Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is the flash which appears; the thunderbolt will follow. --Voltaire
- Lee Richan
- Salem, Utah, United States
- Funny how a person's life is just a little summary dash on their tombstone between birth and death dates. My little dash measures a decade in Japan, Singapore, Europe, and America; twice automotive factory General Manager and thrice president. But my final date hasn't arrived, so I wonder what, precisely, the Architect yet builds. Enjoy then with me some final introspections, ramblings, and stumbles as I still lurch forward, working to keep straight and true that little dash. "The things we do for ourselves are buried with us when we die. The things we do for others live forever." (Les Brown)
日本の携帯装置
Catch Me If You Can
10 comments:
You must not have paid much attention to my entire post. I DO have the ability to play back voices--AND provide an extremely accurate transcription of the proceedings, as well as instant read-back. In a good percentage of depositions I am called upon to to do just that, something that can be done instantly by a reporter without having to stop the proceedings and call everyone to gather around a video screen. Written transcripts ARE necessary in the legal world--PROFESSIONAL transcripts, properly spelled and punctuated. I often work in conjunction with a certified videographer (CLVS) who understands the rules of ethics in this business, and I merely suggested that you obtain a CLVS certification yourself, and maybe some of your problems would be solved. You have snipped a teeny part of what I wrote and published it entirely out of context, and then inserted a goofy cartoon that insinuates that I don't know what I'm doing. (The proper context was my asking why would an attorney want a WRITTEN transcript, not a video.) I am an extremely efficient AND proficient reporter--licensed, tested, ethical, the whole works--and my transcripts can be verified at any time with my audio that is synchronized with my transcripts. I was polite and direct with my post, and you should have had the fortitute to either publish it in its entirety to your blog or ignore it entirely. What you have done amounts to slander. I suggest you remove your cartoon from association with my name, or have the integrity to print my entire post.
Well, what do you know--my original post IS there.
You know, you've got to LOVE this telling comment from some dude at Naples "Court Reporting" (in a state that doesn't require ANYONE to be licensed, so they get what they get):
"This notion of court reporters being technology savvy is really pretty funny. Seeing 45+ year-old women trying to hook up a realtime would have anybody laughing at the irony."
If this isn't an entirely inappropriate sexist remark, nothing is. I'd love to send it to every female attorney in Florida, regardless of their age. I'm female, over 45, and I do realtime fluently and frequently. And the reason we are not "allowed" to put certain things in transcripts is because the attorneys themselves have had input into rules about why a record is to be prepared the way it is, and we don't make judgments as to whether a witness is laughing, quipping, snickering, or anything else. We are there to take down the record, not MAKE the record, and if attorneys want to point out someone's snickerings or laughter for the record, that's their business. Official videos are set on the witness, with no multiple shots being edited by someone who thinks it's his job to try to help out one party over the other, because this would be blatantly unethical.
I don't understand why you people are even fighting about this. If you provide video service for one party for their purposes, then great. A CLVS videographer is held to a higher standard, and they do what they do. We do something different and also have standards (at least in states smart enough to know the value of training and licensing)--we provide written transcripts (and yes, they DO have audio associated with them)--as an impartial third party. And after 25 years, my services are still in high demand. Don't blame me, blame the people who need to take reliable written testimony to court.
--Vicky McDaniel
Oh, hey, Anonymous. Didn't recognize you. Welcome back. A couple points of order: (1) I did, in fact, have the integrity to read and publish your entire post. Oops. Dang that newfangled technology, eh? (2) Unraveling your carefully woven words begs a direct question: Do you or any other CSR submit the audio recordings with your "extremely accurate transcription"? I'll tell your truth: No. The dirty little secret is that CSRs clandestinely depend on the electronic record to correct their raw notes. Kinda conflicted morality when your primary record is in fact digital? (3) And you should have seen the faces at my last CLE when I played back the audio of a CSR transcript. Of 55 words on this official transcript made by a CSR similarly rendering as you do an "extremely accurate transcription of the proceedings," 22 words were completely wrong. That's an error rate of 40%. Nearly half was wrong. I didn't make it up or cherry-pick the transcript page-- I merely pushed PLAY. (Yeah, I can hear you-- I'm also thinking I should upload it here. That'd rest my case in everyone's mind, wouldn't it.) What every litigant wants is 100% of every word, every emotion, every gesture, and every body language captured... not 60% accuracy distilled down to "...properly [sic] spelt [punctuation incorrect] punctuated." Most lawyers realize that nobody ever went home on 11 September 2001 and turned off the screen to read the captions. Captions (and transcripts) facilitate-- but they don't supersede-- video.
