[statecom-discuss] Re: Who is a member (person responsible to) The
Strategic Planning Working Group? (SPWG)
Yarden
yen.yarden at verizon.net
Wed May 9 09:19:42 EDT 2007
It is a generally desired that all persons committed to the project of
the SWPG (A group, not a Party Committee) know how to read, and be
prepared to do so. I use the term 'read' in its most broad sense
(e.g., as in 'Do you read me?). I do believe that all our Party
discussions must develop a deeper level of awareness, and am prepared
to work on this with others who may or may not wish to do so. Here is
true
freedom. The freedom of the members of the SWPG lies in the obligation
to read everything that is sent to them in connection with their work.
That is not true of the subscribers to the statecom-discuss list. The
following is my first contribution to 'fundamentals' of Green-Rainbow
discourse. I promise many more.
Elie Yarden
Cambridge
Attitude
Heard on the street, a girl's voice in a tone of unpleasant contempt;
". . . she's all attitude, that's all she is!" Over the next few
days, I considered, from time to time, how the neutral English usage of
a word had so altered, from a familiar term into a technical one that
might be misunderstood. Did that mean that I could no longer use it in
ordinary conversation?
Not really! Any discourse that is to allow for a serious exchange of
ideas or of perceptions, i. e., any cogent discourse concerning an
agreed object, however that discussion is attempted, fares better in
the absence of any attitude other than an thoughtful -- a considerate
-- one.
But in any case, attitude, in the sense of predisposition, will be
present. It might be treated as an individual manifestation of
ideology, or as personal bias. The first possibility is easily dealt
with by criticism, the second is not, and can be ignored.
But let us try to remember that hatred of an oppressor is as easily an
attitude that empowers the oppressor by blinding the oppressed and by
the comforting outrage of their 'liberal' sympathizers, as it is an
attitude that enables the continuance of persistent armed struggle
against overwhelming odds. Attitudes are not the foundation of
developing strategies to achieve positive goals. A correct 'attitude'
toward a master, cruel or kind, never freed a slave.
There we are! Having restored to the word, 'attitude,' the
non-judgemental sense it has had for most of its history, whether in
attested speech or in literature, I can begin the discusion, in which I
will try to limit my attitudes to those that might further the
discussion. "What is the subject?" you ask. Simply, Who are we, i.e.,
the Green-Rainbow Party. The reason for conducting this discussion in
the context of an e-mail discuss list is easy. There is no other place
in the formal structures, which we impose, to have this discussion.
And no other place where I can set the terms of it: normative
discourse. Another advantage to be had from a list-serve is
corrigibility. Let us remember to use that advantage well.
Since I am the one who is inviting this discourse, I must remember that
all communication demands 'good-will' of those who wish to participate.
The more the dialog moves toward unfamiliar ways of looking at things,
the more onerous the task of maintaining good-will. I keep this in
mind because I am looking for a way out of the despair generated by the
destruction of language. And I have little reason to believe that a
true consciousness of our situation can be achieved without examining
the linguistic usages that contributed to the production of our current
attitudes, whether unthinkingly or not.
-- Elie Yarden
On Wednesday, May 9, 2007, at 08:27 AM,
statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org wrote:
> Send statecom-discuss mailing list submissions to
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> statecom-discuss-request at green-rainbow.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> statecom-discuss-owner at green-rainbow.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of statecom-discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RE: Who is on the SPWG committee ? (Betty H. Zisk)
> 2. Re: Who is on the SPWG committee ? (Daniel Melnechuk)
> 3. Re: Who is on the SPWG committee ? (Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com)
> 4. Re: Who is on the SPWG committee ? (Ron Francis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 00:51:09 -0400
> From: "Betty H. Zisk" <zisk at bu.edu>
> Subject: RE: [statecom-discuss] Who is on the SPWG committee ?
> To: "Discussion List for StateCom members"
> <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <LLEFLHPOHPIAFBDJDDBDAEILEAAA.zisk at bu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thanks Kim. You have said it all. By the way I noted at May 6 meeting
> a real
> difference in style (though not in content) between most of the male
> and
> most of the female contributors. Women were (in general) more focused
> on
> questions of decency and equal treatment and simple respect for hearing
> others's views; men on procedural questions in a highly rational way.
