (and I often do) but that's it. No total worship. I don't do worship.
We need to consider the concept of Respect (I'm up for that) versus Veneration. (I don't do that) Ideas (Yes, please) versus Names (I don't worship mankind) I think people are losing the true perspective. 'Jo said - - ' is an attribution. Imagining that Jo is a figure beyond reach and whatever she / he said is a tablet of stone lacks rigour.
It could well be that Mary or Fred Smith's perception of a special moment with a Client is of at least equal value to anything said by a Name. And so deserves equal respect.
Please can we stop venerating names? Those so often repeated undertook much work and shared many good ideas - for which we respect them. But gods they cannot be. Please let us talk about just what they said - not venerate them for existing.
I know many people will dislike this. But perhaps there may be a grain of truth in what I say.
Old Joe down here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/548 - Release Date: 23/11/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.16/551 - Release Date: 25/11/2006
|
|
| "windsor" |
10:02 |
27/11/2006 |
|
Hi Greg -
I'm old - so I've managed to do quite a lot!! OK - let's meet but one bottle
won't suffice. (You're paying?)
Pls mail me privately or phone 01202 658888 - I'd love to meet you and talk.
This week? I'm in Poole, Dorset. But the car works.
Cheers - Joe
Amongst other things I owned a small chain of Ladies Lingerie shops. And we
ran shows for the Church Women's' Guild.
_____
Hi Joe
Is there anything you haven't done? We'll have to meet up sometime and
discuss things over a decent bottle of malt.
Greg
|
|
| |
|
