| |
|
|
 STEAMY KARLAQUIPS:
>> People should speak up when they have strong opinions and wish to be heard. It's a pleasant--albeit rare--experience when there is no penalty or attempt at punishment for voicing opinions, especially when those opinions can be backed up with pure facts. I'm always happy to jump atop my soapbox.
>> One reason I do so well in my life is that I know how to place events into proper perspective. I wish everyone else would attempt to do the same in order to improve quality of life for themselves and for their friends, peers, and loved ones.
>> I express myself through language as an art form. It's how I paint a multihued picture.
>> Mimicry is the highest form of flattery. Are you certain that you wish to flatter me?
>> This is a profession which first and foremost deals with words. I thought we were all lovers of language. If you understand English, you don't need to be clairaudient to understand my message.
>> Please rethink your choices. I promise you that your life will be greatly more satisfying to you if you select an approach toward positive attitude adjustment and sweet respect for yourself. Respect for your brethren will follow.
>> Stating personal facts which others view as impressive does not reveal any lack of humility on the part of the messenger.
>> I don't know who you want me to be, but I'm too busy happily being myself to bother worrying about it.
>> I was a pouty 14-year-old when it came time to take my graduation picture for high school. Always thinking, always planning, always concentrating. People were afraid of me then, and they're afraid of me now!
>> I'm a rebel with a cause. Can you see that? Do you have a cause?
>> I'd like to encourage you to pursue as many great achievements in your life as you can possibly be comfortable with experiencing. I hope you will then have the generosity to offer to share the benefits of your experiences. I presage that you will have a great knack for utilizing your special talents, many of which you already possess. Should anyone in your future shortsightedly perceive your speaking or writing style as containing meaningless, unsophisticated babblement and then critique it with a label similar to the one you have used to tag mine, I wish you the best of success in trying to explain and express yourself with poise--minus the juvenility and invective--in such a way that your important messages will be understood in the simplest of terms and accepted with healthy gratitude. I hope your peers will not then demand false humility from you just so they can feel better about their own lives. I hope you will assume the role of stalwart defender of personal freedoms. You strike me as a great leader of the exoteric public. May you learn to be more inclusive for the sake of all. With gracious and supportive cheers for you, I have full faith that you will.
>> I've always liked the concept of embracing the globe in its entirety, which is why I encourage inclusiveness before judging, why I have lots of international friends, and why I advise looking closely at all options in life and in speedbuilding before clinging to any single absolute. Here is what I sometimes say to people who have misunderstood my strong personality: To know me is to love me. If you don't love me, you don't know me.
>> I find a worldly personality to be very attractive.
>> I've been involved in writing journalism since I was nine years old. When I become very opinionated, my writing style can take on an edge sharper than that of the sharpest sword. I know that. But that's just who I am. No apologies for my personality and writing style.
>> A hopelessly unfixable clonal groupthink mentality is running rampant at this forum site [in reference to a derelict public online student forum where derisive individuals once gathered]. A psychiatrist or philosopher would have a field day analyzing the people here. Insecurities abound. Fear of success is in great supply among the masses phobic to change and modernized progress, thus impeding personal and professional growth from a sociological standpoint. It's a classic case of the unenlightened leading the unenlightened further astray, on and on down a path of no return.
>> Anyone who doesn't see that I am poking fun at myself with delicious abandon is missing a great opportunity to experience the beauty of humor. The ability to see humor is often a choice. Will your willingness be to appreciate or reject?
>> I first developed my stilted style of journalism with lots of declarative sentences when I was about three years old. I've nurtured it and added a few more vocabulary words since then. No one has ever accused me of going after any Miss Congeniality awards in my writing, but I have received numerous Creative Writing awards, Humorous Writing awards, and other language-oriented accolades throughout my life. I have no intention of altering my colorfully expressive journalism style or my personality so that I may fit into a mold of someone else's making. I think there might be some Procrustean tactics going on here, and that just doesn't work with me. I'm an extraordinarily independent-minded person. Who I really am is in front of everyone to see. But sometimes others' perceptions are colored with expectations and their own self-doubts, which severely clouds vision. Even the caviling Zoiluses don't change who I am in any circumstances.
>> My feelings are my choice and my right. Please don't label my emotions for me.
>> My four-year degree studies greatly simplified my early reporting experiences. The aversion to extended education is dangerous to the classification of reporting as a professional occupation.
>> It's very easy to achieve accuracy without speed, but impossible to achieve speed without accuracy. Your true speed is only that which you can write accurately. If you tackle a certain speed but cannot write it accurately, then you are not writing that speed. So in that sense speed and accuracy are inseparable as a single entity.
>> My objective observation: It's sad to see babes in the woods so easily taken in by a cultish leader, like so many duped lambs heading for slaughter. By the time the innocents are sufficiently frightened, it's too late to turn back. How tragic for all who fall prey to the Hansel and Gretel enticement.
>> There ought to be a law! How can we protect naive students from the self-serving, menacing quackery propounded by unqualified speedbuilding preachers? Beauticians, barbers, lawyers, doctors, and plumbers have to demonstrate requisite skill and obtain credentials suitable for practicing their craft. Overreaching teachers and theory authors are irresponsibly endangering the futures of unsuspecting apostolic followers when stretching beyond their knowledge base and traversing a nonreality-paved logic trail. The students they lead down that trail often don't know how to guard against false and misleading instruction and rumor.
>> +++ LETTER TO HERCULES - [in reference to the public online student forum gone viciously awry with abundant jealousy and hatred]
POUR RIRE:
A vapid epistle from a madwoman:
Hercules, Please Come!
Hercules, I think we need to get you in here to wrestle the seven-headed monster this forum site has birthed. There are shorthand students and reporters manque, at least one reporting teacher manque, and purblind many insisting upon regularly visiting the termitarium as makebates. The time is long overdue for a complete shutdown of this Gehenna in its present form. The evil is daily more serpiginous with carnivority. And I'm a vegetarian!
Mobocracy remains extant. Doodlebugs on all sides remain quiet, while flapdoodle and frivolous shenanigans continue aplenty. The leering and fleering by the henhearted has been mildly entertaining, but even the grin-producing value in that is wearing thin. Spizzerinctum is heartily discouraged and ridiculed by the mediocrists with fustigation. The pursuit of proper English is mocked and snickered at by the light-minded who started this whole mess. That fact alone is hope-deflating for this verbatim ac litteratim teacher and writer, moi.
The ceaseless kyoodling by the hectors is deafening even within the usually silent world of cyberspace. There are no hesychastic sounds at this dwelling. The moss-backed teaching techniques and bagatelles served and embraced are enough to bring down even the most innovative educand, and with convincing force-fed pabulum. The bubbly hoomalimali presented as something uniquely valuable is choking students with soapy scum, yet the students naively respond with schwarmerei. Maladroit and foul-mouthed Anonymouses play out as spoilers.
This place cannot be mundified and should therefore be annihilated ASAP. Once you sift through the mulm, you'll know what to do. I think too many here have proven themselves to be indocible. Allow them to disperse elsewhere and to feed elsewise in good health. Damnant quod non intelligunt.
Further mendacious or deliberately misleading posts cannot be tolerated. Hercules, please rescue us. We need a Pimpernel, and fast. If you are not available, please send Xena, Warrior Princess.
I can hear the cries now: De pace et plagis!
In your infinite wisdom, I'm sure you will understand the magniloquent macaronic ravings of this madwoman. Thank you, Hercules.