> I cant
> prove this in any way because I didnt take notes but I suspect Eli's
> notes
> will support me on this. I wld hope that we can ALL become equally
> concerned
> about style and substance. Women on the whole were more emotive than
> men.
> This is of course not unexpected even in GRP but I was struck by it.
> And I
> am one of those who says viva la difference--but also respect and
> understand
> that gap. Please correct me if I am wrong. Betts
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
> [mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of Kim
> Lampereur
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 12:09 AM
> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] Who is on the SPWG committee ?
>
>
> The process SPWG created for taking comments is on that webpage. I
> trust that all comments are treated with equal consideration
> regardless of how (at meeting, by email to Eli, by postal mail to John
> A) and from whom they are received. We are all equals in this party
> and I would hate for someone who has the time, energy, and monetary
> resources to do a mass mailing of their comments to have their voice
> heard as any more important than others who follow the process the
> committee has set up.
>
> On a separate note, I wish we would keep all forms of ridicule off
> this list, as I feel it can only drive people away from our party. I
> don't see how we can uphold nonviolence as a key value while attacking
> each other in such ways.
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 02:07:43 -0400
> From: Daniel Melnechuk <isis at isisdesign.com>
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Who is on the SPWG committee ?
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <0D4644D1-252E-48A3-9A14-21B20CF6D488 at isisdesign.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I am just recovering from being sick for a few weeks so i am catching
> up on a lot of stuff including over 3 weeks of email. Hope you are
> doing well.
>
> In reading the email below, I guess i am a bit confused. You say you
> are ridiculing boundaries that are ridiculous -- not being allowed to
> submit written documents to the SPWG. But i don't see that. When i
> read the email below i don't see anyone saying that you can't submit
> written documents. In fact i read that Eli is taking submissions to
> send them to all the working groups' members in a process that the
> working group is using. Perhaps it is not fast enough for you but
> that is what the process is.
>
> Melissa personally asked not to have you send stuff to her since she
> resigned. She also suggested that if you do go ahead and send your
> written comments outside of the working groups' stated process, you
> ask the members first, as a courtesy, if they want it outside the
> process. But Melissa never says don't send it outside the working
> groups' process.
>
> I guess i am concerned that you don't want to work together with the
> working group and follow the process that was democratically agreed
> upon by the working group for submission of written statements. Can
> you explain why you find you must ignore the democratically agreed
> upon process set up by the working group and send your documents
> directly the the members of SPWG?
>
> Peace,
> Dan Melnechuk
>
>
> On May 8, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Ron Francis wrote:
>
>> Respecting the process doesn't mean that communication stops or is
>> restricted. I've never been in a group where any folks objected to
>> being sent information, and like Betts I am confused as to why
>> Melissa is "complaining".
>>
>> It should be a fundamental principle that anyone can send any other
>> person information, in any reasonable manner if the person is in a
>> GRP committee. No one is forced to read any documents, but to not
>> receive them would be anti-participatory.
>>
>> I AM ridiculing boundaries that are ridiculous and inconsistent
>> with our value of participatory democracy.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: I understand that Eli said he was
>> gathering documents and would distribute
>> them - please be respectful and honor the process the SPWG members
>> outline -
>> they are doing a great deal of important work - there is no need to
>> ridicule
>> boundaries.
>>
>> Eli, please clarify the process for everyone again who wishes to
>> submit
>> written testimony so that everyone will follow it - Love, grace
>> In a message dated 5/8/07 8:54:08 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> It is absurd to think that people on a strategy committee would
>>> not be
>>> interested in the thoughts of people who cannot attend particular
>>> meetings and so
>>> it is perfectly reasonable to send things to them by whatever
>>> method which I
>>> will do regardless of what Melissa feels.