Kind of a low blow to the Florida fellow. Sorry to see the rancor dripping. Fact of the matter is that 87% of all courts in 2011 (pre-trial and bench) record all-digital recordings and not high-priced stenography (source: NCRA). That's nine out of ten courts in case your vocational math lags behind. Given that NCRA fact, I don't see why YOU are fighting these trends except as a unionized handout. And strict licensing was only valid when necessary to operate complex machinery-- it has nothing to do with pushing a button. Yeah I know you look down and pooh-pooh what you perceive as something beneath you, with your highly superior moral complex and all, but fact of the matter is nine out of ten court rooms can today do without you. And more to the point, there are tens of thousands of regular people who today pushed a button to make a record all across Utah... never mind the nation. I guess they're wholly subhuman in your mind, too? Twenty-five years in a vocation is admirable. You've seen pen writing to IBM Selectrics turn to personal computers to iPads-- so why is it so difficult for you to realize that machine stenography is no longer the Guardian of the Record-- The RECORD is the guardian of the record. We don't rely on people to interpret anything. We don't edit or manipulate it (or cause 40% of it to be wrong).
Part 2:
Let's see, what else? Well, there is nothing clandestine in what I do, I have no "dirty secrets," and--can you make this claim?--I have never had a single one of my thousands of transcripts challenged in court. And if there are CSRs or RMRs or RPRs out there who are producing bad transcripts, then shame on them--and the attorneys should be calling another reporter to do their work. Not saying we don't make mistakes at all--I hate knowing there are bound to be a few mistakes and we're not perfect--but I sure do my very best to get the transcript as perfect as possible, which is a job that I take seriously.
"Strict licensing" doesn't involve learning to operate "complex machinery"--DOPL licensing is there to protect the public from gross incompetency or unethical conduct. Your statements made on your AV Law Depot (this word is pronounced "DEE-poe," by the way) website has proven that you aren't impartial--which is fine; I have no argument if you're working for one party, but don't expect the other side to pay $500 for a copy of 38 pages of a transcript you prepare. You have even inserted editorialized types of words into transcripts when you have no business doing so: "Ms Smith (quips): blah, blah." Do you really have to insert a word that insinuates that you're thinking, boy, does this lawyer think she's cute, or what? Or even: "A. (Laughing)..." Well, did he laugh out loud? Utter a nervous sound that sounded like a laugh? Did you consistently note in the transcript each and every time ANYBODY in the room "laughed," or only when it helps your client? The words speak for themselves. If your video is THE record, then you don't need to editorialize, which you shouldn't be doing anyway because it's unethical to do so.
By the way, I didn't see my post until I clicked on my name. Don't blame people for not knowing intuitively what's buried in your blog. Of course I can do it; I did it (yeah, this "newfangled technology" can be such a pain). I hadn't intended to search your blog; I would expect a well-planned blog would show the string of comments without anyone having to go search for an original post. So when mine wasn't readily visible, I thought you had chosen not to publish it. And I clicked on the "anonymous" button because it's one that doesn't take an extra step (I did sign my name, so I'm not trying to be anonymous.)
By the way, I still stand by the quality of my transcripts. If people want an audio from me, they can have it. But since it's so much more useful to read and work from a written transcript and my reputation is solid, it has never been necessary.
