Re: Terminology

[Guest guest]

a,

I think you are indirectly making a good case for an organization made

up of proponents of the various " NFP " systems, an organization in which

people could discuss this issue in some face to face meetings. I, too, have

wondered if the " family planning " part of our common language is the best,

especially since it was introduced by Margaret Sanger. Would a phrase such

as " natural conception regulation " be more appropriate? It would be more in

keeping with the fertility postponement of ecological breastfeeding than the

" planning " language. And let us not have any trademarking of the phrase or

its shortening such as " naturconreg. "

-- Kippley

terminology

>

> Since terminology is so important to battles for hearts and minds, I

> have lately been wondering anew about the moniker we have

> accepted--natural family planning or NFP.

>

> I know we have debated this in the past, but I recently read something

> that made me think again about it. It had to do with the idea that

> " family planning " was what we were implanting in the mind of people with

> the term, and whether or not it was the main idea we wanted to implant.

>

> I'd like to know if there are any new points of discussion going on out

> there in the rest of the nfp world about this?

>

> One that occurs to me is that what seems to be so needed today is the

> idea of reestablishing that we are creatures, not the Creator. We are

> not ultimately the final decision makers, but always must accept the

> limits of our position re the Creator. On the other hand, we are

> " procreators " by God's design, and I would not want to downplay the

> significance of that. Do you think the term, " NFP " advances or does

> battle with these realities?

>

> a

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You are probably right there , re the organization. It is long past

time to have such a coalition. A formal one would make the most sense

as that would tend toward unity and dissemination of the good

accomplished. Being neither a leader in the profession nor

geographically well situated for much travel, I would propose others

such as yourself seriously consider such an undertaking.

Regarding your suggestion re terminology, my main point is that our

language should contribute to the fact that we are the ministers, rather

than the arbiters, of God's design. I don't think that " regulation "

would be substantially different than " planning " .

I guess my mind is going in directions such as " natural family

co-planning " NFCP, or something along those lines.

KJ

F. Kippley wrote:

> a,

> I think you are indirectly making a good case for an organization made

> up of proponents of the various " NFP " systems, an organization in which

> people could discuss this issue in some face to face meetings. I, too,

> have

> wondered if the " family planning " part of our common language is the best,

> especially since it was introduced by Margaret Sanger. Would a phrase such

> as " natural conception regulation " be more appropriate? It would be

> more in

> keeping with the fertility postponement of ecological breastfeeding than

> the

> " planning " language. And let us not have any trademarking of the phrase or

> its shortening such as " naturconreg. "

>

> -- Kippley

>

>

>

>

>

> terminology

>

>

> >

> > Since terminology is so important to battles for hearts and minds, I

> > have lately been wondering anew about the moniker we have

> > accepted--natural family planning or NFP.

> >

> > I know we have debated this in the past, but I recently read something

> > that made me think again about it. It had to do with the idea that

> > " family planning " was what we were implanting in the mind of people with

> > the term, and whether or not it was the main idea we wanted to implant.

> >

> > I'd like to know if there are any new points of discussion going on out

> > there in the rest of the nfp world about this?

> >

> > One that occurs to me is that what seems to be so needed today is the

> > idea of reestablishing that we are creatures, not the Creator. We are

> > not ultimately the final decision makers, but always must accept the

> > limits of our position re the Creator. On the other hand, we are

> > " procreators " by God's design, and I would not want to downplay the

> > significance of that. Do you think the term, " NFP " advances or does

> > battle with these realities?

> >

> > a

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Natural Fertility ation?

