>from Reg....
>>Of course we've been here before so let's not get too bogged down
>>with our preoccupation that pre-phonatory tuning has more noble
>>origins than the concept of support, nor for that matter that the
>>Bernoulli effect is immune to external influences. Obsessing with
>>the Bernoulli effect is just as extreme, if not more-so, than is that of
>>the principle of support. The problem, as we all seem to agree, is
>>the difficulty of making the support concept have the same
>>meaning for all.
>>Regards Reg.
Randy,did you have any trouble understanding that?
I try to be as direct as possible except for the typo 'than is' for 'as'.
>from Randy
>Reg,
>
>I've read your responses to my postings and others for a long time now.
>While I'm degreed in speech language pathology, teach about 70 students a
>week, have done original research on postoperative rehab (which looks like
>it's going to be published in NATS), am in a graduate school for speech
>language pathology, have credits on major label releases, am producing an
>instructional CD/book with my clients (Dove award winning gospel singers
>Angelo and Veronica), have given master classes across the country, have read
>and understood the major voice science and vocal pedagogy texts available, I
>seldom understand what you are getting at. I am positive I am not alone on
>this. Why the confusing verbiage and subterfuge combined with a slight hint
>of piety?
>
>Randy Buescher
Randy;
The assumptions in your question are at odds with your
claim to "seldom understand."
I gather from your response that you take great pride
in your achievements and therefore have difficulty accepting the
slightest contention that you may be WRONG. You should work
on this, it could be to the benefit of your students.
While some may be impressed with your often stated
credentials, let me assure you that I am not one of them, though I
can't imagine why that should upset you as it seems to have done.
I also have had some experience with technical teaching and for a
teacher this tendency does not bode well, perhaps you feel insecure
or should consider a career change?
As to my writing style, I admit it sometimes gets rather
convoluted but I have enough confidence in both myself and the
interested readers, if there are any, to resist the temptation to talk
to the lowest common denominator. In that respect, I notice _your_
repeated use of highly technical jargon, as if you were trying to
impress someone. This makes your plea for simplification sound
rather hollow! I've always found jargon to be a device to cover
up ignorance. Perhaps this does not apply to you, but rather
indicates an inability to find more clear articulation.
I hope you can understand this, it's the most simple
form I can think of at the moment.
Reg.
Subtle = elusive, mysterious, hard to grasp.
|
|  |
