I have applied very liberal snipping to shorten this to what is being referenced.
On Monday, Nov 10, 2003, at 21:57 US/Central, Steve Schild wrote:
Your response to my post,, I must say, is very tidy; you merely say that things didn't happen, and poof!, it's as if they didn't! I urge anybody who's still listening to this tiresome thread--that began because I made an accurate but unflattering remark about WOD--to consult the archives and determine for themselves what was said and what wasn't said. You said I may regard your remarks as hairsplitting--on that much we can agree.
At some point one says... oi vey! Can we stop sitting here... nah... I will not waste my time typing that...
I find it odd that the complaint about WOD is the same scenario that is (dare I say it) dominating this discussion. Although it is, finally a plus, that you, Steve S choose to participate in any way rather than sitting on the sideline accusing others of being dominating without first putting your feet in the water, it seems you yourself seem to illustrate many more dominating qualities than others (unscientific observation) when you do choose to participate.
Do you mean to say that you wouldn't mind having the standard you just set used against you? For example, if someone called you a skunk (but only metaphorically, of course), would you feel put upon, or would you think it met WOD's standards for constructive dialogue?
Since I use a good amount of metaphors around here I feel qualified to answer this. It does not matter what one makes a comparison to so long as they make it. It is better to allow both sides to make their commentaries and if one feels that it is necessary to reference a skunk then perhaps there is a reason for this. (Since the way this dialogue is going perhaps I should note that I did not just call you a skunk.) Rather than being offended at being referred in a way that involves a skunk or not perhaps one should examine the cause or what reason that particular desorption was applied in the first place. I suspect most do not throw around skunk references unless something is skunky. Looking at the person who said skunk and why they felt this way would be more productive.
I side with Steve K on the skunk reference.
Furthermore, with some individuals, getting them to acknowledge me as a skunk or whatnot would be the first step to figuring out what their problems are. This sounds peculiar to state, but when most people call names generally they will offer a reason afterwards so it would serve as a valid conflict resolution.
I get a kick out of the variety of hairsplitting techniques you employ. First there's the merely metaphorical skunk. Then you take a different tack when it comes to the "crucify" reference. Rather than say that that wasn't written (since it clearly was), you conclude, apparently, that the reference was okay because it was what you consider balanced. I'll keep that in mind if I ever want to throw stones at somebody on WOD. I'll call them a rotten name or somehow else speak poorly of them, and then I'll follow it with some "positive" comment and be confident that you'll think my conduct is okay because it's "balanced." Come on; Mr. Schenkat's reference to someone crucifying WOD was clearly aimed at me. How constructive is that? How can you balance an accusation like that?
...And then there is the outline the opponents tactics and act like that is not a tactic tactic.
It was a metaphor... how is this a tactic. If it was not a metaphor, call me a skunk in a metaphor to illustrate to me what I have wrong.
The last part does not even make sense... the balanced aspect is nothing more than an unsupportable attack. The balance is referring to something else. How do you sit there and complain about being taken out of context and then resort to doing the exact some thing? Oh... wait that was a metaphor for life is rotten to just me.
Finally, the ethics quote. Once again, you don't seem to mind that my ethics were called into question--since, after all, that posting was, in your opinion, sufficiently balanced. Just as the reference to "crucifying" WOD was clearly directed at me, the reference to an ethical lapse was clearly directed at me. Again I ask, how balanced can a remark be if it contains a slam like that? Of course, it's pretty easy for you to conclude that the remarks were balanced--they weren't directed at you.
... ... ... ... ... ...
Again, I urge WOD subscribers who are still interested (and I'd be surprised to believe there are many) to consult the archives and read the exchanges in their entirety, and then to ask themselves if the kind of remarks directed at me are what they have in mind when they're told about the standard of discourse (not intended to "win," but to discuss; not focusing on personalities, but on issues) that ostensibly prevails on WOD.
Steve Schild
On Sunday, November 09, 2003 7:54 PM, Steve Kranz wrote:
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 19:54:55 -0600 From: Steve Kranz To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR
[Winona Online Democracy]
Mr. Schild,
I was trying to move beyond a back and forth rehash of the past and move
more toward a constructive dialogue about how to improve WOD, but since you inquired . . . here is my "refutation" of your statements regarding the
"name-calling" you accuse list members of engaging in:
1. Nobody on the list called you a "skunk". You'll have to take a closer
look at the metaphor the writer was using. The writer was saying that he
had a problem with the "soft conclusions" of your study. In his analogy,
the "soft conclusions" are the skunk, not you. You may think this is
splitting hairs, but it is the difference between use of a colorful metaphor
and name-calling. He was saying that the "soft conclusions" (the skunk)
skew the overall perception of the data (the flowers) contained in the study
(the wagon). Here's the exact quote:
"I have no problem with his numbers or his methodology. It seems like
he spent a lot of time on this. What I have a problem with are his
admittedly "soft" conclusions. No matter how beautiful a wagon full of
flowers is, if you have a team of skunks pulling the wagon, the skunks will
"color" or skew your overall perception of the wagon."