I don't understand why you use such angry, accusatory tones when you likely want to be seen as a professional--you lash out and engage in name calling, accusations that I believe I'm morally superior or see people as "below me"--I've told you, you definitely have your place and I have mine, and I'm not claiming superiority to you unless you want to compare transcripts side by side--being a "disease-laden rat," unable to embrace modern technology, and a host of other things.
One final thought: You can post this if you want to, but this message is just meant to respond to the nastiness you directed at me and to court reporters in general. There is no good reason for doing that. We provide two completely different services--a video that has to be rewound and navigated through to play something specific, versus a complete written transcript--yes, extremely accurate, in my case; I won't speak for a few bad reporters--that can be produced very quickly.
Vicky McDaniel, RMR.
OOPS. I had a missing word and at least one punctuation error--a misplaced period--in my two-part post. Did you find them? If this were an actual transcript, these errors would have been caught during proofreading.
I LOVE my job!!
Trauma-based mind control does not work on me, ma'am. I don't know your background, but UCRA blather and tricks can't Charlie Manson me. The coven has destroyed others' businesses duly permitted and licensed to make a non-stenographic record, and they still live... many vigorously desire to testify against the UCRA. Me? I can't wait. You've engaged someone who will not back down and I won't be going away.
But video, audio, and electronic recording are not the harbingers of doom. You've earned any dour reputation by yourselves. Nobody cares about preserving "your" jobs, so get away from the Bohemian Grove dance pit and wake up. Transcripts inherently harbor the 40% error rate that I showed the Bar. You actually might be better than all others. But I am better-- best, in fact, and I'm definitely less expensive. Unlike you I price equally-- and at 1/3rd your inconsistent billing practices for every possible capture... not just paper. I make audiovisual records. That's the record, ma'am, not a paper transcript. So stop comparing my transcript to yours-- it's comparing apples with glue paste. Step away from the fire and think.
Most important, you're nobody's hero to hold hostage 1.7 million Utahans to pretended "transcripts are best" drivel. The courts thoroughly tired of stenography and delayed transcripts. By 2009 they fired virtually all stenographers-- around the nation. Wail all you want but any vilification of stenographers is your doing, not mine. Scoff, hiss and spit at me as you will. For two years I've just wiped off your effluvium. I've seen irrational hatred before over spirit duplicators, typewriters, camera film, vinyl records, or the party line telephone. Your NCRA history also disembowled pen writers-- taking over the National Stenographic Reporters Association by forcing old technology out. Feel badly about that old pen writer? Probably not-- self centered people rarely care about anyone else. But 'things' are tools. They do not contain the soul of the artist-- we all move on. (Some of us do anyway. Or they retire and fade.)
Civility has been my sole purview towards you here and towards all stenographers, ill-received as it has been. Good will win over evil. Conspire all you want-- darkness will not conquer light. While your careful phrasing indicates that we produce two different records so everything should be hunky dory, the backstory is that the UCRA has carefully sought to manipulate the process of the courts-- to burden electronic recordings to bind any but yourselves with unnecessary laws. That, ma'am, is evil. It is this type of illicit, conspiratorial manipulation of the Judiciary through DOPL and AGs office, your miscalculation of my mettle (and resources), evil collusion with the defense bar through NCRA lobby money and 'grass roots' militarism that will keep us apart... and which leaves a paper trail that gives me far more power to right a gross wrong. The public loves an underdog and the exposure of this scandal will be a whopper. I promise.
So I have no nastiness-- just truth. Perhaps it stings you like mama's mercurochrome slather, but there's more to come. (Wait until you meet my "two leetle friends.") While I wish you well, you haven't the option of wishing me evil. "We have a choice every day to act on yesterday's good intentions or get an early start on tomorrow's regrets." (Robert Brault)
Thank you for your latest remarks, but I think they will make more sense if you publish part 1 of my latest remarks. It went like this:
Lee, regarding your "sic" note to me: I have seen some of your transcripts, and you don't
even know, apparently, that Mr., Mrs., and Ms. require periods. (You put Ms Wood, Mr
Jones, or Mrs whoozit. You can't change the rules.) And my use of "spelled" is proper,
but you missed a comma in "That's nine out of ten courts in case your vocational math
lags behind." You need a comma after "courts." It's not nine out of ten courts IN CASE MY
MATH LAGS, it's nine out of ten courts, period, regardless of whether my math lags.
