[Winona Online Democracy] This is not a game with offense and defense. Let's work with ideas. Thanks. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Steve Kranz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Steve Schild" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 7:21 PM Subject: Re: cc: Re: Re: [Winona] WOD on MPR
> [Winona Online Democracy] > > 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 > _______________________________________________ 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