>>>
>>> If folks were not interested in comments from members then they
>>> should not
>>> have joined the committee - that is the minimum requirement for
>>> being on a
>>> party committee (accepting communication from people in the party
>>> who have ideas
>>> related to the committee)
>>>
>>> Can you imagine the platform committee not accepting material
>>> related to a
>>> particular issue from people. That's just ridiculous and anti-
>>> democratic
>>>
>>> If any member does not want the mailing then they can contact me,
>>> otherwise
>>> I will mail it out to all.
>>>
>>> Ron Francis
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Melissa Harrell
>> wrote: I certainly hope my name has
>>> been removed from that list since I have no
>>> interest in recieving Ron's lengthy comments in my email box and
>>> sending it
>>> to my home is most CERTAINLY NOT OK. That's wouldn't be ok even
>>> if I was on
>>> the committee.
>>>
>>> May I suggest that Ron contact people BEFORE sending things to
>>> their home?
>>> While Ron may not feel like waiting for Eli to get the info to
>>> them, the
>>> committee members may have other things to do in their lives and
>>> may want to
>>> wait. Just like Ron has things to do with his life that he is not
>>> always
>>> able to fully participate because he is balancing many things in
>>> his life.
>>> Giving others the same curtesy is the least he can do.
>>>
>>> On 5/8/07, Eli Beckerman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ron, so far the SPWG has had 2 meetings. And we had the open
>>>> strategy
>>>> meeting this past Sunday, which was the first time we heard
>>>> comments from
>>>> GRP not on the committee. The SPWG has not yet gotten to that
>>>> level of
>>>> discussion, though now that we have heard from people we will
>>>> take it up
>>>> (including the written comments). In addition to comments already
>>>> received, I expect we will also solicit comments in a more detailed
>>>> framework that we will provide (which has not yet been
>>>> developed). So far
>>>> the only framework we have provided is the 10 "focus" questions
>>>> that were
>>>> sent out.
>>>>
>>>> The current members of the SPWG are up on the webpage:
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/Committees/Strategic_Planning
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/07, Ron Francis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Eli informs me that no written documents have entered into the SPWG
>>>>> process. That is not acceptable.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can be given the names of the people on the committee, then
>>>>> I am
>>>>> willing to do my own physical US mail-style mailing to get my
>>>>> position
>>>>> papers on fundamental problems facing the GRP into the hands of all
>>>> members
>>>>> of the committee.
>>>>>
>>>>> So who is on the committee ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron Francis
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 07:34:06 EDT
> From: Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Who is on the SPWG committee ?
> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Message-ID: <bea.1046d7e2.33730bae at aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
>
> I said public ridicule CAN function as bullying. You said you were
> ridiculing and it is on a public listserv.
>
> I want to clarify in general that there are many means of bullying.
> The kid
> in the school yard who bullies apparently can actually be feeling
> isolated,
> ostracized and powerless - so the internal reality and the impact of
> their
> actions can be separate. And, of course, there can be many ways of
> having power
> over - they don't have to be formal and the "power" can be an
> expression of
> many things - I can, for instance, be seen as having "power over"
> someone who I
> don't even know if they are a person of color and I am white - and it
> maybe
> expressed the advantage I have of, say, having way more time to
> participate in a
> group and having say cell phone access to everyone - those are forms of
> advantage that could be turned into power over if I use them that way.
>
> The simple thing is to take issues you have with someone off the
> public list
> and ideally call and resolve them - then there is no problem with the
> appearance of public ridicule - Love, grace
> In a message dated 5/8/07 11:10:36 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>> I don't believe there is any "bullying" taking place. A bully
>> typically
>> has power over the person that they are "bullying". that is not
>> present in
>> this case.
>>
>> If you don't think the suggestion to block reasonable communication
>> to a
>> party committee is ridiculous, then make an argument, instead of
>> calling the
>> commenter a "bully" suggesting that the public comment is somehow
>> less valid.
>>
>> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: Public ridicule can function as bullying,
>> don't
>> continue or repeat - thank
>> you, Grace
>> In a message dated 5/8/07 11:00:31 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> Respecting the process doesn't mean that communication stops or is
>>> restricted. I've never been in a group where any folks objected to
>>> being
>> sent
>>> information, and like Betts I am confused as to why Melissa is
>> "complaining".
