 |
 |
HI Janet and all, I think that the main difference between us has to do with the conception of there being a bus driver or not. And intentions of that driver. Yes there is a bus driver but IMHO she (Barb Patterson) has elected to allow us to drive the bus ourselves except in rare cases where an executive decision has to be made. This allows for wide latitude and certainly criticism of the process. If I am wrong I would like to hear it from her. I have written answers to your reply to my letter below. Please read: janet paterson wrote: > hi all > > At 19:53 1999/08/04 -0500, charlie wrote: > >Hi Janet, > >I have to disagree with you about the analogy of being > >invited to dinner and criticizing the list . I see us as > >a family all with different personalities needs and desires. > >What you are saying if this is true is let us argue politics, > >pigs or whatever but don't comment on the process- the hidden > >rules which are operative.. > > i'm having trouble following this - hidden rules? > > >I think we both agree that the list will not survive as more > >than a place to play and chat if opinion is censored or so strongly > >discouraged that people are discouraged from posting. But it will > >also be in danger if we are discouraged from commenting on the list > >process as we see it.... > > danger? what danger? I think that leads dissatisfied people to leave the list cutting the diversity that we have- diversity is our strength. While at times it may be uncomfortable it allows dissenters to get things out in the open. You can't talk about democracy without allowing dissent. > > > >We then become a pseudomutual family like a 50's sitcom > >where everything is perfect on the outside but under the > >surface mom hates dad, dad is screwing with his secretary, > >the kids are alcoholic because the family is not being real > >with each other.... > > i can't relate this to my dinner metaphor > or to the list's existence > I think when dissent is suppressed the rules become "Everything is fine and if there is dissent then there is something wrong with the dissenter rather than the family (the list)" At times people allow things to eat at them- as I, and apparently many others did with Pigs- and become inactive or leave. > > you are talking about a true family > whose structure is inherent in its roots and in its origins > a woman and a man who have made vows to each other, > who have born children together, who have legal and moral and > emotional obligations to and expectations of each other > > the list is just a structure, a framework, a cyber megaphone, a hall rental > offered by the owner who could be anyone, granted, for virtually free use > by anyone to communicate with anyone else > hopefuly about pd, in this case > > imho > the communication among all the individuals > is what creates the family-like-ness > [and it's only a likeness, an ethereal shadow in cyber space] > not the list structure > > the members of this cyber family > have no obligations to or expectations of > anything except maybe a little tolerance and common courtesy > But that is precisely the problem. I don't think that monopolization of the list is courteous. I also don't think it bad to protest- even if it gets a little rough like David did with Carole. Unfortunately instead of coming out as a suggestion earlier it came out as a tirade now. That precisely is the reason why David "should" have stayed part of the list and he "should" have let her know he was upset with her much earlier. > > if barb wanted to fold up the tent and go south > there's no 'real' family structure i.e. marriage, parenthood, etc. here > to hold her back, is there? > > the structure exists here because she built it herself > out of her own will and generosity > And we ought to hear from her as to her conception of the list "rules". If protest is forbidden or strongly discouraged, it is Barb's show, I've got the rules wrong and I'll fold up my tent and go quietly. But I don't see it that way. I see the need for the list to have feedback mechanisms intact. to correct its course. This is needed by all complex social systems to survive. To the boat analogy, if the captain doesn't get the feedback from his senses and instruments he stands a good chance of going around in circles. > > >We in the past have clashed on this issue and never resolved it. > >I think that it is necessary that people not be discouraged from > >stating their displeasure with the list... > > we still don't agree > and i still can't follow your viewpoint > > i don't think your extension of the family metaphor is relevant The family analogy does hold IMO. While you are right that there is no legal bond that holds us together there is the bond of PD- which while allowing certainly a more open system than a family- it still is a social system, > if i were to extend the dinner metaphor > i might make it a pd support group holding its regular meeting in my house > in that case > you wouldn't be getting chili and beer > so you couldn't complain about them > but i might hear > sheesh do we have to sit in this room with that gawdawful painting? > and when was this place vacuumed last, anyway? > and why is the coffee taking so long? > and why in heck did you have to tell the jones' about this meeting ? > in which case > my response might be > gee whilikers, what did your last servant