Comments on: Dore Mentioned In Parliment

By: Marina Angelides

Marina Angelides — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:19:49 +0000

When Susie first did the programme it was in it’s infancy and even then it helped her incredibly, since then the programme has been refined and the way it is more efficiently accessed and run via the internet has made it easier to follow and adhere to from home. I know Susie was re-doing the programme to take advantage of these improvements. I have met Susie quite a few times and know this information first hand. She is bright and very sociable and believes there is no harm in maximising her potential. Encouraged by her father/founder who believes with absolute passion that she will benefit from the newer programme. The Dore family are truely decent, compassionate and down to earth people and ‘Dore’ will be Wynfords legacy that he has justifiably earned.

By: myomancy

myomancy — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:24:23 +0000

Via -

Your last comment appeared automatically so I’m not sure what is happening but I will investigate.

Chris

By: Via

Via — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:01:46 +0000

Chris why are my coments not showing automatically?
I am registered.
Normally, my comments are shown automatically, as you have made reference to this process to Grace?
Thanks

By: Via

Via — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:34:57 +0000

There are numerous moot points on various different Blogs about the whole Dore issue.
If these ‘moot’ points were removed then there wouldn’t be a ‘Dore Issue’ and little discussion happening.
The context is clearly set in relation to the type of exercise Susie made reference to. It was a general conversation but still pertinent, considering how Dore have presented Susie in their sales and marketing tactics.

The whole discussion about Dore is that, it is a ‘discussion’, we’re not in a court of law where ‘evidence’ has to be supplied.
Nor is the ‘discussion’ taking place on an Academic Journal site.
Nor are we having to complete an essay, to be handed in for assessment.

My understanding of ‘blogging’ is that it’s a genre of its own and a developing one. Conversation and discussion does not generally contain ‘admissable evidence’ and ‘researched details’.
Nevertheless, evidence and research is important and clearly has a place in the Dore issue.
Blogging comments contain spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and ‘typos’ but these also are a legitmate part of the discussion.

If conversations contained ‘admissable evidence’ and detailed research the conversations would become stilted and awkward.
Brainduck has done an incredible job of work in ‘challenging’ Dore’s research.
Fact based evidence would be great but what is fairly clear on the Dore issue, is that most facts appear to be ‘tainted’.
Whilst I have many reservations about the Dore programme I do believe the people who have said that the programme as helped them.
But this ‘belief’ is really only believing in the idea of belief itself.

By: frazzledazzle

frazzledazzle — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 18:34:04 +0000

No Via, not annoyed, just some of the points are moot if there was missunderstanding or the issue of “her exercises” was not clarified.

By: Via

Via — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 16:38:51 +0000

Do I detect a little annoyance?
Quite defensive, hitting a nerve?
What the saying, can’t remember properly myself but it’s something to do with
‘protesting too much’.
I think you’ve missed some of the points.
Or are you a little tired! Late night!
You’re asking questions so you obviously want to participate in the rumour and speculation!

By: frazzledazzle

frazzledazzle — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 01:16:24 +0000

Why don’t you just ask her, rather than keep speculating? Are you even sure she meant her Dore exercises, and not “working out” exercises? Either way, I’m not fond of rumors and speculations, so find out for sure.

By: Via

Via — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:48:01 +0000

If the Dore programme is predominantly built upon Susie’s experiences, then the questions are valid. Especially, when the claim has been made that the Dore programme offers a permanent solution for those individuals who are said to have Dsylexia, Dyspraxia and Adhd.
Susie’s experiences are used at the forefront of the sales and marketing of the Dore programme.
The questions why she was or is still doing exercises are relevant. Even the ‘rumours’ that she hadn’t completed the programme is open to legitmate questions of compliance.
Compliance to the Dore programme is one of the main reasons that Wynford has said is necessary for individuals to benefit fully from the exercises.
Indeed, compliance forms part of the flimsy ‘money back guarantee’ in the terms and conditions.
Furthermore, Wynford Dore has reported that non-compliance is or was the main reason for instances of ‘individual failure’.
Surely, asking why someone is continuing with a ‘programme’ that has previously laid claim to a kind of ‘cure’ to the learning difficulities is pertinent.
Whilst, I except that Susie might be still the ‘Guinea Pig’ and any involvement is related to further research, albeit somewhat haphazard.
To dismiss this enquiry as not important is somewhat premature. As is suggested “research doesn’t always look much like the finished treatment”.

Importance is a loaded word.
Any possible investments in the evaluation of the ‘importance’ are not always made clear or cannot be made clear.
Any ‘healthy’ research would hold with certain questions, even if it’s anecdotal and put these to one side.
After all, even fact finding has to come from somewhere.
Facts, don’t materlise themselves, someone creates them!
However, if you don’t believe that the Dore programme works in eradicating the said learning difficulites then it’s probably not relevant what Susie is doing.
But if you then consider that Susie’s experience forms the foundation of the Dore programme, then questions of this nature are relevant to the credibility of the company in a much wider sense.
In most research if you already know the questions you want to ask then you probably know the answers, so why ask the questions in the first place?
Raising unexpected questions and encounters with strangeness and oddity is ‘healthy research’, even coming across something accidentally.

By: Brainduck

Brainduck — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:30:31 +0000

If Susie’s the Dore ‘guinea pig’, it’s not surprising if she’s not doing just the standard stuff at standard times. Having volunteered for all sorts at the department, research doesn’t always look much like the finished treatment.
Don’t think it’s terribly important anyway – except perhaps as a lesson in the perils of using nothing but anecdote.

By: Via

Via — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:33:56 +0000

Maintenance?
Doesn’t quite fit into the claim that Dore make.
According to Dore these changes to the individual’s cerebellum is a physiological and a permanent change?
Sales and Marketing would have seized upon and relished the idea of a Dore maintenance programme!