[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: for the record
Radsafers
Mike has my support in this. Disagreements on scientific issues are the way
we improve or understanding, but personal comments shouldn't be part of
RADSAFE.
_______________________
John R Johnson, PhD
idias@interchange.ubc.ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael G. Stabin" <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>
To: "Gibbons, Gregory J" <GJGibbon@MAIL.BHI-ERC.COM>;
<radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2002 5:43 AM
Subject: for the record
>
> > but I'm noticing that there are several folks on this list who seem to
> think
> > smearing every other rad health professional is the name of the
> game--hence
> > the reduction in participants
> > --can anyone tell me what has happened (privately, if you don't mind)?
> > I would think that respect and dignity among
> > professional peers would be an expectation that isn't unreasonable), we
> > really need to shape up and act the part, folks.
>
> I absolutely agree that the quality and tenor of the list is the
> responsibility of the participants, with some control by the moderator. We
> all have a responsibility to act respectfully towards each other and
> maintain a high level of dialogue. When this does not occur, I have the
> option of commenting or imposing disciplinary measures. I choose not to
> pounce on every negative comment that is made and frequently throw people
> off the list, as I think that would stifle conversation. I permit a heated
> comment here or there to go by (I have said some heated things myself at
> times), and intervene if a thread continues in a strongly negative tone or
> an off-topic rabbit trail. If you don't like the points of view of some
> participants, there are delete buttons and email filtering mechanisms. It
is
> *not mandatory* that you read and appreciate every word put out on this
> *free* list. Read what you want, ignore the rest. I do. Or get the digest
> and just read what interests you.
>
> Regarding the recent exchange, I think Ruth's comment was not meant to be
> rude to Kurt, I thought she was just saying "this is not a huge safety
> concern, why should we wring our hands about it?" (correct me if I'm
wrong,
> Ruth). The reply, accusing her of pomposity, was more of the kind that
would
> be considered by some for discipline, but which I decided to let go for
the
> moment.
>
> > quite amused to watch us "radiation professionals" bicker like little
> > children in a sandbox---splitting hairs over really stupid arguments
that
> in
> > and of themselves often have no significant relevance to radiation
> > protection whatsoever---
>
> The threads about epidemiology and validity of LNT are the ones most often
> criticized, but they are of course quite relevant to the current and
> possible future practice of health physics, and their minutae are
certainly
> fair game for discussion. If this bores you, just *don't read it*. I'm not
> going to tolerate people "smearing" each other or anyone else on the list.
> Personal attacks will get my attention, and continuation after a private
> warning WILL be cause for discipline. Hair splitting will be tolerated and
> is even encouraged - who am I to say which particular piece of data may or
> may not be crucial to advances in our understanding?
>
> Mike
>
>
> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
> Vanderbilt University
> 1161 21st Avenue South
> Nashville, TN 37232-2675
> Phone (615) 343-0068
> Fax (615) 322-3764
> e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
> internet www.doseinfo-radar.com
>
>
>
> ************************************************************************
> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>