With a thorough appreciation for your superb longanimity,
Karla Wollin Boyer +++ 
>> Attempts to limelight me into public humiliation do not hush me. I wonder why that route is so often traveled.
>> I want to help to dispel even a few of the many skewed speedbuilding myths which have been presented as positive absolutes and which reflect an elitist sense of inflexibility. I want to aid in replacing stale conservative convention with innovative breadth and inclusiveness. Speedbuilding advice cannot adequately be served up in dipperfuls like fresh hot muffins. There is an experiential elemental process which requires careful guidance, not amateurish dilettantism. The overall climate is poisoned and discourages the stimulating promotion of excellence. Those who do not choose to correct their syncretized lockstep thinking will not be equipped to float into the 21st Century au mieux with superb reporting skills nor with any notable grace and justified pride.
>> The battle you have chosen to instigate has moved well beyond logomachizing. My intellect tells me there is no getting through to you. My heart tells me not to give up on you. Choose. Nosce te ipsum.
>> Feeble attempts to degrade my image are in reality self-belittling when those attempts are laden with foggy inaccuracies.
>>My personal motto dictates that I stay true to Karla and accept the cost. I won't compromise myself.
>> It's hard for me to avoid philosophizing, seeing as I am a philosopher and all.
>> I love gold! Gotta have gold everything. I luxuriate when I'm dripping in gold. Even my piano is gold. And my first two-wheel bike. Gold medals, jewelry, clothing...but what I really hope I have is a golden heart and soul.
>> It is not possible for the maker of a shorthand examination to increase the difficulty of the fingering. What one writer perceives to be tricky fingering is easy as pie for another. I do believe, however, that the number of homophone traps should be developed to present more realtime decisions for the writer. Given the extremely low density of 1.4 as a standard English word--because it's standard only with limited vocabulary and is also the unfortunate standard utilized in the RPR, RMR, and CRR--sprucing up the CRR language with some more homophone traps and with some more numbers and unusual punctuation would place the exam in a better position to reflect what skills a realtime writer should possess.
>> I participated in the Thoughtful Tributes Program by giving a donation to NCRF. There is a plaque at NCRA Headquarters with my name and the name Elsa Swanson Cooper to reflect my gratitude for having learned under Elsa Cooper's direction and to reflect my undying devotion and fondness for a gentle, sweet, remarkable lady so presciently wise for her time. I know I could not have come this far without the sturdy foundation I acquired by attending Mrs. Cooper's school of machine shorthand, a school with standards superbly higher than those of any reporting school in existence today.
>> Trophies are professional gifts to champions. They are precious. We have no "trophy shrines" in our home either, Ed, but we have tremendous respect for the accomplishments the trophies represent and for the congratulatory motivations of the officials who graciously present them to us. We are confident that a thoughtful assessment of the true facts will reveal to any interested party where the fault lies. Thank you for finally giving us a sense of relief. At least now we know for certain that the trophy is not forthcoming, that you do not intend to take responsibility in this important matter, and that you do not intend to offer any compensation. Personal ethics would dictate that you own up to your role in this devastating mess and apologize for your careless negligence if indeed you did not initially intend any harm. You took it upon yourself to commit to a duty, and you have failed miserably to honor a promise to a friend. That failure and ultimate betrayal is the greatest loss.
>> Although the news of the precious trophy's disposal was greatly devastating to both Chuck and me, that announcement virtually closed the matter, as the only thing that Chuck wanted and the only thing that I wanted was the return of the trophy. By all appearances, that is no longer possible. Chuck Boyer's 1973 trophy was of unfathomable historical value. It is irreplaceable. It was the third in a set of three of a style no longer employed after 1976. We have had no choice but to move on, but the emotional pain and suffering remain on a very deep, anguishing level. That anyone could not feel tremendous sympathy for Chuck Boyer in this regard is totally beyond me, and that anyone would criticize his wife for trying to intervene on his behalf to ease his pain and bewilderment is also totally beyond me. Once again, this is a case of the victims being further victimized instead of rightfully supported.
>> I hope that somebody out there has an ounce of compassion for Chuck's still-ongoing and heartbreaking agony over the severely poor treatment of him and yet another ounce of compassion for me and my family for having to watch it, listen to it, and feel it for so many years. I'm not expecting much compassion, though. I've learned that fairness and kindness are not typically as forthcoming as I'd earlier thought.
>> There are many who are sincerely desiring to know of my positions. The wise shorthand writer by realtime and nonrealtime methods happily exercises the privilege of personal freedom to implement as desired a little-known concept in order to facilitate and accelerate the mind-to-fingers connection and reduce hesitancies. The wise machine writer sporadically or regularly views the hands much in the same way the player of piano uses visual cues for accuracy and required speed in piano keyboarding. Only the teacher trained extensively in psychology, biology, neurology, physiology, and kinesiology understands thoroughly the importance of utilizing available visual cues to nurture completeness and quickness in neurotransmission and resultant execution of task (depressing correct shorthand keys with a readiness to then move on). The well-trained teacher also comprehends the benefits available to students who are allowed to explore the possibilities through experimentation and self-discovery, thereby respectfully giving those lucky students due credit for having useful intelligence of their own. If you have been looking for permission to watch your hands from time to time while writing shorthand, you now have kind permission from this particular speedbuilding guru.
>> Listing a few personal and professional qualifications for the purpose of establishing credibility prior to attempting to help others is a procedure often welcomed, if not required, when addressing large groups of people. The generous opportunities and brilliant guidance and encouragement to learn with a sense of fun which I received in my upbringing from my parents led to my happiness throughout my childhood and now and led to my unshakable quest for knowledge and a desire to joyfully improve others' lives with shared sprightly humor and excellent language sense.
>> I've done nothing to necessitate your mussitating. The sins you attribute to me live only in your colorful imagination. Again, facts are facts.
>> My experiences have furthered my education. I have learned well that the causes contributing to the skyrocketed drop-out rate from the reporting profession are alarmingly larger and more deeply ingrained than I had previously believed. The attitudes I've been seeing do not augur a secure better future for shorthand reporting.
>> Since you chose to place in print an inaccuracy, that's the place I decided to offer my correction of it. My unsolicited analysis: Might it be that you are confusing feelings of embarrassment with feelings related to choosing to feel attacked? Perhaps personal reflection on your part might clear the way for you to better deal with what has happened here.
>> I want to personally thank you for openly sharing your refreshing outlook on life. You are a breath of clean oxygen. I always feel uplifted by your words. I sincerely hope that you will not be punished for choosing fairness and impartiality.
>> Last I heard, the California CSR is still at 200 words per minute. No need to go beyond that fact in a negative comparison with the 225 RPR. The greater accuracy requirement for the California CSR does not make up for the ancient speed requirement.
>> I keep wondering why this field continues to attract people who are embarrassingly poor in English. All court reporters should be top experts in English. Nonsensical shorthand theories invented to accommodate poor spellers, for example, are inviting more students who are not fit to be professional court reporters. We should try to attract people who appreciate the value of a good education and who respect and employ superior language skills. Instead we are hearing complaints from alarmed people, some of whom appear to want to squeak by with low speed, low accuracy, and inferior language skills. It's really becoming intolerable to those who are more than adequately skilled to do the job with justified pride and sturdy confidence. Most writers take years to pass the RPR. The speed of 225 or nearly higher should be neither unintelligible nor incomprehensible in any context. Perhaps the test participants who strive to plan a grocery list or who close their eyes and try to think dreamily positive thoughts during the test rather than listening appropriately and thereby comprehending the material while writing would do better to change their approach. Same goes for actual reporting work.
>> I can see that my normal vocabulary has sent some into a tizzy. I keep trying to downgrade, but it's difficult. I just figure that it's easier to express in one word what someone else might need ten words to express. When I was 12, my high school teacher told me I write like Charles Dickens. I was so naive that I didn't know whether to be complimented or offended.
>> It's a very unfortunate misconception that accomplished speedwriters are lacking in other important areas. It's also interesting that the only people who share that wrong belief are people who have not yet achieved great speeds on difficult material with clean precision.
>> I cried the first time I won the National Speed Contest. Since then I laugh when I win and laugh when I lose.
>> The National Speed Contest really isn't all that hard. If you have the skills, it's fiercely soft concentration that usually wins it. And a lot of heart!
>> I'm beginning to think that the successful study of machine shorthand greatly involves an understanding of math and spatial concepts to better approach the keyboard with nous. That kind of sense and wise intellection produces better personalized shorthand theories without fear of botching homophones and word boundaries in realtime.
>> As seasoned professionals, we can only hope that the jumpy ones will come to appreciate the views put out by those with vast and valid experience and learn to disagree gracefully without leveling childish insults and placing blame and shame.
>> Although my personality is one of a survivor, I always welcome additional supportive and forgetive (not to be confused with forgettable) best wishes from gulping gobemouches galloping in force. Thank you for offering your repetitive chants for my continued success via your delight-filled shouts delivered with emphatic resolve. I think your generous rainmaking on my behalf has finally done the trick. Lucky me. Lucky me. Lucky me.
>> I sincerely wish you good luck in your continued vocabularic and/or choleric pursuits.
>> I'm very sorry for upsetting you. You should not give me that much power. I don't deserve it. I don't want it.
>> I am always baffled as to why any two students or any two reporters would want to write even nearly exactly the same way as each other. It is my position that each writer's theory should be personalized, customized to fit with his or her knowledge of language, with technical ease of fingering on an almost endless variety of outlines available on the modern keyboard, to fit with how that writer perceives sounds or strings language together or responds to the immediately previous outline written. It's also extremely helpful to allow several ways to write almost any given word, contrary to popular belief and contemporary teaching. The most important thing for you to do is to broaden language skills so that you will be quicker to recognize where the traps exist, so you will know what could be a potential problem regarding conflicts or word boundaries or capitalization challenges now or in the future. Expand your repertoire of homophone-recognition skills. Learn a lot of vocabulary in many subjects.
>> I do not believe that any writer should follow strictly--exclusively--any named steno theory, be it realtime or general. When you begin stylizing to fit your own personality and needs, you will discover that you don't really need anybody else to tell you how to write anything on the shorthand machine. Make it your life's project to develop your language skills to a level of tremendous expertise, to become creative and secure in your approach to personalizing your computer dictionary. Feel free to gather concepts from others, to own a variety of theory books to guide you as to how you want to write certain sounds and how you do not want to write them, and then create your own hybrid which is not exactly like that of any other shorthand writer. It takes boldness, courage, a willingness not to follow the pack mindlessly, and pride in your own work product. Exercise your right of freedom on that issue. When you do such, you will discover that your need to borrow briefs and clutter up your mind and your dictionary with unnecessary phrasing will diminish as you increase your speed and accuracy--while sharpening your abilities to participate with the best in language expression.
>> Take responsibility for creating your own personalized dictionary. It should be an ongoing process throughout the remainder of your career. I will never cease improving my own dictionary. Our language is not static, and neither should be your steno theory. Allow your mind to develop ideas peculiar to you only, and guard your right to pursue your own inventions without succumbing to stifling rules propounded by teachers or school administrators or other reporters. The intelligent captioner will be the first to acknowledge the need for straying from the norm and for developing a hybrid computer dictionary with delight.
>> As you gather ideas from a variety of theories, it is my professional opinion that you would do well to stay away from any theory which promotes straight phonetic writing and also any theory which overemphasizes clinging to English spelling. Straight phonetics does not work well at all times, given the great variety of pronunciations we all face daily, and clinging steadfastly to English on the steno keyboard creates the uncomfortable, sluggish feeling that you are operating a typewriter rather than writing in shorthand. Instead strive wisely for a happy balance between those two simplest of approaches and be true to your own personality and physical and mental strengths when you invent and personalize. Best wishes in your endeavors.
>> Although it's important to enhance the image of the overall profession so that we can continue to be labeled as professionals, I don't think that even that particular motivation was the initiator for the proposal and acceptance of degree requirements by NCRA. Every six months, RPR and RMR testing rooms are packed with candidates who lack sufficient knowledge of correct spelling, punctuation, grammar, and vocabulary, and who fall well short of the required shorthand speed and accuracy to pass the exams. The pursuit of extensive higher education broadens one's vocabulary in the sciences and humanities. The experience of researching a variety of subjects by way of formal education makes speedbuilding a friendlier and less problematic task.
>> Lowered page rates is not the only cause of negative trends in our field today. Inviting students fresh out of high school and then striving to retain individual members who do not possess credentials justified by a superior education will neither enhance the profession's image nor preserve its future. The promotion of advanced learning through NCRA's degree requirements invites potential professionals to gain requisite skills and to also move beyond those bare essentials. Next on the agenda should be raising the RPR speed to 240 words per minute and raising accuracy standards to 98 percent. The time has come. The goal should not be counting bodies; it should be improving quality over quantity. The profession needs individuals who can deliver--in more ways than one.
>> You seem to ponder what is behind my confusion in understanding your valiant attempt at squibbing. One possibility: Maybe I'm not as smart as you thought me to be. Another possibility: Maybe I overestimated you in my belief that you would once again not take me seriously. The problem could be that you take me seriously when you shouldn't and not seriously when you should. Is the logic simple enough?
>> Having gotten all the way through reporting school in six months with zero practice whatsoever outside normal school hours, I now realize I could have easily completed my graduation requirements in much less time had I only possessed the drive and ambition to work on it. I should have listened to my mother, who hounded me with gentle prods to practice. But I spent my time swimming, biking, roller skating, going to movies--just a fun-loving whole-brained extension of my well-rounded childhood. And since I continued not to practice until after I passed the 260 Merit back when it was still random-density word count (before it was accommodatively downgraded to evenly counted 1.4 syllabic density, thus pleasing the rhythm-diversity-challenged and metronomically dependent writers), I now have to wonder how much sooner I could have passed the RPR and Merit if only I would have set aside some time to practice on my shorthand machine.
>> You brighten my life immensely. I'm sorry that you got slammed (more than once) for aligning yourself with me even in the midst of temerarious rebukes. It pleases me greatly that I will be continuing to learn reams from the intriguing, multifaceted Andrew. You clearly have a wealth of authentic knowledge to share on an endless variety of subjects, and I'm especially grateful and honored that I will remain privy to some of your unique experiences, including those--as a matter of interest in phoenixity--in the arena of captioning in the United Kingdom. Your charitable wisdom and chivalrous, gracious humor are sublime attributes highly prized by me and in my eyes lift you to a position of celsitude. You are a fundamentally generous soul.
