At 07:57 PM Wednesday 2/12/03 +0000, you wrote:
On Wednesday 12 February 2003 16:39, Tripp, Bryan wrote:
> This is interesting.  The author claims that "handwriting is
> such an automatic activity", which seems right to me in this
> context, in that handwriting interferes very little with
> listening.  Why?
I agree, what he says about that is pure bullshit.
What it means is that things he does he regards as natural, and
other things he doesn't want to do.
yup - as someone who always had atrocious handwriting - I now can't use a pen and paper for much more than writing down a phone number. I seriously find it difficult to think / write these days without a keyboard. I am not a touch typist but I regard a keyboard as natural and don't see how anyone can write with a pen and paper.

I am old enough the remember the days of walking into health services, say a Psychiatric Hospital and being shown a patient file about 4 inches thick full of writing over several years, with hardly one bit of useful information able to be extracted - even if the writing could be read. The resistance then by some staff was to structuring notes in anyway other than a long rambling novella badly written. " we'll lose the story" -"you are forcing us / patients into boxes"

My GP now has his monitor facing me, we look at my record and warnings etc together, he clicks his mouse and types a bit, i suggest things he enters them i can read it. This a huge improvement on his old small cards on which he scribbled some badly written cryptic notes - which even he has trouble reading if he has to go back to.

aah natural - nature is after all a human construct too.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TIM O'LEARY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.strategos.com.au



Reply via email to