>>>
>>> It should be a fundamental principle that anyone can send any other
>>> person
>>> information, in any reasonable manner if the person is in a GRP
>> committee. No
>>> one is forced to read any documents, but to not receive them would be
>>> anti-participatory.
>>>
>>> I AM ridiculing boundaries that are ridiculous and inconsistent with
>>> our
>>> value of participatory democracy.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: I understand that Eli said he was
>>> gathering
>>> documents and would distribute
>>> them - please be respectful and honor the process the SPWG members
>>> outline
>> -
>>> they are doing a great deal of important work - there is no need to
>> ridicule
>>> boundaries.
>>>
>>> Eli, please clarify the process for everyone again who wishes to
>>> submit
>>> written testimony so that everyone will follow it - Love, grace
>>> In a message dated 5/8/07 8:54:08 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is absurd to think that people on a strategy committee would not
>>>> be
>>>> interested in the thoughts of people who cannot attend particular
>> meetings
>>> and so
>>>> it is perfectly reasonable to send things to them by whatever method
>> which
>>> I
>>>> will do regardless of what Melissa feels.
>>>>
>>>> If folks were not interested in comments from members then they
>>>> should
>> not
>>>> have joined the committee - that is the minimum requirement for
>>>> being on
>> a
>>>> party committee (accepting communication from people in the party
>>>> who
>> have
>>> ideas
>>>> related to the committee)
>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine the platform committee not accepting material
>>>> related to
>> a
>>>> particular issue from people. That's just ridiculous and
>> anti-democratic
>>>>
>>>> If any member does not want the mailing then they can contact me,
>>> otherwise
>>>> I will mail it out to all.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Francis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Melissa Harrell
>>> wrote: I certainly hope my name has
>>>> been removed from that list since I have no
>>>> interest in recieving Ron's lengthy comments in my email box and
>>>> sending
>>> it
>>>> to my home is most CERTAINLY NOT OK. That's wouldn't be ok even if
>>>> I
>> was
>>> on
>>>> the committee.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest that Ron contact people BEFORE sending things to their
>> home?
>>>> While Ron may not feel like waiting for Eli to get the info to
>>>> them, the
>>>> committee members may have other things to do in their lives and may
>> want
>>> to
>>>> wait. Just like Ron has things to do with his life that he is not
>> always
>>>> able to fully participate because he is balancing many things in his
>> life.
>>>> Giving others the same curtesy is the least he can do.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/07, Eli Beckerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron, so far the SPWG has had 2 meetings. And we had the open
>>>>> strategy
>>>>> meeting this past Sunday, which was the first time we heard
>>>>> comments
>>> from
>>>>> GRP not on the committee. The SPWG has not yet gotten to that
>>>>> level of
>>>>> discussion, though now that we have heard from people we will take
>>>>> it
>> up
>>>>> (including the written comments). In addition to comments already
>>>>> received, I expect we will also solicit comments in a more detailed
>>>>> framework that we will provide (which has not yet been developed).
>>>>> So
>>> far
>>>>> the only framework we have provided is the 10 "focus" questions
>>>>> that
>>> were
>>>>> sent out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current members of the SPWG are up on the webpage:
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/Committees/Strategic_Planning
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/07, Ron Francis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eli informs me that no written documents have entered into the
>>>>>> SPWG
>>>>>> process. That is not acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I can be given the names of the people on the committee, then I
>> am
>>>>>> willing to do my own physical US mail-style mailing to get my
>> position
>>>>>> papers on fundamental problems facing the GRP into the hands of
>>>>>> all
>>>>> members
>>>>>> of the committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So who is on the committee ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Francis
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************************************
>>> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 05:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ron Francis <ronwf777 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Who is on the SPWG committee ?
> To: Discussion List for StateCom members
> <statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org>
> Message-ID: <158832.64375.qm at web32201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii
>
> On ridicule:
> Ridiculing ideas is different than ridiculing people. I ridiculed an
> anti-participatory idea and not any particular person.
