[esnr] Re: Further message from Jiri Tyl with commentary

  • From: "Gruzelier, John H" <j.gruzelier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:11:21 +0100

Dear Lesley,

We have close to 100 members. The "20" figure you refer to is "computer-speak" 
found on every other line, as seen below in Jiri's letter.

The 100 figure will certainly grow with the new concept.

Speaking for the invited scientist speakers at Winterthur, every one expressed 
strong interest in participting actively in the field.  

As you know we have made the interests of practitioners our primary concern, 
placing the importance of setting up training and certification procedures as a 
priority above the next scientific meeting.

We have made as one of our main objectives a clinical-academic mentoring 
scheme; this arose at the suggestion of practitioners.

Further, I have spearheaded a clinical forum initiative with i-SNR, and they 
will introduce this at the Florida meeting. My overture to their Board on this 
was to engage practitioners more with the scientific meeting, and to encourage 
their participation to share insights about protocols and outcomes, in a less 
formal setting. Aside from a keynote at i-SNR in August I will also be leading 
a discussion forum, and will see how it works.

Rome was not built in a day, but the new society concept is how the Board feels 
we can move the field forward most effectively, and gain scientific respect for 
the work of practitioners.

With best wishes,


-----Original Message-----
From: esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:esnr-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Lesley Parkinson
Sent: 18 June 2004 08:16
To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [esnr] Re: Further message from Jiri Tyl with commentary

Dear John,
Thank you for keeping us up to date with members comments.
I think I want to echo Juri's comments about the need for space for grass 
-root practitioners as well as more academic scientists.
It did concern me in Winterthur when many of the academics appeared to show 
little or no interest in clinical presentations.
However as you know I am deeply concerned about training in Neurofeedback 
and the constant pushing of the BCIA as a training model which, in my view, 
is far too basic and insufficient.
I think that we should have a European based training and the work done by 
the E-SNR so far is excellent.
A second concern is the viable funding of a separate organisation.
I am not sure how many members we would have, but if Juri is right and it is 
only 20 then that is a consideration when we are thinking about viability.
Best Wishes

>From: "Gruzelier, John H" <j.gruzelier@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: esnr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To: <ESNR@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: [esnr] Further message from Jiri Tyl with commentary
>Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:28:12 +0100
>Content-Type: text/plain;
>       charset="iso-8859-2"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>1. I think independent Euro association is necessary for the dealing =
>inside the EU frame - certifications, the acceptation by national =
>professional societies a.s.
>2. in the same time, the association with American Founding Fathers =
>should be kept firm and vivid
>3. I understand your move to Science, necessary for gaining the respect =
>However, in the umbrella association has to be the space for grass-root =
>practitioners, without any scientific ambitions - accepting, homely =
>space - not to make them afraid of the big, yet clod Science they do not =
>belong to.
>Otherwise we could lose the membership from the field.=20
>Please keep it mind, Herr Professor :))
>Jiri Tyl
>The issue of the special relationship was addressed earlier today in =
>commentary on Geir's message.
>Regarding the role of the practitioner, we have given this a high =
>priority, as shown by our placing the Training course before the next =
>scientific meeting!=20
>I know this dosen't please everyone, but it was a unanimous decision.
>Members must not under estimate the time involved in running a =
>scientific organisation, setting up training courses, certification =
>procedures, scientific meetings, mentoring systems, etc ,etc.  We simply =
>cannot do everything at once. [The Training Committee has yet to meet =
>since Winterthur.] The new society concept has taken up vast amounts of =
>Currently we are researching the possibility of having the first =
>week-long course in Trondheim in September, 11th-19th, followed by a =
>second week  early in 2005 at location to be decided.  Trondheim are =
>considering giving us university affiliation for the accreditation; this =
>does not mean that all the courses will take place there.
>Once we can get the Training and Certification matters on course, we =
>will turn to the next meeting.  At the earliest this will be the autumn =
>of 2005. =20
>Volunteers for work on the Training and Certification Committee would be =
>most welcome.

Other related posts: