Response to Aurical Inquiry

CTB1954 ctb1954 at aol.com
Thu Jan 4 09:56:40 EST 1996


In Message <960102205325_103323.1100_JHL109-1 at CompuServe.COM> Terry Ross,
on behalf for the below authors, states:

>>In response to Mr. Dave Delage who wrote to criticize Madsen's Aurical
product and NOAH:
>>It is a well understood tenet of INternet etiquette that companies
should not use this
>>forum to advertise their products.  It is equally inappropriate for
companies to
>>criticize their competitor's products via the Internet.  We represent
ompanies
>>that developed Aurical and NOAH and we respectfully suggest that the
subscribers
>>of this newsgroup, Mr. Delage included, refrain from such criticizm.
>>Peter Ketchum, HIMSA
>>Martie Ormsby, Madsen Electronics 


Gentlemen ... Ladies ... Moderation! Moderation! I did not realize that my
original posting, as quoted below:

>Subject:	MADSEN'S AURICAL
>From:	ctb1954 at aol.com (CTB1954)
>Date:	22 Dec 1995 06:21:48 -0500
>DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH MADSEN'S AURICAL ...
>WOULD APPRECIATE HEARING FROM ANYONE WHO HAS TAKEN THE PLUNGE.PLEASE
E-MAIL ME DIRECTLY.

would evoke flames!!  My  intent was gather input from users of the Madsen
Aurical in order to make an intelligent decision as to whether this piece
of equipment would be a beneficial and wise addition to my practice. Along
with valuable input from Madsen Aurical users ( and fellow interested
potential purchasers), I received input from its manufacturer and the son
of a developer of a competing product. 

Although currently in private practice, I have previously worked as a H.A.
mfr's rep and an equipment rep.  One learns, in those capacities, that
those involved in the commercial aspect of our field have an orientation
and approach to the field of audiology which is usually reflected by their
company's design philosophy and hopefully manifested by their product
line.  It is the task of us clinicians, their product end users and
potential customers, to take what they say with an inquisitive and
evaluative "grain of salt"  and to see what fits for us and meets our
needs.  I see nothing wrong with that process.  Whether or not this recent
series of  postings have been too "commercial" for the Internet is
questionable.  Anyone who looks to the Internet (or any other source for
that matter) for the "Gospel Truth" without the inclusion of some degree
of personal agenda or business orientation, is going to be sorely
disappointed.  As the potential end-user of this product, I have checked
out directly with the mfr claims made by a competitor.  I have also
checked out directly with the competitor claims made via e-mail to me
about their product.  That's just wise research.

Although it is a manufacturer's right to correct any factual errors made
by competitors, I too, question whether an Internet Newsgroup is an
appropriate forum in which to do so. With appreciation to the commercial
concerns who provided information Re: Aurical by posting to this
Newsgroup, my intent was for input from end-users AND directly to my
e-mail address .  

Nevertheless, thanks to ALL parties for the input. Further appropriate
postings Re: Experience with the Aurical, would be appreciated by yours
truly, the original poster.


ctb1954 at aol.com (CRAIG T. BARTH, M.A., CCC-A)
 



More information about the Audiolog mailing list