James, Lloyd, et al --> To categorise a list member on the basis of how much they contribute andwhat they say demeans the value of any contribution to the list.
I realize this discussion morphed somewhat, but I'm sad to see that it has taken a turn that has disturbed some people. I'd like to get the discussion back on it's original focus.
The original reason 'lurking' was brought up under the 'personal security' topic is because there are many people who lurk on bd now because they do not want their posts to be preserved forever in public arhives. It was suggested that we make the archives private so that people who currently lurk on bd now feel comfortable in sharing their experiences with members of the group.
This topic has brought forth much discussion, but I have seen little compassion for the members of BD NOW!, many of them long time members, who feel that it is inappropriate for them to speak their hearts or their experiences into such a public forum. Or those who feel that archives lack context and nuance and therefore contribute misunderstanding if not spritzed with a fair amount of contemporary commentary.
Secondary to this, it has been mentioned that public archives encourage what could be called 'extreme lurking,' which are people who approach this group in a very high handed way. They want what we have to share, but they do not want to join with us. While we can hope that they, too, are using biodynamics somewhere, they do little to further the community's knowledge by sharing their experiences or sharing their questions. I for one feel that bd now is like an Iroquois community soup: take all you want, but, please, while you are partaking, be thinking of what YOU can put back in the big pot for the rest of the community
While by no means do I want to encourage sharing without content (questions are full of potential content!), it is important that this forum be designed to encourage participation.
Unfortunately, those who cannot speak will not speak, so most of you on this list cannot appreciate the lost resources that I encounter in person.
This reminds me of a class a government worker friend of mine took. This was a class in some sort of office psychology. They did a personality inventory and learned who were introverts and who were extroverts and then divided the class accordingly. With a little discussion, it was discovered that, as a group, the extroverts were very suspicious introverts and, on the whole, did not like any of them. The introverts, it appears, felt much the same about the extroverts, but probably more annoyed than suspicious. Then the instructor asked the extroverts to say all they wanted about the introverts, and discussion went on for about an hour, with the instructor saying "It's ok, introverts, you'll get your chance next!" When it came the introverts time to rag on the extorverts, however, noone said a word. In fact, the bulk of the introverts called in sick the rest of the week. Even when the introvert case is stated clearly, it's truest ramifications are overlooked by the typical extrovert.
Used to be, say, around WWII, considered that extroversion was the height of health. Now I believe that psychology allows that introversion is a valid personality type, capable of being healthy within its own parameters and capable of accomplishing, within their own spheres of expertise, as much as extroverts.
In extrovert dominated discussion, however, one would never realize that. ;-)
So, I say again: members of this group are uncomfortable with the format of this group. Rather than appealing to the highest human principles, as this discussion seems to tended towards, can we consider putting Patrick Henry away and have more empathy for those among us who feel uncomfortable with public archives?