>> The Legal Opinion portion of the 1990 National Speed Contest was a huge fiasco and must be recognized as such by revealing to the membership that the average speed was in reality 199 rather than 230 words per minute and that the scores do not represent what they were originally stated to represent. Given the extremely easy language and the 199 figure, the 1990 Legal Opinion was below the level of speed and difficulty of an RPR Jury Charge. The first quarter minute contained 49 words, the sixth contained 55, the ninth contained 43, the tenth contained 50, the 14th contained 46, and the 20th contained 51. As you know, a 230 wpm test must alternate between 57 and 58 words per quarter minute to reach 1,150 words in five minutes. The 1990 Legal Opinion was short by more than 150 words at the five-minute mark. The far-reaching repercussions from this serious, inexcusable bungle are innumerable. The 1990 National Speed Contest Committee owes a well-publicized apology to every member of our association, most especially to each participant who wrote the 1990 contest. Many lives have been impacted. My heart goes out to the writers who are most affected. In view of the fact that there were negligent grading and/or mathematical errors committed under the same chairmanship in 1983, 1984, and 1989, and looking at the 1984 Legal Opinion fiasco and now the 1990 washout, I strongly insist that every hopeful CM writer who aspires to compete in the National Speed Contest deserves and is entitled to a fair test run by conscientious individuals who recognize the importance of accurate testing, correct grading, and precise mathematical determination of the results. I would hope that the chairperson can be an individual who treats fairness, accuracy, and reasonableness with the highest regard, an individual who has integrity and proven knowledge of correct testing and grading procedures, an individual who admits to a responsibility to the contest participants and recognizes and respects the importance of the contest experience to those test participants, and an individual who understands the true spirit of competition to be one where no one is penalized for performing well repeatedly, no one is banned from competition due to the number of trophies acquired, and no one is robbed of the right to pursue greater and greater excellence each and every year as long as a national contest is offered to the qualified membership. No one should be squeezed out of the competition even by the mere proposal of preposterous rule changes devised to retard the pursuit of skill enhancement.
>> A national association conducting a national competition of any sort should use the basic tools available for accurate reporting of the results. I am unable to see what purpose is being served by anyone insisting that my scores continue to stand uncorrected, as mere approximations, when it is so easy to make them right. There should be no resistance to the necessary corrections. It is about personal honesty and professional integrity. It is about striving to prevent problems similar to those I referenced in my August 1997 Journal article. For example, using a Testimony chart to grade my Literary in 1998 was certainly careless. And in one year, the Testimony chart was used to grade everyone's Legal Opinion, causing all the overalls to also be wrong. Now wrong math is compounding the problem again. If the charts are not corrected, close scores such as those in 1995 and 1997 could cause a trophy swap in future years. I would be happy to assist in creating correct charts for the future.
>> Perhaps the membership and the article writers need math lessons in understanding percentages and the great significance of even a tiny handful of transcription errors. How many RMR writers know that the National Speed Contest is at random word count, creating widely varying difficulty throughout? Very few have ever been exposed to such in their practice and are therefore bewildered by the perceived density of the material. They don't know what to make of the scores they witness or experience.
>> There have occasionally been typos in the original contest texts which have unfairly affected the contest scores. It is the chairperson's responsibility to proofread carefully before a contest is read.
>> All I've ever wanted regarding national shorthand competition has been well-designed, accurately counted, nicely dictated, correctly graded tests with a clean, conscientious presentation of results. I'm not a perfect person, and I don't want to be one. However, is attention to detail too much to desire from professionals?
>> I enjoy shorthand testing for the sheer pleasure and challenge of the experience. But do I look forward to interesting material which can be written by those who are not language-challenged? Do I dare get my hopes up for error-free grading and an Attic presentation of results, marked by integrity and a sense of responsibility? Do I anticipate unencumbered factual honesty in related journalism?
>> I believe that the future of the National Speed Contest should be determined only by present and past contest qualifiers. Those who have no direct contest experience should not be venturing opinions that could appear to have validity as read by the general membership.
>> The World Championship competitions are open not only to members of some national association, not only to writers who have achieved a particular qualifying speed, not only to people who must speak and write fluent English, but to every single shorthand writer on the planet, whether such writer is registering through an affiliated country's association or as an individual not living in an officially affiliated country. The transcriptions of participants of all countries and languages are then graded together in unison to determine true World Champions (machine or pen) in an Olympics-comparable competition. No one has to stretch the imagination to call up the Olympics similitude.
>> In light of INTERSTENO 2001 unfair events which took place, many improvements and safeguards must be incorporated out of respect for all participants. I'm optimistic now.
>> I do not fear controversy, and I am not too timid to use inflammatory language when I know my ground. Those who understand me well are confident that I will never toss up unsubstantiated hunches and then just cross my fingers in hopes that those hunches are indeed accurate or will become accurate before they hit the pavement.
>> As it is my habit and occupation to educate, I'd like to inform that it actually is untrue that everyone in a testing room is writing under the same conditions at the same time. The well-learned, savvy, true competitor knows that. Many extraneous events can occur throughout the room which may affect only a limited number of writers at any given time. It's up to each of us to expertly cope with such circumstances, but it's balderdash to state that testing conditions are equal for all.
>> I have on occasion secondarily welcomed the test-taking environment as somewhat of a laboratory for discovering additional techniques I can fashion and pass on to my eager students to help them increase the chances of passing their all-important state and national exams. My insights arrive in a steady stream. I owe my students my best teaching, which is what I have always promised to deliver.
>> I had no idea I was blessed with such power to move the soul. I'm flattered. I venture to predict that my writings have generated renewed interest in contest participation rather than having in any way jeopardized the annual event. Lame attempts to discredit me right along with my unsettling views will not suppress truth. Those in power cannot correct problems if they are stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge that there even are any problems. Reality is often harsh. We all have to deal with it effectively in our lives. But hiding any particular aspect of reality or pretending it does not exist is not the avenue for attracting fresh blood to the shorthand competition. I believe that potential first-timers for the National Speed Contest appreciate having the unpolished facts and will give respect to those who are willing to share honestly. Nobody welcomes being coddled with patronization. Novice speed contestants will not benefit from sugarcoated platitudes served up by amateurish wanna-bes. And there is no reason for the facts to frighten away legitimate contenders.
>> I would like to take this opportunity to invite all Merit writers to pursue even higher writing and transcribing skills with verve. When you reach a point of readiness to compete, be assured that you will be heartily welcomed into the fold, encouraged and guided by the veterans as needed. You'll have an exhilarating experience one way or another. I am now reasonably confident that the quality of the National Speed Contest will immediately move in the direction of concrete improvement in all aspects--as is its destiny. It is safe to conclude that we can together look forward to excellent text material, better-than-average dictation, accurate grading performed with care and impartial judgment, and conscientious presentation of results. I thank all Speed Contest Committee volunteers past, present, and future for their efforts in striving to get the job done right.
>> Those who would banish multiple-win contest champions from further good-spirited competition are knowingly or unknowingly attempting to truncate the development of a glorious work in progress while inappropriately second-guessing the motivations of those champions. The arrogant selfishness of the would-be sideliners treacherously threatens limitless possibilities for the best contest participants of the future. Prejudicially discriminating against demonstrations of superior excellence is intolerable and has no place in today's world.
>> When there is congestion at the top in any individual category of the National Speed Contest, it is not because the contestants have in that year suddenly raised their skills to accommodate a fast and difficult test of speed, accuracy, and endurance. In virtually every case, such a result is caused by the introduction of inappropriately easy material. History has shown us repeatedly that the individuals who do not qualify on difficult contest takes can overtake higher-skilled writers on a too-simple five-minute dictation. It is imperative that the difficulty in future years remains challenging enough to allow truly superiorly skilled shorthand writers to distinguish themselves.
>> Accurate scoring is crucial.