2. As far as being accused of trying to "crucify" WOD. This needs to be put
in context. In the same paragraph in which the writer used the word
"crucified", he also acknowledged two aspects of your research that he feels
could be beneficial to WOD and public dialogue in the community. It seems
like a very balanced and somewhat heartfelt paragraph to me. Here's the
portion of the post I am referring to:
"I guess I'd prefer to think in the sense of civic journalism, how this
novel, embryonic forum could be nurtured to enhance civic participation and
be not crucified. Schild made some comments about some next steps being
looking at why people lurk and don't participate. That could be helpful
research; we'd be much further ahead today if he'd chosen to study that.
Also, I think the question from his dissertation around how much attitude is
changed by letters to editor is important in online democracy too. What
creates openness to new and different ideas in the community is a very key
question for our future."
3. The portion of the dialogue in which a writer "accused" you of being
unethical, had to do with whether list members should have been notified
that their messages were being studied for a research project. In fact,
while this accusation was made; the overall portion of this discussion was
fairly balanced with other WOD members arguing that your actions were
appropriate and ethical. Again, a little heated but not unusual for the
list.
So my conclusions are:
- the "skunk name-calling didn't happen
- the "crucify" name-calling was part of a fairly civil and balanced
paragraph that also acknowledged value in your research.
- the "unethical" name calling was balanced by other list members who rose
to your defense.
I'll stand by my previous statements . . . the dialogue was a bit heated,
but fairly balanced and not that different from of a lot of public dialogue
that occurs in a number of different formats.
Now, having responded to your question. . . how about if we move on to a
dialogue about how we can help WOD accomplish its mission?
-Steve Kranz
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Schild <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 6:57 PM Subject: cc: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR
At some point... I should put a link to a website and write what I really think about this conversation...
You mention the upcoming Wal-Mart forum; I'll leave it to individual
citizens to decide how worthwhile they find it. Based on what I've read, it
will be significantly different from WOD's discussion because it will have
three Wal-Mart supporters and three Wal-Mart opponents. In short, it will be
balanced. Though I haven't done a count yet, I'm confident that the majority
of WOD writers and messages on that subject have been anti-Wal-Mart.
Life is not always balanced.
Perhaps there are other reasons for the lack of Wal Mart supporters such as the unfortunate reality that in the end, all the facts lead one straight to the anti-Wal Mart camp.
Two other recent cases in point have great relevance to this discussion.
Recently, Mr. Kranz, you asked WOD's 225 to 250 members for their opinions
on televising school-board study sessions (large portions of which, by the
way, remain inaudible to the TV audience) and on school governance by
site-based teams. I didn't see you put the same invitation in the Daily News
or the Post, which have respective circulations of approximately 12,000 and
23,000. If you had done that, you would have increased by 48 to 100 times
the number of people you might have reached. By soliciting opinions from
WOD but not from the readership of the two newspapers, you effectively gave
WOD's small membership an influence even disproportionately larger than it
already has. You've often said that WOD is one source of information among
many; then why don't you, as school-board chair, seek information about
those same topics from sources other than WOD?
Gee... perhaps the WOD environment is more suited to this scenario? If you disagreed with Steve K why did you not submit the idea to the Winona Daily News or Winona Post at the time rather than dragging the idea up in a conflict that one side obviously went out looking for.
On Sunday, November 09, 2003 10:35 AM, Steve Kranz wrote:
Aside from that, though, I think it might help to turn the finding into a
question, such as "what does WOD need to do in order to engender
conversations that include diverse viewpoints and a broadly inclusive
discussion." That might be a good question for a bit of brainstorming by
the list.
Perhaps I am looking at this wrong, but Steve K. makes a good point. What does WOD need to do. This issue is never addressed by the critics, instead, the loud mouth or domination complex prevails which as I have pointed out is everywhere.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Schild Winona Online Democracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:08 PM
Is it a good thing that WOD has been featured in such a prominent
news outlet? It's good for WOD, sure. But it would be a better thing if
WOD would overcome its acknowledged failure to attract participation from a
bigger, more diverse group, such as the "alienated, disadvantaged,
disenchanted voters." And it would have been better communication if the WOD notice touting the MPR story had told readers that the story discusses
WOD's shortcomings as well as its successes.
Seeing that I openly declared days ago that I was not voting for a single incumbent (barring sudden improvements) I believe I can speak for the disenfranchised a bit. This fact is helped out by the fact that I was essentially kicked out of a political party that I helped start and get off the ground by a vocal group of narrow minded individuals with no focus on the road ahead, only where they want to be; because of a disagreement that these persons want to talk about while still vehemently denying a conflict exists. I think I can look at this both ways.
I did some door knocking for a few candidates, the hardest being for Ray Tricomo whose own party basically sold him up the river for scumbag Wellstone. A common response that I received was, "They are all ass holes." followed with "We do not even vote." It is hard to follow that up but I had a follow up line that worked about thirty percent of the time.
It comes to one tiny problem. The "I think they are all "ass holes" people" are not going to attend WOD because that would be associating with "ass holes." One may have to break the "ass holes" graze here image to bring in the most diversified crowds.
Perhaps that expectation is going about the problem in the wrong way.
In a way, expecting all crowds is like expecting to have high TV ratings from the four to eight year old demographic for Monday night football. (A) It is past some children's' bed times in the eastern timezones (B) football is semi complicated to watch at times that may not be easily understood (C) requires some degree of patience to watch therefore the attention span of some will be exceeded (D) You should get my point by now.
********************************************
David Dittmann
Could we please clean our emails a bit so one does not download six WOD footers?
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
