Febrifuge Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Awesome, thanks. Ideally, that would be packaged/ linked with the document itself. I'd love to know if it's online anywhere. Anything that Daschle and Frist agree on must be pretty important. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Febrifuge Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 Awesome, thanks. Ideally, that would be packaged/ linked with the document itself. I'd love to know if it's online anywhere. Anything that Daschle and Frist agree on must be pretty important. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I like it -- I like parts of it a lot, and I'm proud to be a Founding Member of PAFT -- but I think Boatswain has a good point. If I were writing this, I'd put the final paragraph up above, and specify even more clearly at the outset that this is an ideal set of conditions and circumstances, something to strive toward and use as guidance while making and adjustingn policy. As-is, it reads like a list of -- I hate to use the word demands, so let's say wishes -- that are meant to be completed "in 2013." I understand that the intent is to say, "yo, it's 2013, and the profession has evolved, so the rules should reflect that," but it can be interpreted as "this is where we need to get to in 2013." I'd also be a whole lot more specific about where and by whom it "has often been quoted" that this "top of the license" deal is a priority and a factor. I agree, and I think you're talking about the NP's again and one more way in which they've been able to run rings around us in the past, but having a nice solid statement out of a reliable source would be much more powerful. (I currently find myself thinking of the very end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the government guys assure Marcus and Indy that the Ark is safe, and being studied by "Top Men." Indy asks, "who?" and all they can say is, "Top. Men.") There's a rhetorical bump to get over, where you need to convince the reader that this is important; once you secure that buy-in, you enumerate your steps for achieving this worthy goal. As I say, it's really, really good; I just feel it could be better, clearer, maybe even more powerful while also being less... intense. I'd be happy to do a Joss Whedon style "punch-up-and-polish" on anything for PAFT in the future, if you like. Thanks, we need feedback. We do not want to become a navel gazing organization that does not respond to our constituents and members. So, to Boatswain and Febrifuge and Dr. Holmes: Your input is appreciated and any help you can offer is needed. We cannot do this alone and PAFT should not be looked at as the ones who will "save" the profession. All of us are in this together and pushing the profession into the 21st century is key. Many hands make light work. PS. For anyone interested: Check out the AAPA Facebook site. Some interesting stuff and comments on there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Paula Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 I like it -- I like parts of it a lot, and I'm proud to be a Founding Member of PAFT -- but I think Boatswain has a good point. If I were writing this, I'd put the final paragraph up above, and specify even more clearly at the outset that this is an ideal set of conditions and circumstances, something to strive toward and use as guidance while making and adjustingn policy. As-is, it reads like a list of -- I hate to use the word demands, so let's say wishes -- that are meant to be completed "in 2013." I understand that the intent is to say, "yo, it's 2013, and the profession has evolved, so the rules should reflect that," but it can be interpreted as "this is where we need to get to in 2013." I'd also be a whole lot more specific about where and by whom it "has often been quoted" that this "top of the license" deal is a priority and a factor. I agree, and I think you're talking about the NP's again and one more way in which they've been able to run rings around us in the past, but having a nice solid statement out of a reliable source would be much more powerful. (I currently find myself thinking of the very end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where the government guys assure Marcus and Indy that the Ark is safe, and being studied by "Top Men." Indy asks, "who?" and all they can say is, "Top. Men.") There's a rhetorical bump to get over, where you need to convince the reader that this is important; once you secure that buy-in, you enumerate your steps for achieving this worthy goal. As I say, it's really, really good; I just feel it could be better, clearer, maybe even more powerful while also being less... intense. I'd be happy to do a Joss Whedon style "punch-up-and-polish" on anything for PAFT in the future, if you like. Thanks, we need feedback. We do not want to become a navel gazing organization that does not respond to our constituents and members. So, to Boatswain and Febrifuge and Dr. Holmes: Your input is appreciated and any help you can offer is needed. We cannot do this alone and PAFT should not be looked at as the ones who will "save" the profession. All of us are in this together and pushing the profession into the 21st century is key. Many hands make light work. PS. For anyone interested: Check out the AAPA Facebook site. Some interesting stuff and comments on there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.