>> I would be very happy to share with you my most effective realtime tip. It is this: Never lock yourself within a theory created by someone else. It's overly limiting and somewhat dangerous. Instead modify, expand, and invent regularly to suit your own personality and fingering strengths. Freedom, flexibility, and self-respect are key. Avoid accepting realtime/speedbuilding advice from those promoting groupthink mentality and from those keen on autotelic verbigeration, because such advice offers nothing tangible toward potential improvement.
>> Those who transparently reveal jealousy, hatred, and evidence of feeling threatened are at once exposing general incompetence and feelings of inadequacy and insecurity. Please get your own life and stop undressing for the public!
>> Thank you for reminding me to remind myself that many people love me, Fausto. It helped me through a difficult time.
>> Love arrives in many forms. I am blessed to have tasted the best bliss there is. Love lives. It's a magically powerful delight!
>> My father was very, very cool. In the warmest sense. He taught me how to ride my gold two-wheeler Schwinn. He rescued me when I fell. He taught me how to drive a car and maneuver through challenging traffic. He taught me how to get through life with guts. I feel honored in knowing I look a lot like my very handsome German dad. (I feel proud to also resemble my Russian mom somewhat, realizing that even on my best days I could never begin to approach her spectacular, extraordinary beauty.)
 
>> I keep discovering more and more pearls of wisdom my father left for my sister and me. I miss him something awful.
>> Put up your dukes and fight, Daddy told me when he gave me the toy boxing kangaroo for good luck. And I did. And I do. And I will. I still have the musical kitty he bought for me the day I was born. My father was a man who, along with my strong mother, was very much responsible for providing me with many precious and much-appreciated opportunities throughout my life to arrive where I am successfully now and where I really have been for a long time. May I carefully take forward everything I have learned from my father and my mother and everything I've experienced with them.
 
>> I've never required widespread acceptance by others in order to feel good about my life. My self-sustaining mind-set allows me to be myself and to continue developing in ways which expand my mind and enrich my life experience. My long-term personal relationships are mutually rewarding--with respect, admiration, and steadfast loyalty.
>> Robert and Dolores (Bob and Dell) gave me such good genes! I think I was born knowing how to write shorthand!
>> Karlaisms may sting a little, but they don't bite.
>> What goes around comes around, as the nifty phrasemakers are wont to say. I'm disappointed to learn from you that my writings won't be missed.
>> It would be nice if yet another dramatic, scurrilous trail of seedy remarks and tactless innuendo were not to readily follow, but I understand that the temptation to critique will be difficult to resist, especially by the easily baited and lured lurkers. I can't control incendiary responses to me which may already be under way.
>> I hope all NCRA members will band together to nurture rather than squelch skillbuilding--to praise success and the training toward success, not to glorify mediocrity and apathy under a cloak of apparent supportiveness.
>> People's reactions to me and to what I have to say are nowhere near as important to me as the self-balancing integrity of how I feel about myself in truthfully speaking my piece as I see fit.
>> I know that you and a great many others will find my writings beneficial as food for thought, as inspiration to understand that my successes are humanly possible, and as a source for interesting factual information for awakening the pursuit of excellence in all walks of life.
>> Some confuse a healthy passion with negative obsession. But to know an obsession can be to know deep devotion, full immersion, and intricate inspiration on the cellular level and with the simplest beauty.
>> I think my sunny disposition looks good on me. Still pouty, though!
>> I choose to feel uplifted by my words. You can make that choice also.
>> I design my life choices so that I'll die with no regrets. So far I know I'm succeeding consistently toward that end. Do you have regrets? Know that it's never too late to reconstruct so you won't self-destruct!
>> Knowledge is more than power. It's an essential ingredient for awakening soul-deep living.
>> I herewith control my identity. Care for a lemon cookie? How 'bout some nice hot coffee and blueberry cheesecake to calm you? Coffee relaxes me!
 
>> Flowing is knowing.
>> So knowing is flowing?
>> It takes only one special moment for everything to finally come together with brilliant clarity in a rush of understanding.
>> To everyone interested in education for its own sake: Although I've been one of the most outspoken supporters of the proposal to require a four-year degree for RPR status as of 2006, I believe that the NCRA Board has made the correct decision in dropping the idea as a requirement in favor of promoting higher education as a general benefit for all reporters. I would have continued to support the original proposal had it not now been dropped by the Board, but I'm aware that it's actually the pursuits toward a degree that bring the greatest rewards, not necessarily the final achievement of the degree itself. I know many individuals who are self-taught to a level probably significantly beyond that of people with degrees which are even higher than a B.A. or B.S., and I think it would not be completely fair for those self-taught individuals to go unrecognized for their accomplishments by way of being robbed of the opportunity for RPR status. The RDR is limited to Merit writers, another rule I wholeheartedly support, but certainly there are non-Merit writers as well who deserve consideration for the knowledge and experience they've accumulated. So let's all continue to support the pursuit of higher education, whether it's toward an official degree or simply for the rewards available from self-education.
>> Maybe bachelor's degrees will catch on better in the future. I think the ideal situation is to already have the degree before even becoming interested in reporting school, which is what happened with me. That scenario is rare, though, as opportunities commonly are limited in that regard. Thanks to all members of the Board, who I know devoted much time, energy, and careful thought to first listening to all sides of the issue--deliberating the ups and downs--and who then weighed in with a well-worded viewpoint that makes perfect sense. Much appreciated. Yay, NCRA!
>> I'm comfortable with the knowledge that the number of students enrolled in reporting schools is not reflective of the number of students skillbuilding toward becoming reporters.
>> The connection regarding raising skills and reducing the attrition rate which indeed does exist in our country is this: When reporters have higher skills, they have a much easier time doing their job of getting down the spoken word and are therefore less stressed and less inclined to look toward a different profession. It's also true that reporters with higher skills attract a greater income.
>> Many members have proclaimed the RPR exam to be a method for separating minimally competent writers from less competent ones. Personally, I see a conflict between "commitment to excellence" and basic competency. I will never be able to equate 225 at 1.4 syllabic density and 95 percent accuracy with excellence.
>> A true commitment to excellence would require a pursuit of skillbuilding which does not cease with passing the RPR. It's been my hope to inspire others to chase after their own excellence so that the profession will continue to flourish.
>> There is no shame in being new nor in admitting that certain levels of difficulty are beyond you. The shame is in pretending to get written on your shorthand machine what you cannot. Some reporters work for decades and get used to blaming their own inadequacies on the speakers, insisting that the speech is too fast and too unclear. My position is that reporters need to take more personal responsibility for these problems. I'm disappointed when an experienced reporter implies that it's okay to not get everything and to just put together a transcript that looks good. Those reporters belong to the once-secret Cover Your Ash Club, an organization that is threatening the future of our profession.
>> Is the real culprit found in mumbling by speakers or in mishearing by the reporter? Those who dwell in denial are often vocal in defending their own stagnant and/or deteriorating skills and in placing blame on attorneys and witnesses, all the while reticent to explore a greater truth. The fact is that high-speed accurate writers know full well that superhearing and supercomprehension skills arrive hand in hand with greater development of accurate speedwriting. And a 240 writer is not a high-speed writer. The 280-plus writer must resist dozing off when forced to write at speeds as low as 240 and 225 for excessive periods. Then concentration becomes even more important. The high-speed accurate writer happily notices regularly that the attorney once thought to be a mumbler mysteriously cleans up diction seemingly overnight. Amazingly, that attorney also slows down. Even more impressive, the incidence of overlapping speech is generously reduced. Maybe there's something to be said for heightened speed and accuracy abilities after all!
>> Keep in mind there was once a time that I could write no more than 225. I'm familiar with the differences in various levels of skill.