Cindi"This is the true joy of life: the being used up for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; being a force of nature instead of a feverish, selfish little clot of ailments and grievances, complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy." Bernard Shaw

-----Original Message-----From: kjohannes Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2004 2:27 PMTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Re: terminologyYou are probably right there , re the organization. It is long past time to have such a coalition. A formal one would make the most sense as that would tend toward unity and dissemination of the good accomplished. Being neither a leader in the profession nor geographically well situated for much travel, I would propose others such as yourself seriously consider such an undertaking.Regarding your suggestion re terminology, my main point is that our language should contribute to the fact that we are the ministers, rather than the arbiters, of God's design. I don't think that "regulation" would be substantially different than "planning".I guess my mind is going in directions such as "natural family co-planning" NFCP, or something along those lines.KJ F. Kippley wrote:> a,> I think you are indirectly making a good case for an organization made> up of proponents of the various "NFP" systems, an organization in which> people could discuss this issue in some face to face meetings. I, too, > have> wondered if the "family planning" part of our common language is the best,> especially since it was introduced by Margaret Sanger. Would a phrase such> as "natural conception regulation" be more appropriate? It would be > more in> keeping with the fertility postponement of ecological breastfeeding than > the> "planning" language. And let us not have any trademarking of the phrase or> its shortening such as "naturconreg."> > -- Kippley> > > > > > terminology> > > >> > Since terminology is so important to battles for hearts and minds, I> > have lately been wondering anew about the moniker we have> > accepted--natural family planning or NFP.> >> > I know we have debated this in the past, but I recently read something> > that made me think again about it. It had to do with the idea that> > "family planning" was what we were implanting in the mind of people with> > the term, and whether or not it was the main idea we wanted to implant.> >> > I'd like to know if there are any new points of discussion going on out> > there in the rest of the nfp world about this?> >> > One that occurs to me is that what seems to be so needed today is the> > idea of reestablishing that we are creatures, not the Creator. We are> > not ultimately the final decision makers, but always must accept the> > limits of our position re the Creator. On the other hand, we are> > "procreators" by God's design, and I would not want to downplay the> > significance of that. Do you think the term, "NFP" advances or does> > battle with these realities?> >> > a> >> >> >> >> >

[Guest guest]

:

In bipolar training, neither is souce or reference since the training is done with the difference between the two signals.

Jim

-----Original Message-----From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ]On Behalf Of Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 5:34 PMTo: braintrainer Subject: Re: Terminology

Jim,

I like your idea. This is how I keep my notes and you're right, it helps.

In your C3/C4/g example, what is the reference? Is there a reference in bipolar training?

<jccamptampabay (DOT) rr.com> wrote:

Friends:

It would certainly help me, and I think others, if we all utilized a standard way of specifying our training sites in our communication with each other. To say that one trained at C3-P3 or T3-T4 is totally ambiguous. Does it mean a bipolar hookup or is it 2 channel? Who knows?

I suggest we confine ourselves to the standard system, i.e.,

Treatment Site/Reference Site/ground

Example T3/A1/g is a single channel with the training site at T3, the reference at A1 and the ground wherev convenient like A2.

Example F3/A1/g F4/A2/g says in very unambiguous fashion that this is 2 channels with the treatment sites at F3 and F4 and references at A1 for left and A2 for right.

:Another example: C3/C4/g is a bipolar hookup with C3 as one site, C4 as the other site.

Last example: Fz/A1-A2/g puts the training cite at Fz and uses linked ears for the reference.

Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

Or more exactly, in a Bipolar training either is the source or reference.  Just the same as with an ear reference.  e.g. C3-A1 is training the difference between the 2 electrodes, just as C3-C4.The difference between two electrodes is always what we are training.  That's why I prefer the site-site notation.Best, : In bipolar training, neither is souce or reference since the training is done with the difference between the two signals. Jim   -----Original Message-----From: braintrainer [mailto:braintrainer ]On Behalf Of Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 5:34 PMTo: braintrainer Subject: Re: Terminology Jim,   I like your idea.  This is how I keep my notes and you're right, it helps.   In your C3/C4/g example, what is the reference?  Is there a reference in bipolar training? <jccamptampabay (DOT) rr.com> wrote:    Friends:   It would certainly help me, and I think others, if we all utilized a standard way of specifying our training sites in our communication with each other.  To say that one trained at C3-P3 or T3-T4 is totally ambiguous.  Does it mean a bipolar hookup or is it 2 channel?  Who knows?   I suggest we confine ourselves to the standard system, i.e.,      Treatment Site/Reference Site/ground       Example  T3/A1/g  is a single channel with the training site at T3, the reference at A1 and the ground wherev convenient like A2.       Example  F3/A1/g F4/A2/g says in very unambiguous fashion that this is 2 channels with the treatment sites at F3 and F4 and references at A1 for left and A2 for right.       :Another example:  C3/C4/g is a bipolar hookup with C3 as one site, C4 as the other site.       Last example:  Fz/A1-A2/g puts the training cite at Fz and uses linked ears for the reference. Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates.

[Guest guest]

Well, while we on the subject....I have a new client who had a QEEG done by a Dr. from out of town, who made protocol recommendations. His terminology is exactly the problem. I left him messages 3 days in a row trying to get clarity and did not hear from him. He wrote, for example, "inhibit 2-8Hz at F3 plus O1". Now...to the best of my guessing ability, I would say he's suggesting 1 channel with F3 as active and O1 as reference, but it's the "plus" that's throwing me off. In one suggestion he refers to 2 channel training, so that's what makes me think he's implying 1 channel with the example I gave. What do you guys think?thanks,\ Lynn Rutherford

[Guest guest]

Dear Lynn

each person could use their own "terminology" because there's not any formal agreement between all the professionals in this area (no comments), so I strongly recommend you to contact with that Dr. and ask him about those protocols, seems to me that he's talking about 1 ch @ F3 inh 2-8Hz, and then (after) do O1. I personally think that inhibit Delta, Theta and part of Alpha @ O1 is not a good idea unless you have a strong reason to do that, based on your data (QEEG and/or Assessment).

Hope this may help,

Regards,

,C.H.

Trainer

Re: Terminology

Well, while we on the subject....I have a new client who had a QEEG done by a Dr. from out of town, who made protocol recommendations. His terminology is exactly the problem. I left him messages 3 days in a row trying to get clarity and did not hear from him.

He wrote, for example, "inhibit 2-8Hz at F3 plus O1". Now...to the best of my guessing ability, I would say he's suggesting 1 channel with F3 as active and O1 as reference, but it's the "plus" that's throwing me off. In one suggestion he refers to 2 channel training, so that's what makes me think he's implying 1 channel with the example I gave. What do you guys think?thanks,\

Lynn Rutherford

[Guest guest]

Well, the reassurance I got from all your responses, is that the Dr.'s language is meaningless to you too. I've already tried repeatedly to get through to him, and he doesn't return my calls, so I'm going to punt this best I can and think it will be fine. Lynn Rah Wheelihan-Dasher wrote: This is my language brain at work, as I'm not a neurofeedback provider. I put together the mention of 2c training with the F3 inhibit and think he may mean F3-? and O1-? Whatever sensible references one likes to use. Rah From: Lynn Rutherford <rutherfordlprodigy (DOT) net>Reply-To: braintrainer To: braintrainer Subject: Re: TerminologyDate: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 21:21:32 -0800 (PST) Well, while we on the subject....I have a new client who had a QEEG done by a Dr. from out of town, who made protocol recommendations. His terminology is exactly the problem. I left him messages 3 days in a row trying to get clarity and did not hear from him. He wrote, for example, "inhibit 2-8Hz at F3 plus O1". Now...to the best of my guessing ability, I would say he's suggesting 1 channel with F3 as active and O1 as reference, but it's the "plus" that's throwing me off. In one suggestion he refers to 2 channel training, so that's what makes me think he's implying 1 channel with the example I gave. What do you guys think?thanks,\ Lynn Rutherford MSN Messenger: converse com os seus amigos online. Instale grátis. Clique aqui.