It is not within the scope of the author's
scholarly article to suggest how you might improve yourselves. Has anyone here
made a sincere attempt to study this forum as it relates to the rest of the
community and then report it here with suggestions on how to improve it with the
rigor of a scholar, or even a deeply concerned activist? Please point me to the
articles and follow-ups made with the same effort as the scholars in
question.
It remains, the scholar makes the study and it is
up to you to read, ignore, act, whatever you wish. Action is within the scope of
your personal responsibility, not the scholars'.
The first step in a self-study is the most
difficult because it requires that one get out of the frame to look at the case
in general, and the very nature of this group is to create a certain exclusivity
of discourse that discourages the common person. Don't rail against these words
just yet. Read on.
If the aspirations at the beginning were high,
then how were they too high, and how has anyone mediated, moderated them since?
The aspirations have certainly not become more tolerant of the style of speech,
discourse of the average person, and at the opposite end, the list has
certainly not benefited by the participation of KEY, pivotal, city
employees at the top answering on a candid and continued basis, so it appears to
have failed from bottom to top - from inviting the common person to attracting
the regular participation of public officials. Can you guess why the
public officials do not regularly respond in kind to challenges? Could it be
that they are as astute as they common person who doesn't participate - there's
nothing in here that they can use to their benefit. All they get is
grief.
The common person doesn't participate because you
don't talk to him/her. The common person chooses, for good reason, not to engage
in the Internet in this particular forum. It is unpleasant, exclusive,
forbidding and offers none of the discourse he/she needs.
You may castigate those you wish, but each of the
caste carries a vote regardless. Speaking to yourselves doesn't change anything
at large.
Face it. This group is largely about the same
people talking to themselves, telling each other how bright they are,
occasionally disrespecting common expressions, casting themselves as superior
and the only ones who can define what is politically correct in terms of
mannerisms and style. It has been this way for years, since I was banned from
this group by Steve K for expressing a certain style such as you have just
read.
John J. Stafford
PS: This forum is also technically challenged,
unfriendly in terms of format and ease of response
----- Original Message below -----
I would respectfully disagree with the comment
that the WOD has failed. The expectations might have been too high at
the beginning. I note that the person making the study has not made any
suggestions as to how WOD can improve. I think that the responses are
probably within a predictable range given the number of members and the
population from which they are drawn.
The rules that apply to us seem to have a
soothing effect on controversies. The public servants who belong seem to
be willing to contribute factual responses to questions that are posed.
We are all tempted to add a little spice to our comments especially when we
disagree with someone. I, myself, have toned down comments after
thinking about them for a while. We all have learned to make comments
more factual and kindly, and, thus, more effective.
Congratulations to all who contribute and those
who just enjoy watching the comments of others. All of it makes WOD, and
I think it is as successful as any of us could expect.
