I have remained silent on this "issue" so far, mainly because so many
of you were doing an admirable job of saying what I would have just
said anyway. So I saw no need.
However, I now feel a need to state a couple of things with regard to how this discussion is going.
Grimkirk was correct in that there has been a stormy history here.
And, negativity has happened here before. I believe where the line gets
drawn is when that spills over in a post to look like a personal attack
on one person. That's how I read the post, and judging from others
postings after, so did other people. I absolutely believe that all
have their right to speak (or in this case write) their opinions about
a topic. And, the Barony issue, and it's many related issues, is a hot
topic. And, I for one, am glad to see that none of us are taking this
lightly....no matter which way the final outcome goes, we need to have
taken this seriously and put thought into it.
That being said, it's one thing to say "Hey, I totally disagree" and
another to say it in a manner that attacks the person making the
statement rather than the statement. I work in special education. My
colleagues and I disagree either with each other or with others at
various times. The preferred, productive route is to show respect for
the person and their knowledge base, but disagree with their conclusion
or suggestion. We all have information and history to share, and much
of it will be enlightening to others.
I believe the difference we are talking about here is constructive
versus destructive criticism. Constructive can, and frequently does,
lead to new or innovative solutions to problems. Destructive not only
does NOT lead to that, but leaves people feeling angry and resentful.
The goal of the mayor's office has been, for at least the last and
current term, to try and reduce and/or eliminate the destruction. NOT
eliminate the disagreement, just the negativity for negativities sake.
And, I appreciate more than most the position that Eitenne has found
himself in. It takes bravery to act on that. Any decision will be met
with agreements and disagreements. But, I do applaud here those that
have stated their level of discomfort with the decision....I didn't
read any personal attacks against him, but rather with his decision.
This list was created to help the communication between the groups. It
actually was NOT a forum for discussion. We opened that up last year
for facilitation of discussion about the Ayreton event. But, prior to
that, it was for postings....of events, of guild meetings, of
arts/science gatherings, of fighter practices, and occasional pleas for
help with demos.
So, maybe it's time to rethink the purpose of this egroup. Is it for
discussion? Or do we go back to this for postings? Thoughts? Should
we do an "epoll" about it?
One other thought. If you, ANY of you, are passionate about a
particular thing, especially if it's something that a formal group (any
of the groups) will potentially be voting on, and you are a member of
that group, it might be in your personal best interest to either show
up to the meeting, or give your WRITTEN proxy vote to someone you trust
that is going. If written is out of the question, then call the SENESCHAL....do not depend on others to go a particular way. Decisions get made based on who is present....be that
funding of things, or dates of things, etc. Don't like how your group
is voting? Then go to the meeting. Do all the other people on an
egroup not in your group need to know? Maybe, but highly unlikely....
Your former Mayor and interested citizen,
Don't let your dream ride pass you by.
with Yahoo! Autos.