I think that the list manager should undertake a case study of this issue. I
monitored the discussion of this issue and I bit my tongue several times
over the last several days. The discussion quickly became critical to the
point of several members suggesting that Commissioners be unelected over
their votes on this single issue. A park board employee was called a
"character" when trying to provide the Forum members information. One Forum
member suggested that Com Dziedzic was for the building acquistion so he
wouldn't have to drive as far to meetings. (This statement is probably false
as Dziedzic lives right off 35W and is minutes from downtown and his house
is on the extreme eastern border of northeast.) I was accused of being "in
it" only for the legal fees. (By the way I'm not billing anyone for my time;
I just got sick of the stream of garbage that popped up on my computer and
when Emily's effort to provide some information meet with the derisive email
of Mr. Kuettel I felt enough was enough. Unfortunately for me most of what
has come back is in the same tone as the response to Emily. I guess I
shouldn't have been surprised.)
I've
monitored other topics although with less interest. While this is a great
medium to allow people to communicate and obtain information and insights
not readily availible through the press, I'm am truly shocked as to the
willingness of some members to ascribe evil motives to people. I'm more
bothered by the blatant disregard for people and in some cases the truth. I
told a fellow lawyer that I think a found a treasure trove for libel and
defamation lawsuits earlier this week. This was after I'd seen some of the
assertions put out on this Forum. I know that some member will now accuse me
of being a bully and threatening lawsuits, but I'm not. I'm simply saying
that our rights to free speech are predicated on it being truthful speech,
unless of course we are the press.
I'm also
bothered by the fact that some mebers of this Forum believe they are
entitled to others to take their time to respond to their inquires. Some
postings I've seen, like Lisa McDoanld's, have been very thoughtful and
whatever her views she should be commended for the time and effort she put
forward to offer her thoughts. However, I think that some mebers of this
Forum have a sense of entitlement and self-importance that is troubling.
While the list I'm sure contains many opinion makers, I'm surprised at the
attitudes and opinions expressed; they seem more like the buy and sell
decisions of a day trader at the height of the .com frenzy.
If people want information then they should be willing to at least read and
try to understand it. If they have questions then ask for more. If they want
to express an opinion then do in a manner that tells the other members what
the basis of the opinion is. A before people like David Brauer launch into
pieces like the Board of Estimate new release they ought to reflect on what
effect that is going to have on people like me who thought this was a
serious medium.
Brian Rice
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
Eva Young
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 11:58 AM
To: List Manager; Mpls list
Subject: Re: [Mpls] Rules change/Park Board New Digs
>According to our rules, members receive one warning before any
>expulsion. As many members will attest, I try to work with members,
>especially those whose violations were inadvertent or in the heat of
>passion. I will still do that, but as recent forum criticism has
>evidenced, a decline in civility can greatly undermine the forum's
>credibility. Final warnings mean just that: the next one will result in
>a six-month suspension.
>
>Please, everyone, strong opinions are fine, but personal attacks and
>uncivil rhetoric will lead to expulsion, no matter how strong your
>points.
>
The public criticism of this forum by Mr. Rice was by one person. How does
this criticism "undermine the credibility of this forum?" People don't
always agree which is fine. I have trouble when the term "civil" is
applied to vigorous criticism. I do want to remind people that if they
have issues about the rules of this list, they should subscribe and post to
the minneapolis rules list. Go to this page to subscribe:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpls-rules/
My guess is that if list members were praising the Park Board's vote, and
dissing the mayor on this, Rice would have had a whole different reaction
to the forum.
Mr. Kuettel appologised for his post, and personally I think the real
problem with that post is as Kuettel said, it took focus away from
encouraging people to disect the spin in the post by the park board
communications person.
I would like to challenge park board members on this list -- especially
Annie Young, who frequently participates, to explain their reasoning for
their vote. I really appreciated John Erwin's explanation of his change of
position on this.
In my humble opinion, Reporters tend to be bigger suckers for spin than the
general public. That's why I like this list. It helps with spin busting.
Eva
Eva Young
Near North
Minneapolis
"You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on
freedom, and that means freedom for everyone - not just you! You may leave
the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc., but the
world is full of idiots, and probably always will be." --Article II of the
Bill of Non-Rights.
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