die of? > and > holy moly, don't you guys have any real business to discuss? > and > i hear there's a real purty lookin hotel with real meetin rooms > right down the road > so hit it The impolite guest analogy implies that it is your house. If it is and I am not satisfied I will leave of my own accord. But if it is a true cyber democracy then it is our clubhouse not your house and it is my duty to say folks we ought to vacuum this place etc. > >If you don't want any rules than so be it (or minimal rules > such as no commercial soliciting and no personal attacks)... > > so be it? > them's the house rules, take 'em or leave 'em > [as jean chretien would say] That is twice in a row you essentially said take it or leave it. With your new position that becomes a threat rather than a statement whether you mean it or not. That cuts off debate if we were to let it. > >But I think the list process should be fair game... > > why? > don't we have more important things to discuss? > Like Pigs an Vito?? > > the host/owner called / calls the shots > including the list creation, the list options, the list restrictions > the creating was not a democratic act > and neither is the maintenance, > i might add > ono here comes another metaphor > why can't we leave the driving to the bus-driver? > who also happens to own the bus > who also does not happen to be charging any fare > and is paying for the gas out of her own pocket > you lot can talk about any dang thing you want > just stay in your dang seats > and quit yer twitchin > > why can't we accept the hospitality as it is offered? > why don't we want to pay attention to our real problems? Like it or not these are our collective problem. That is the way a social system works. > > > >If enough people are fed up with pigs then the subject will > >die. But choosing not to act is as powerful as acting. Choosing > >not to protest is a tacit vote to keep on the same subject until > >it runs out of steam (as I have chosen with pigs)... > > i'm afraid i can't follow this Lack of protest can be as powerful as protest. It can be a signal to the group that people are satisfied. When there was little cry about the pig issue it was a sign to the "pig-lovers (said with no derision intended)" that nobody objected and go ahead and continue to discuss pigs. > > > >As the list co-leader your opinion is magnified significantly kind of > >like Napoleon in Animal Farm (a pig!!). " Some animals are more equal > >than others." So your words are heard loud and clear. I think that > >you set the unwritten rules with your considerable writing talents and > >the esteem people hold you in.... > > maybe my voice is magnified by becoming a list-mom > but i don't think the tune has changed one whit No! When you say something it carries considerably more weight whether you intend it or not. > > > do you know that in my very first message to the list > in october 1995 > there was a similar list kefuffle > and i expressed the exact same opinion then as now > i told barb not to change it > and bless her lil heart > she hasn't! > > i look on this facility as a blessing in my life > > however, > and not to minimize barb's efforts, > the bare-bones structure could be a listserv in toronto, > or a bbs in los angeles, or a major-domo in leeds, > or a bulletin board at the piggly-wiggly grocery store in the sky, > that part doesn't matter to me > other than its existence > > what does matter to me > is the communication between us, worldwide and instant, > about the toughest, scariest parts of our lives > which some of us can share with no-one else > > >The prime directive becomes "Don't criticize the list... > > nope > the prime directive has never been that > the prime directive is sharing and talking about pd Agreed ! I exaggerated for effect, but then when does non-PD stuff become too much? > > > >"Now with your new position that is strengthened even more... > > maybe > but i've always been a ton more vocal than barb > and the song is still the same old song > > >we don't complain (as a family member should but a guest shouldn't). Are > >the complainers guests or are they family members? If they are part of > >the family then they have a right and perhaps even a duty to complain if > >they are guests they should be polite and suffer in silence and leave- > >smiling but dissatisfied... > > this is not a 'real' family > it's a cyberial ethereal replication of a shadow of a family > similar to the way that a three dimensional [as opposed to ethereal] > support group can become 'family-like' > No it is not a real family. But the statement that" it is a blessing on my life" says it means much to you see it as a powerful system that you have a more than a casual investment in (as do I and a large proportion of the regulars on the list) > > this lecture has been presented free of charge > with assistance from one pansy-bell > > janet > > janet paterson > 52 now / 41 dx / 37 onset > snail-mail: PO Box 171 Almonte Ontario K0A 1A0 Canada > website: a new voice <http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/6263/> > e-mail: <[log in to unmask]> -- ****************************************************************************************** Charles T. Meyer, M.D. Middleton (Madison), Wisconsin [log in to unmask] ******************************************************************************************