[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Is CEDA-L Representative? and treatment of officers -Reply

Bear sez...

>The agenda is ridiculous. Not enough time is provided. I've listened to
>officers brag about how certain issues will never get covered.

Argument from innuendo serves neither the community nor individual
members well  (..."I have in my hand a list...").  Who?...which issues?...in
what context were those comments made?  I think these are critical
elements to focus the discussionon  particuarly since I think we share a
positive motive, Bear, the fostering of an open and accountable
organization.
 
>No one has time for more than limited soundbite-analysis. Amendments
>are covered in mere minutes. It's as if the Congress of the US met for
>two hours, twice a year.

The reality is that we do only meet twice a year.  If Congress operated
under that model I doubt their discussion would be more substantial.  It is
problematic to discuss issues in that time frame...but having served as
parliamentarian for one business meeting I know that it is possible to
table disucssion of some issues....limit time for debate...or reorder the
agenda so that issues which merit the most discussion get considered
first.

snip...
 
>Weakest attempt at a double turn that I've ever seen.You know damn
>well, Rodger, that I ragged on CEDA before NDT. I ended my note with
>an explanation of how I had even more problems with NDT Ieadership
>structures. I call them as I see them. I think both organizations are
>unlikely to serve the progress of "merged growth."

Just trying to play the Bear and point out what I view as inconsistency of
argument, just as you have and will do.  I never said your argument was
wrong (hence no double turn) merely that your warrant seemed
disingenuous based on your previous posts.  Nothing more..nothing less.

>Everyone starts off talking about how open to input they'll be. Everyone
>ends up vaguely defending their discretion to do what they think is best.

Sweeping generalization don't you think?  My experience with the
executive council would not reflect this conclusion.

>We bog down in minutae to avoid having to deal with the difficult
>questions.

Depends on whose ox is being gored.  I doubt those whose issues were
covered would view it is bogging down in minutiae to avoid substantive
discussions.

>CEDA is my home.

Mine too.  Just trying to be a voice for civility in a morass of embittered
feelings.

>But, don't think for a minute that I believe that I will be
>quiet when I perceive a need for criticism. If open, critical, and negative
>scrutiny of the actions of our leadership is the recipe for being branded
>a paranoid conspiratorialist, call me whatever you want. 

Sorry (this probably won't make you happy) but the only one I see
throwing around broad labels such as paranoid conspiratorialist is you. 
Others have disagreed with your positions but the use of epithets and ad
homs seems to usually originate in Ogden.  Others disagree with your
viewpoint but I have yet to see anyone (myself included) saying you
shouldn't have a voice and that you shouldn't express it.  In fact my post
said your input is valuable and hence a boycott of the CEDA business
meeting at nats is unfortunate.

>I do have the right to disagree?

Amen!  But non-ursine creatures have the right to disagree with the
Bear, too.  There is no reason that any of us who teach advocacy
should atttempt to limit the input of others.  From my perch in Emporia,
Kansas...I don't see anyone trying to do that...even if we reach a
different conclusion.

Peace, up to a point,

Rodger
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page