Michael writes: > In your original follow up to my post you first accused me > of "demonizing disagreement," it now seems that I am accused > of demonizing the process (which I wouldn't necessarily > deny).
Criticizing the process is fine. I disagree with you on that, but that's not what I'm talking about. > Perhaps Mr. Brauer can describe a legitimate means of criticizing > an unfair and biased process in a way so that one cannot be accused > of "demonizing disagreement." Just what conditions must be met > to de-demonize legitimate criticism? It's pretty simple. Criticize actions & outcomes, but resist speculating on motive, don't mind-read your opponents. I am most certainly not trying to stop disagreement - far from it. That is a red herring. It is demonizing intents, motives, mind-sets, ethics, etc. of those you disagree with - your neighbors, volunteers, who frequently reap little direct gain and are more often "paying" in time and energy. There's a certain lack of charity that, as Michael would say, distracts from the very issues we both deem important. Nuff said. David Brauer King Field TEMPORARY REMINDER: 1. Send all posts in plain-text format. 2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible. ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