>> I bloom in adversity; so does the desert flower. I quietly wonder which of us is sturdier. I think I know.
>> We know that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But only some of us know that in many cases mumbling is strictly in the ear of the listener. It's all about perception. The package of details involved with how we hear speech is thoroughly reorganized and reassessed when we improve our vocabulary and improve our repertoire of shorthand skills. It occurs in stages--meaning you don't have to achieve 280 to reap certain of these stress-reducing rewards.
>> It is a myth that accurate high-speed writers have to handle the same problems facing average-speed writers. We do not. And the statement that we do not invokes fury among the sneering nonbelievers who share the crab-pot mentality which has been responsible for bucking progress and holding back a profession which needs to move forward to survive.
>> We owe thanks to the handful of individuals who continue to promote raising the entry-level bar even in the face of majority objection. Also thanks to those who are willing to see the wisdom in searching out the best method for preventing a breakup and breakdown of the RPR. The profession will not benefit from accommodating those who are lazy in their skills. An easy test should never be made yet easier to pass just so that a misleading image of professional skill can be manufactured for the masses to tout with honored emblazonry.
>> I understand that not everyone can achieve greatness in shorthand skill. But to not even try, or to pretend it doesn't matter, or to try and then fail and then proclaim lower speeds to be sufficient is not excusable among true professionals. It is especially inexcusable when those who have attained a measure of success sing the party line merely to seek peer acceptance.
>> Do you really prefer to have your skills measured against a low standard rather than against a reasonably high standard? Is that a method for looking better?
>> I'd been thinking that especially some who have resisted difficult tests as a measure of progress and success would appreciate clinging to the current RPR and would happily allow for an intermediate exam to satisfy the reporters most serious about continuing their skill enhancement. I have to realize that there will always be polemicists ready to tear down any new idea that represents uncomfortable change, so better to stick with the more promising proposal which will benefit the profession with a powerful grounding. My suggestion of a Registered Quantum Reporter exam was great, but I think my suggestion of raising the top speed of the RPR to 240 words per minute is better. I propose Literary at 190, Testimony at 240, and either Jury Charge at 220 or Legal Opinion at 210 words per minute. (That's not so bad. First I thought of Jury at 225 and Legal at 215.)
>> On divining definitions, allow me to clarify with a more precise definition of "polemicist." A polemicist is one who engages in controversy through aggressively attacking another's opinions or principles in a warlike, hostile manner. A polemicist is usually overly emotional and steeped in negativity and is therefore not willing to first calmly assess the opinion he or she seeks to dispute. A polemicist does not necessarily resort to obfuscation intentionally. There will always be polemicists champing at the bit to disagree--sometimes only for the sake of disagreeing and sometimes with a rather smarmy tone. Some who agree that 225 does not represent sufficient skill will still try to thwart efforts to increase national standards.
>> Common usages of words are developed and modified over time and are not always confined to static dictionary definitions. Personal experience provides many additional clues not available within conservative dictionaries and linguistics guides. Part of developing one's vocabulary must include nurturing an expanded understanding of word usage through extensive reading and through objective observation of the typicality of human and animal behavior.
>> On the issue of raising the RPR to 240, imagine some of the trickle-down benefits! We would eventually have more Merit writers. The RPR designation would carry far more prestige and would be a closer step toward the 260 exam.
>> A change from Jury Charge to Legal Opinion would make the transition from Merit to participation in the National Speed Contest easier for those who would like to experience the national competition.
>> My proposal to raise RPR standards is not intended to interfere with early reporting opportunities. The RPR is not officially mandatory in order to participate in the profession as a reporter. My intent is to raise the value of the letters RPR after a professional's name. I use the term "entry level" loosely to connote a degree of skill more reliable for attorneys, judges, and witnesses to trust that the reporter is actually "getting it." All CSR exams are easier than the RPR in several respects. Surely a CSR can stand for something until reporters pass the RPR exam, whether or not NCRA goes along with the idea of increasing the value of the RPR with an additional speed requirement. Maybe in the future we can also debate the 95 percent issue!
>> With any hope, readers will not put words into my mouth and proceed to misquote me. For example, I NEVER said that reporters are unqualified until Merit level. I NEVER said students would have to stay in school until reaching 240. I NEVER said that non-RPRs should not be employed. In fact, I clearly stated quite the opposite on each of those issues, yet those concepts have been wrongly attributed to me in a variety of places.
>> If you're not writing it, you're not reporting it. Some who can't write it drop out of the profession. Some who can't write it stay in and pretend to be verbatim writers. Some who can't write it stay in and say it's okay not to get it written with extremely high accuracy. Some who can't write it stay in and say that high-speed writers don't make transcripts as good as those of low-speed writers. (I guess that means that high-speed writers once made good transcripts but now cannot after they have achieved high speed.)
>> My personal preference is to hear the truth and then find ways to deal with reality effectively. False hopes do not benefit me. When I am given false hopes, I usually later feel betrayed when I discover the truth. There are many mentors who will take you under a protective wing and also tell you the truth while protecting you.
>> An expressed belief of a new reporter that students and new reporters are better off protected from the truth and that myths are comforting and appreciated represents an attitude that professionals and serious students should find utterly appalling.
>> The stunning announcement by a new reporter that fresh graduates have a right to enter the field even when they themselves agree they are not yet ready to do so, a right to prematurely get a reporting job to pay bills and feed children, is an announcement revealing much of what has gone wrong with this profession of late. And it's still worse when that particular reporter has repeatedly exhibited ultrapoor spelling in a very public place. If these naive, blatantly disrespectful, professionally immature, and shortsightedly sassy attitudes represent the future of our profession, then the future of shorthand reporting as a reliably secure career is in serious jeopardy.
>> This job that we are expected to do is not a game, yet some are establishing stances so cavalier and careless that eventually attorneys and other professionals in our business are not going to take us seriously. It's looking more and more as if carrying an air of irresponsibility is touted as a virtue in some circles. This cannot be allowed to be the wave of the future. Anyone who promotes unethical behavior among reporters should rethink his or her entitlement to membership in the profession and in the NCRA organization.
>> I was the first student to graduate from my school at 225, and by word count. That was in 1975. The standard then was 200. I reached Merit level strictly through difficult reporting assignments. My point is that skill can be enlarged through experience on the job and through other methods and does not have to first be achieved in a school setting or official training setting. I'm the last person who would ever promote the idea that students should stay in school longer.
>> Okay. So Karlaisms may tend to bite a bit after all. Everything is in the interest of honest expression, though. How sublime.
>> I think it's frightening to see reporters ask if it's okay to reflect a discussion off the record with a defensive belief that it's not humanly possible to get down certain fast and overlapping material. The fact is it IS humanly possible if the reporter has the requisite skill to perform the job fully. There are so many examples of proof that reporters are taking on assignments beyond their ability. It's imperative that students and reporters address this issue far more seriously and stop pooh-poohing genuine suggestions intended to solidify the integrity of the profession.
>> I have a conflict with viewing the RPR as it stands today as anything more than baseline entry-level skill, and I really don't even agree with that generous definition. I don't expect to convince the world to join me in my thinking. I believe there are lots of good writers who give up on the RPR and abandon it too soon. And I know there are writers whose skill is beyond that of the RPR, yet they don't believe in testing. I don't question their qualifications. I don't rely on the RPR as evidence of any finite skill level. I do think it's unfortunate that many students view the RPR as a final step.
>> In order to reach reporting speeds, it takes whatever it takes. Time, money, emotional investment, and countless sacrifices are all variables working in conjunction with natural talent and developed intelligence. Students do not have a right to enter the field merely because they have put forth a finite amount of dollars, sweat, and tears. Reality is often harsh. We have to deal with it honestly nonetheless.
>> It is thoroughly irresponsible to suggest that enough is enough in regard to accurate skillbuilding speedwise. It is unethical to demand that progress be halted and that exposition of painful truths be silenced.
>> The reporter has an obligation both express and implied to accurately write down and transcribe the spoken words entrusted to him or her. "Getting it" is not a yes-or-no option. Cavalier attitudes seeking to blame the speaker for the reporter's ineptitude are an embarrassment for the reporters in the profession who fully realize and conscientiously perform their inflexible duties. Attorneys, judges, witnesses, and the general public have been fooled by shorthand reporters for years. If only they knew! This isn't about approaching Mozart's expertise. It's about doing the job as well as is rightfully expected by the people doing the hiring of our services.
>> The best way to preserve the profession is to raise standards ASAP. The argument that doing so is costly to students has no legs. As a matter of integrity and pride, personal standards must be lifted whether or not NCRA forces it upon the membership.
>> Debating about 225 and 240? All of the numbers are arbitrary. The responsible reporter understands that skillbuilding is an endless process--and welcomes it as such. Tests are not much more than a measure of the distance we've traveled on the long road so far. The inspired student is not appalled by the suggestion that 240 is a more honorable goal for which to strive. I work with such students every day. And the truthful reporter admits that not even a skill level at 240 is sufficient to capture all language in all reporting environments.
>> Stating that 225 represents competence does not make 225 represent competence.
>> Students and reporters truly interested in competence would never be alarmed by any proposal promoting it. A skill level of 225 at 1.4 syllabic density with 95 percent accuracy is absolutely not enough to perform the job competently. Period. And any remaining 200 CSR exam is grossly inadequate for determining the presence of skill sufficient to handle producing a verbatim record.
>> The average speed that speakers speak is irrelevant. We must also get the spurts beyond average speed, no matter how rarely they occur.
>> When national testing was raised from 200 to 225, screams of holy terror were heard round the country. It is to be expected that we'll hear similar screams of disgust, resentment, frustration, and thinly veiled envy in response to a suggestion decades later to reach for 240 as a basic fundamental. There is no question that the change will eventually take place. The only question is when. When the resistance finally melts away based on willing enlightenment, the profession can then move forward.
>> Maybe I don't exactly know what easy reporting is in other writers' definitions. The first depo I ever attended was the videotaped expert testimony of a neurophysiatrist, and it was pretty much uphill after that. None of my employers ever sent me on easy jobs. And I never worked until I could write 225 word count (not 1.4 syllabic density) VERY accurately, which was straight out of school. After my first three months of reporting, I was always chosen for the toughest jobs available. My specialty was medical malpractice beginning in my very first year of reporting. Then came General Motors Board meetings and huge United Auto Workers conventions. Later I specialized in hefty construction arbitration hearings, reporting the intricate testimony of strings of engineers. I even reported Chuck Boyer. (He's no piece of cake to write!) I also reported myself. (I'm not easy either!) I have no idea what sort of reporting work can be guaranteed to be completely manageable for someone lacking skill beyond 225 simple words per minute with 5 percent error, yet I'm being told such jobs exist. It's hard for me to believe, but I'm willing to trust that it's possible. I realize that new reporters don't typically receive assignments as lofty as my early ones, but I would think that heated objections can pick up unrelentless speed in ANY reporting case, no matter how uncomplicated the material. Speed is separate from complexity in those situations of colloquy.
>> Depositions are not completely predictable as easy or hard. The simplest case material can unexpectedly become heated, full of objections, rife with surprise testimony, and loaded with language density and speed. The new lamb tossed into that environment can return to the office in tears and frightened to death that the witness will return the signed deposition with page upon page of corrections. And then there's the issue of malpractice regarding errors and omissions!
>> There should be nothing scary about reporters who are unwilling to proceed to higher ground dropping out of the profession. The jobs would definitely not disappear. The qualified reporter would show up for work and boldly insist upon a page rate once accepted as the norm for a quality product.
>> To my personal standards, I've always considered 95 percent accuracy completely out of the question even on high-density material. So in my crusade I've been trying to help to lift up the RPR to a level which would more accurately reflect the "commitment to excellence" which NCRA wants projected by the RPR achievement.
>> In our world of continuing realtime advancements, the day is going to arrive when the CRR certificate is recognized as the minimum mark of competency. Students should realize this. Shorthand writers who do not get moving in realtime-skill development will be left behind mercilessly. In order to pass the CRR, the realtime writer must write quite accurately at speeds similar to the speeds in the Merit 200 Literary for a good part of the five-minute exam. Any reporters who are content to cap off their skills at a weak 225 (meaning lacking very high accuracy at 180 Literary and 225 Testimony, for example) will not have a prayer of passing the CRR and joining the ranks of reporters possessing realtime competency. This is a very important point which perhaps has been missed in the discussions.
>> Although I am not especially concerned about current student enrollment in reporting schools, I am of course concerned about the drop-out rate among new reporters, and that's one of the reasons I've made my proposals. My position is that elevation of the requirements for passing the RPR is going to positively impact the entire profession and help to preserve it and move it forward with the times. Status quo does not usually work for very long. Some agree with me mildly, some wholeheartedly agree with me, some are neutral, and some object either casually or fiercely.
>> It's sad to see negativity (although expected) in response to heartfelt generous efforts to preserve the profession, but I really believe that unabashed truth-telling and sharing of experience from an apparently unique perspective and, yes, with a sense of humor will prevail and ultimately encourage the students and reporters who now appear to feel threatened to be the ones to do the lightening up and perhaps feel less threatened in times to come. But right now it's high time to shake people up and wake people up!
>> If it's humanly possible to speak it, it's humanly possible to write it by machine shorthand. The reporter's duty is not to "get what you can to the best of your ability." The reporter's duty is first and foremost to make a record of what is spoken. Sometimes that requires verifying shorthand notes against a quoted document. Sometimes documents are misread to the listening parties. Sometimes the reader purposely adds words or omits sections, whether in statutes or elsewhere. The reporter must catch those areas and should be able to do so without a tape recorder. (And the reporter who can't capture the spoken word in a live situation often can't capture it later off a tape recorder either. I've had experience redoing others' transcripts from tape because those transcripts horrifyingly differed from the tape.) At this pivotal time when the profession is on incredibly shaky ground, it does not bode well for reporters of little experience as well as reporters with longevity to give up on the absolute responsibility to write a record reflecting the words spoken. NCRA's profile of a competent reporter cannot possibly match what I'm witnessing more and more reporters proclaim to be their responsibilities and lack thereof. I think one of the major problems here is the obvious fact that reporters are unclear as to what is actually expected of them. This confusion has got to be cleared up if we are going to adequately position ourselves to successfully defend against arrows such as those released upon us in magazine articles and elsewhere. We need to pull together and encourage each other to continually raise skills and standards, not applaud each other for promoting the mentality that good enough is good enough. Regarding speeds reached by speakers, tossing out exaggerated numbers such as the unlikely 400 words per minute allows reporters to give up on what should be a lifetime pursuit of ever-improving skills. Discouraging each other from taking personal and professional obligations more seriously is not going to uplift the profession to a secure place of survivability.