Hence, the proper punctuation here is: "That's nine out of ten courts, in case..." (You
missed a couple of other commas, too, but who cares?) These minor points, when understood
by a top-notch court reporter who has studied them, often make an important difference in
reflecting, in a written transcript, a speaker's true intention behind a particular
statement and, therefore, a more accurate transcript.
I must say, your posts are better than your transcripts, even though the transcripts
SHOULD be near perfect. (Oh, someone else does them for you? You're still responsible
for them.)
A "low blow" to the Florida fella? The one who is surprised that a 45-+-year-old woman
would know how to hook up realtime? I just repeated his off-the-cuff,
reveals-his-true-thoughts statement. It was, indeed, a totally unprofessional thing to
say. I wonder: Was it just old women, or also old MEN he was referring to? Or just
"old" people in general? Does he hire only young men in his business, those who, by their
age and gender, CAN obviously hook up cords? He has an opportunity to clarify this if he
wants to. He can also give his name.
I can't post the whole thing, so will do it in two pieces. Stay tuned for the rest in a
minute.
--Vicky
Yikes! How can I miss you if you won't go away?
And you've got some 'splainin' to do if you have seen confidential transcripts. At most the coven has conspired (a criminal offense) to collect and persecute a valid, lawful business. At best you're guilty of passing the joint. Discipline and complaints run both ways.
You remind me of a teenage boy who thinks about girls every three seconds... excepting you think of paper and ink. Everything you do is framed in how perfect you think of yourself.
Lest I annoy you, commas delineate how people speak. I guarantee that my plethora of languages vends expressiveness in ways best bespoken by what I write-- not some 'cowboy speak' you think I meant to write. And I'm not wrong in my comma nor my incorrect spelling-- a group of three units requires a comma following the second term (e.g., A, B, and C). ISO rules since 2001 (and computer protocol) dictate that periods after MR, MS, etc. are as antiquated as Miss, Mrs., etc. So we're foursquare back to you being puzzled by newfangled technology things, I see.
But most mollifying is how you wrangle incessantly over whose grammar stylebook prevails. It's silly... and moot, when one presses 'replay.' Your most brilliant and refined and studied skills cannot represent a blush, a tear, a hesitation, a lie-- or a hitch in breathing. Courts are filled with juries and judges who have grown up with television and understand the power of the face. And they've told you in no uncertain terms that they're sick and tired-- crippled, in fact-- by trying to breathe life back into the dry (and inaccurate) bones you keep propping up as if still a living creature. They're dead, lifeless squiggles on paper. No more. No less.
You wrote, truly, "These minor points, when understood by a top-notch court reporter who has studied them, often make an important difference in reflecting, in a written transcript, a speaker's true intention behind a particular
statement and, therefore, a more accurate transcript."
So knock yourself out, top-notch reporter. Type away. Pound your fingertips into leather. And bathe in your own light. Pride goeth before a fall. I once knew how to develop film and edit audio tape with a razor blade... but no one cares anymore.
In these hard times no one cares to pay you thrice my price for 1/3rd the work product. And that, truly, is at the heart of the thing you despise-- competition-- because you think you "deserve it" for being "a top-notch court reporter" for 25+ years; someone who I have every evidence that you are... but is not entitled to ride the gravy train to retirement any more than the rest of Utah.
As Pogo wrote, "We have seen the enemy... and the enemy is us."
Fare well.
Good--thanks for the revealing comments. I never intended to "keep coming back"--just posted some initial explaining that was answered back with some pretty nasty snarling. When you gnash your teeth at me, I stand my ground.
Happy button pushing.
Post a Comment