>
> On advantages of US Mail versus coming to the meeting.
> I would argue that someone who is using physical mailing and can't
> come to a meeting is at a disadvantage versus those who can come to a
> meeting and defend what they have to say. The disadvantage of not
> having physical resources is only one type of disadvantage. My
> support for Palestinian human rights places me at many other types of
> disadvantages that no one on this list faces; I am attacked at my work
> place frivolously (and ineffectively) and have to fight for even the
> right to freedom of expression..
>
> The LEAST we can do is to accept the written comments of people who
> cannot actually come to a given meeting. The medium of writing allows
> for reflective thoght and is an acceptable medium.
>
> The bottom line is this: Someone who cannot come to a meeting should
> have the right to submit written materials for THAT meetng and not for
> some other meeting. To suggest otherwise is just plain wrong.... and
> I've neer seen a group that did not encourage people to send written
> documents if they couldn't make a particular meeting. (And the cost
> disadvantage that we are talking about here is a non-issue since party
> business can always be charge to the party as we have done many time
> before so nothing stops a low income person from the $5:00 cost of a
> mailing to 6 or 8 people)
>
> On respecting people who don't want mail:
> I have already indicated that people who want to beg off the list of
> people receiving the physical mail. I am understanding of the
> inordinate hardship of receiving a few sheets of paper in the mail.
>
> On the process of SPWG:
> One member has already resigned citing the closed naure of the SPWG
> process. Initially there were even wild suggestions that the meeting
> be closed to party members !
>
> I was told that my documents would be presented at the meeting of
> SPWG, and not the 7th meeting of SPWG. By that time who knows what
> irreversible track the group has gone down. When I send stuff to Mike
> Heichman for CDLC, when I can't make those meetings, and he tells me
> that the ideas will be presented at the meeting, then he presents them
> at that meeting.
>
> We need to be more inclusive with this process and encourage, not
> attack, people who want to participate in the best way that they can.
> The suggestion to block physical mail as a way of communiating to
> committees is bordering on censorship and must be aggressively fought
> against.
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com" <Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com>
> To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:34:06 AM
> Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Who is on the SPWG committee ?
>
>
> I said public ridicule CAN function as bullying. You said you were
> ridiculing and it is on a public listserv.
>
> I want to clarify in general that there are many means of bullying.
> The kid
> in the school yard who bullies apparently can actually be feeling
> isolated,
> ostracized and powerless - so the internal reality and the impact of
> their
> actions can be separate. And, of course, there can be many ways of
> having power
> over - they don't have to be formal and the "power" can be an
> expression of
> many things - I can, for instance, be seen as having "power over"
> someone who I
> don't even know if they are a person of color and I am white - and it
> maybe
> expressed the advantage I have of, say, having way more time to
> participate in a
> group and having say cell phone access to everyone - those are forms of
> advantage that could be turned into power over if I use them that way.
>
> The simple thing is to take issues you have with someone off the
> public list
> and ideally call and resolve them - then there is no problem with the
> appearance of public ridicule - Love, grace
> In a message dated 5/8/07 11:10:36 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>> I don't believe there is any "bullying" taking place. A bully
>> typically
>> has power over the person that they are "bullying". that is not
>> present in
>> this case.
>>
>> If you don't think the suggestion to block reasonable communication
>> to a
>> party committee is ridiculous, then make an argument, instead of
>> calling the
>> commenter a "bully" suggesting that the public comment is somehow
>> less valid.
>>
>> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: Public ridicule can function as bullying,
>> don't
>> continue or repeat - thank
>> you, Grace
>> In a message dated 5/8/07 11:00:31 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> Respecting the process doesn't mean that communication stops or is
>>> restricted. I've never been in a group where any folks objected to
>>> being
>> sent
>>> information, and like Betts I am confused as to why Melissa is
>> "complaining".
>>>
>>> It should be a fundamental principle that anyone can send any other
>>> person
>>> information, in any reasonable manner if the person is in a GRP
>> committee. No
>>> one is forced to read any documents, but to not receive them would be
>>> anti-participatory.
