[Summit] In denial, who's who, reactionary

Sun Jan 18 21:17:39 UTC 2015

i object to the word “mendacious”.

thing is… that this dialog is repetitious. every time this one person does his repetitive rant, the conversation unfolds the same way, we have the same discussion, it starts with similar comments, moves to the proposed rules and rejection of those rules, is followed by the same manifestos…

leaves me scratching my head upon following this same convo for the 3rd or 4th time.

k

 <http://www.rhodycraft.com/>
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> This post actually raises a serious question in a substantive way.  Thank you, Fr Eng.  
> 
> I think, however, that your way of dealing with it is fundamentally wrong.  Hence this longish post.
> 
> The question, as I see it, is about the decision-making process within the SNA, and more broadly, about how policy decisions should be mae in such organizations.  
> 
> My sense of the SNA membership is that on very many issues, a significant fraction of the membership -- a different fraction from one issue to the next -- doesn't care strongly enough about the outcome to put much time and effort into influencing the outcome.  And the remaining membership, the ones who do care strongly about that issue, are divided about the outcome they desire, but will be content  in any case to go along with whatever action the organization finally undertakes.  Hardly anyone feels strongly enough about any particualr issue to ne more than mildly annoyed when a decision seems wrong to them.  Righteous outrage, or even indignation, or passion for any issue, seems to be in very short supply among us.
> 
> Under those conditions, not just here on the East Side in SNA, but in any organization, the decisions end up being made by a fairly small group of energetic members.  In SNA, this is usually the Board of Directors.  The rest of us are mostly content to say, "Eh, whatever ..." when we would have preferred a different outcome, or to applaud lightly when we like what was decided.
> 
> Under conditions such as these, consensus-building processes simply don't work as a means of democratic decision-making; the few people with the most endurance and the fewest demands on their time elsewhere, shape the decision and then present it -- mendaciously -- as the "consensus" of the organization.  Formal votes, like our own National Elections, work slightly better, but very often leave a majority of the membership feeling more or less dissatisfied with the outcome -- because the turnout for the vote is such a small part of the entire membership.
> 
> The only was any organization can function at all, under these conditions, is through a willingness to embrace, to actively welcome compromise, where no one gets everything (or even most of what) they want, and everyone gets a little.  So it is, I think, with SNA.
> 
> And so it was, if memory serves me correctly, with the fountain and the trees.  
> 
> In your posts on the subject, I believe that I hear righteous anger.  (Please correct me if I am hearing you wrongly.)  In what actually happened, I see the sort of compromise that absolutely has to be made in a world where there is no true consensus whatever on what is ther "right" course of action in this case, or any such case.  It is not in fact obvious that trees are more important than a workign fountain.  Nor is the reverse obvious, either.  Reasonable people may disagree on this issue, and on ALMOST EVERY hot-button issue that impacts a neighborhood, a city, a state, a nation or the entire world.  
> 
> And so we compromise: we have a fountain that runs part of the time, and we have some trees, though ot as many as we once had.  Also, we do not have a purely one-person-one-vote-and-everyone-votes decision-making process, for that doesn;t work-- period!  Instead, we have a practical, political compormise for getting things done.
> 
> Me, I consider myself a realist, not an idealist, and a centrist, neither left-leaning or right-leaning.  So I am content with what happened in the park.  Indeed, I think that compromise is almost always the best way to resolve a disputed issue, not victory for one side or the other.  But I can see how an idealist might find this point of view abhorrent.  If you are such an idealist, then I feel for you, because (in my experience) the world is rarely kind to idealists.
> 
> I would be glad to discuss these matters more fully with you, either on-list or privately, if you think it would be productive to do so.  And I concede in advance that I may have misunderstood some of the motives that lead you to post, and I stand ready to be corrected.  In return I would welcome a concession from you that -- just possiby -- very few people in the SNA care as passionately as you do about the things you repeatedly stress, and the -- just possiby -- nothing you or anyone can do or say will ever change that.
> 
> Bob Mathiesen
> 
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Fr Eng <ridotshaw at gmail.com <mailto:ridotshaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
> So,
> I have referred to a very factual incident - the destruction of trees on a much loved park.  That was planned and started so a fountain could be rebuilt.  Why go back to this terrible incident?  Because when I first objected to the plan - when it was just a plan - the forum was told to just forget my objections.  They would go away when the fountain was built.   Well, when the destruction of trees started, the real neighborhood rose up, not SNA which had really proposed the project and approved the tree destruction.    
> 
> So now in addition to working to forget the mistake that was made and who was responsible (SNA), we want to obliterate any memory and objection to what some people think should happen in a neighborhood.
> 
> And people wonder why some think the East Side is elitist????
> 
> Nice broad brush reactionary response and responses.  What do you want for me to id myself... my SS #?  my blood type?  my preferences?   Wow!!!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us <mailto:Summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us <http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us>
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/ <http://sna.providence.ri.us/>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20150118/69002df2/attachment.htm>