>> I used to feel some irritation and impatience upon hearing Chuck Boyer's oft-repeated revelation, "Saying I'm doing my best is always a cop-out. When I say I did my best, in reality I did not do my best." After learning more about the common attitudes shared by reporters willing to lay blame on the speakers, I'm better understanding the wisdom in the concept that our best is always more than we are actually doing. We have to keep raising the quality of what is our best capability and what is our best action. "I did my best" is an unhelpful cliche. It puts the brakes on the discovery process toward unveiling hidden potential. It trivializes the future. On any given day, we might do the best we've ever done to date, but that best cannot represent the most we can do. "I did my best" is an unfortunate signal to stop examining what can be done to improve toward a higher level. Hindsight offers glimpses of what could have been achieved, and we can always use hindsight to benefit our futures. Saying I did my best equates with saying it was impossible for me to do any better, and honest hindsight reveals that I could have done better had I been truly open to it intellectually and emotionally. And we for sure can do better when our skills meet the challenge.
>> The whiny wind can blow and huff and puff, but this pillar of steel ain't bending, bowing, or collapsing. I'm sturdier than the desert flower. I know.
>> Yeah, yeah, so I've got a flair for the dramatic. But I think you catch my drift. I mean what I say.
>> I like me. I think I'll keep me around awhile. My turtle likes me, too. Great validation of my worthiness. The relationship is still developing. I know how to hug this precious reptile. He's supposed to live 35 years! But I don't know if Billie is a boy or girl. Call him what you will, but just don't call him an amphibian, because he hates that.
>> I treasure my memories of Bonnie, Sally-Mike, Bitsie, Sheba, Toby, Munchkin, Piggy, Tilde, Zeke, and Black Bunny. Munchkin loved me more than any human ever has or will, and she wasn't even mine; she was my sister's. Zeke loved dancing on puddles, digging in sand, and nosing through fresh snow. Oh, how I wish I could again see that patterned face with beady eyes glistening navy in the sunlight! I miss all those animals, and the nameless ones as well. They all helped shape me.
>> In pursuing higher skills in anything, for a very rare few there comes a point where it is no longer about practicing; instead it's about other developmental issues and realizations. I quit all serious shorthand practicing after the 1992 National Speed Contest. I now practice usually up to 15 hours per year, in very general terms. Sometimes my tape practice is substantially less than that, while other times I might choose to additionally simply brush up and spruce up for a smidgeon beyond 15 hours a year. I enjoy the freedom and flexibility of deciding how much to do without feeling the need to do any at all. Except for continuing refinements to my personally customized steno theory, my focus in my approach to competitive testing has very little to do with shorthand anymore. In addition to utilizing my own creative resourcefulness, I'm very fortunate to have married the most strategically brilliant shorthand test participator in the history of the profession--the inimitable Chuck Boyer. We discuss very personal and emotional issues and experiences which cannot possibly be shared with anyone else in any context, and we'll take many of our competitive secrets and mental strategies to our graves. Since reaching new heights in my overall skills package, I've discovered hidden superior strengths in myself, and I simply look for opportunities to capitalize on those strengths. I'm grateful for the phenomenal support I receive from my family, from Chuck, and from friends and fellow competitors. Here's to the many joys of honest self-discovery and the pursuit of special excellence in higher personal achievement!
>> I don't deny being moderately manipulative with my innocent language-victims on occasion in order to produce the desired effect (i.e., get what I want), but a wheedling schnorrer I usually am not!
>> Life is a grand gift. Let's not be wasteful of our own or others' opportunities.
>> Given my warm, friendly, compassionate, huggable spirit, I also like to give hugs.
>> Got speed? I have some to spare. Wanna get wrapped up in it?
>> If NCRA had upgraded testing to include QA at 240 wpm as I prominently and repeatedly suggested instead of dumbing down the RPR to the status of individual-leg membership-lifetime passability, the basic-certification comparisons between machine-stenographic-shorthand writers and voice-shorthand writers (my term) would be less significant today. Increasingly substandard output especially by new reporters is making voice-related participation appear to be more and more attractive. No amount of average "continuing education" is going to make up for the shortfall created by a lack of adequate skill in shorthand speed and accuracy and in superb language ability. We're still releasing into the field some RPRs who claim competence even though they can't spell well, can't recognize idioms, can't choose correct homophones, and can't write testimony at more than 213.75 (95 percent of 225) words per minute at 1.4 syllabic density. When they are faced with having to write denser and faster material on the job and find that experience to be a tremendous struggle, some figure it must not be expected of them to get it because NCRA testing does not require them to get it.
>> Imagination captures inspiration.
>> Can less than your best input allow for greater than your best output? Yes, it can, when you know the tricks!!!
>> Speed is sweet when you get it right.
>> I've got the name. Wouldn't you like to know my game?
>> Cherish skill and talent.
>> Pseudointellectuals are notoriously misinterpreting their unique results and misapplying them to others' common circumstances while trying to play cockalorum with competitor opponents. Somebody has to interfere. I guess I'll do it.
>> Following the right path is all it takes to become great. Are you on the right path?
>> Shorthand Rules: I reiterate my updated opinion that voice technology and the potential results of its use will never be superior to machine shorthand technology and the potential results of its use. We will all improve, progress, try to serve the expanding markets. But the product delivered by the most highly skilled shorthand writers will remain far advanced beyond the product delivered by the most highly skilled voice writers. I am not a vacillator. I am still capable of learning, of expanding my mind, of opening up my thoughts to others’ opinions, of doing some inner searches of my soul to discover how I really feel about issues. I still support voice writers, but I absolutely do not support their joining NCRA. I maintain deep affection for the art of machine shorthand, and I will not replace that loyalty. I am against any proposal which would allow voice writers to join NCRA.
>> Yippee! Karla wins 2004 National Speed Contest and National Realtime Contest! It was a good idea for me to put forth a little preparation effort this time! Very delicious to place first among four former NCRA champions. Thank you very much to everyone who supported me and wished me well and to everyone who has kindly congratulated me. I really enjoyed myself at the speed contest and the realtime contest in Chicago, and I am treasuring many fond memories of the warm camaraderie between all of us there at the practice session, on the competition days, and at the awards presentation. It was especially nice to meet some Forum people who introduced themselves while I was struggling to hold all that heavy crystal and who offered me big smiles. I have to say those two trophies are absolutely gorgeous! I am daily admiring the new designs! Thank you to NCRA, thank you to Janice Bounds for running things so efficiently and with a lovely grace and poise, thank you to Woody Waga and Teresa Gaudet and Candy Braksick, thank you to the steadfast graders, thank you to Diane Kraynak and Mark Kislingbury and Alan Brock for pushing me a little harder with their strong presence, thank you to the old-timers (especially Jim and Ellie Bouley) who have encouraged me for years upon years, and thank you to G. Allen Sonntag for that nifty comment (my favorite, about walking on water) after the realtime contest. It was wonderful that we had many participants in both contests this year, and I hope it's a sign that we will enjoy renewed great interest in the future speed and realtime competitions. Engaging in skills competition is an education in itself. Connecting with friendly fellow high achievers who respect and generously nudge each other to maintain and better their skills is a satisfying experience, one well worth pursuing regularly. I am honored and privileged to have been involved for this past quarter of a century! Cheerful regards.
>> I accelerated from 0 wpm to wherever I was in the interim to wherever I am now without ever sacrificing accuracy. So have other good writers followed the golden accuracy path while building real speed. We chose never to jump on that sure-to-fail sinking ship, and our reward has been stability and consistency. Beware the hype.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Copyright ©1999-2005 by Karla Wollin Boyer 
World Rights Reserved
|
|
|
|
