This paper was prepared for a seminar at a disability conference. In its present form I think it highly unsuitable for a layperson, such as I. Too many multisyllabic adjectival phrases obscure the meaning for me. I am not sure I have cottoned on to the gist of the paper. Is it that some disability services and allowances are better and more efficiently organised on a centralised basis rather than expecting disabled individuals and their carers to organise these things themselves?

I am well aware, and I have oft succumbed, to the temptations of high faluting language to advertise my intellectual credentials, and so I do not speak from an attitude of superiority. So please, write this paper again in more straightforward language, so that I can respond intelligently.

Fencepost.
Fencepost.

Yes I too agree that it takes a lot of study to understand the language of the text. However the writer says that himself. The cutoff of the $450 for continance aids when one reaches 65 was a disgrace and I have written to The Federal minister 10 years ago for a friend of mine and it's only recently that it has been reinstated.Do they send you $4500.00 TO REPLACE THE LOSS. PIGS! JUST LIKE A TAX LOSS.....NO REFUNDS FROM GOVERNMENTS!

Fencepost, I'm sure with your use of words you understood everything in the article, just didn't like what I had to say.

Sorry Peter, I was honest in my response. I don't think I have any axe to grind. Was my mini summary of what you said correct, or did I miss your main points?

Fencepost.

Fencepost, what I'm trying to point out is in disability services the rhetoric of individualised services may promote efficiency at the cost of effectiveness

Thank you Peter for that clarification. I am glad I asked because I had obviously got the opposite message in my attempt to understand. Sometimes it does require two-way communication to clarify things. I am sorry you perceived me as hostile to your cause because I am certainly not. I hope this clears things up between you and me.

Fencepost.