>>>
>>> I AM ridiculing boundaries that are ridiculous and inconsistent with
>>> our
>>> value of participatory democracy.
>>>
>>> Ron
>>>
>>> Gracegrnrnbw at aol.com wrote: I understand that Eli said he was
>>> gathering
>>> documents and would distribute
>>> them - please be respectful and honor the process the SPWG members
>>> outline
>> -
>>> they are doing a great deal of important work - there is no need to
>> ridicule
>>> boundaries.
>>>
>>> Eli, please clarify the process for everyone again who wishes to
>>> submit
>>> written testimony so that everyone will follow it - Love, grace
>>> In a message dated 5/8/07 8:54:08 PM, ronwf777 at yahoo.com writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is absurd to think that people on a strategy committee would not
>>>> be
>>>> interested in the thoughts of people who cannot attend particular
>> meetings
>>> and so
>>>> it is perfectly reasonable to send things to them by whatever method
>> which
>>> I
>>>> will do regardless of what Melissa feels.
>>>>
>>>> If folks were not interested in comments from members then they
>>>> should
>> not
>>>> have joined the committee - that is the minimum requirement for
>>>> being on
>> a
>>>> party committee (accepting communication from people in the party
>>>> who
>> have
>>> ideas
>>>> related to the committee)
>>>>
>>>> Can you imagine the platform committee not accepting material
>>>> related to
>> a
>>>> particular issue from people. That's just ridiculous and
>> anti-democratic
>>>>
>>>> If any member does not want the mailing then they can contact me,
>>> otherwise
>>>> I will mail it out to all.
>>>>
>>>> Ron Francis
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Melissa Harrell
>>> wrote: I certainly hope my name has
>>>> been removed from that list since I have no
>>>> interest in recieving Ron's lengthy comments in my email box and
>>>> sending
>>> it
>>>> to my home is most CERTAINLY NOT OK. That's wouldn't be ok even if
>>>> I
>> was
>>> on
>>>> the committee.
>>>>
>>>> May I suggest that Ron contact people BEFORE sending things to their
>> home?
>>>> While Ron may not feel like waiting for Eli to get the info to
>>>> them, the
>>>> committee members may have other things to do in their lives and may
>> want
>>> to
>>>> wait. Just like Ron has things to do with his life that he is not
>> always
>>>> able to fully participate because he is balancing many things in his
>> life.
>>>> Giving others the same curtesy is the least he can do.
>>>>
>>>> On 5/8/07, Eli Beckerman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ron, so far the SPWG has had 2 meetings. And we had the open
>>>>> strategy
>>>>> meeting this past Sunday, which was the first time we heard
>>>>> comments
>>> from
>>>>> GRP not on the committee. The SPWG has not yet gotten to that
>>>>> level of
>>>>> discussion, though now that we have heard from people we will take
>>>>> it
>> up
>>>>> (including the written comments). In addition to comments already
>>>>> received, I expect we will also solicit comments in a more detailed
>>>>> framework that we will provide (which has not yet been developed).
>>>>> So
>>> far
>>>>> the only framework we have provided is the 10 "focus" questions
>>>>> that
>>> were
>>>>> sent out.
>>>>>
>>>>> The current members of the SPWG are up on the webpage:
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/Committees/Strategic_Planning
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/07, Ron Francis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eli informs me that no written documents have entered into the
>>>>>> SPWG
>>>>>> process. That is not acceptable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I can be given the names of the people on the committee, then I
>> am
>>>>>> willing to do my own physical US mail-style mailing to get my
>> position
>>>>>> papers on fundamental problems facing the GRP into the hands of
>>>>>> all
>>>>> members
>>>>>> of the committee.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So who is on the committee ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ron Francis
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************************************
>>> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> **************************************
>> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> statecom-discuss mailing list
>> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> **************************************
> See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>
> End of statecom-discuss Digest, Vol 59, Issue 2
> ***********************************************
>
More information about the statecom-discuss
mailing list