[Summit] Marketing

[Robert Mathiesen]

I agree with what John and Greg have each said.

Let the whole list weigh in, if it chooses, on whether political issues and
questions are or are not appropriate for the main Summit list.  Speaking
for myself, I think that they are appropriate, and that this bears directly
on the kind of community we want to have in Summit.

In fact, almost every significant issue which any community has to resolve
for itself will generally (IMHO) prove divisive, and will cause hard
feelings and anger as the community wrestles with it.  Only a Pollyanna
could suppose that agreement can always be reached without some hard
fighting or harsh words on the way.

Moreover, any solution reached by any community will usually involve a
measure of compromise, and thus will irritate everyone who thinks that
there is usually a single right position to take on every real issue, and
that all good and reasonable people must be able to agree on that
position.  As if disagreements can only arise between people when some of
them are either stupid or evil; as if good and intelligent people will all
be able to agree on every hard question!  The world is not like that, and
people are not like that.  To suppose that they are so, or must be so, is
to wreck any community.

The only way to maintain a strong community in the real world is to face
the hard questions and significant issues (even if the process repulses
some and angers others), to wrestle with them despite the anger and
revulsion one feels, and to hammer out compromises that can be implemented,
even though they satisfy no one completely.

But this is always, in our world, a matter of practical politics.  If we
feel we have to play "nice" and not take positions on the list which will
cause dissension, then we destroy any possibility of forming a real
community in which we can all work together in a civil manner toward modest
common goals despite our passionate disagreements on principles and
long-range goals.

This is why I think the main Summit list should be open to political
discussions.  It is not so much a question of loyally supporting one
candidate or another.  In and of itself, that is no more important than
supporting one sports team or another, say, the Red Sox or the Yankees.
(Yes, I know that is a provocative example.)   Rather, it is a question of
how we wish to be governed -- and only incidentally, which candidate might
be more apt to govern us in the way we wish to be governed.




On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Greg Gerritt <gerritt at mindspring.com> wrote:

> If we discuss community issues, we ought to discuss community politics as
> well.  greg
>
> On 10/5/12 7:06 PM, "John Bazik" <jsb at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 07:01:50PM -0400, Monique S Doherty wrote:
> >> I feel strongly opposed to a person "selling" themselves for political
> >>gain
> >> on the main list.
> >>
> >> This should be done on the [Market] list, as one would do for "sale"
> >>items.
> >
> >Whether or not politics is an acceptable topic for the list is a topic
> >for the list.  However, I don't think that politics is an appropriate
> >topic for the Market list.
> >
> >John
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Summit mailing list
> >Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> >http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> >SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachments/20121005/44a94d06/attachment.htm>