[Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 17
Heidi Gervais
hpgervais at cox.net
Wed Jan 21 22:51:05 UTC 2015
Can anyone recommend someone for new laptop setup, data file transfer, etc.?
I just bought a new laptop and would like to pay someone to backup old and
download to new, setup, etc.
Thanks,
Heidi
-----Original Message-----
From: Summit [mailto:summit-bounces at sna.providence.ri.us] On Behalf Of
summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2015 1:00 PM
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
Subject: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 17
Send Summit mailing list submissions to
summit at sna.providence.ri.us
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us
You can reach the person managing the list at
summit-owner at sna.providence.ri.us
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Summit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 16 (Dean W)
2. Front Porch Alert!!!! Free Sharp DVD Player (mdubose1 at cox.net)
3. Re: In denial, who's who, reactionary (Robert Mathiesen)
4. curb alert: baby gates (Anna Highsmith)
5. Re: In denial, who's who, reactionary (Kim Clark)
6. Re: In denial, who's who, reactionary (Robert Mathiesen)
7. Re: In denial, who's who, reactionary (Kim Clark)
8. Dishwasher repair (Anna Kuperman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:31:06 -0500
From: Dean W <thedeaner at gmail.com>
To: "summit at sna.providence.ri.us" <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 16
Message-ID: <EA8B3148-D680-4605-85D5-1CB9C8130D6F at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Fr Eng,
We're not asking for your SSN or blood type. What we are asking for is:
1. To behave civilly on this list, which would include not slandering people
by name or intentionally misspelling their name with intent to be mean.
2. To speak the truth as you know it, without your sole intention being to
incite frustration, annoyance or anger in the others here.
3. To not pop up periodically to drop bombs on this list without responding
to people when they ask you to elaborate on your point or prove your claims.
This is a discussion list. Stop behaving like a heckler.
Failure to follow these rules of civility will result in being removed from
the list.
As for the trees and the fountain, you are confusing the City's process with
SNA's approval. SNA never had to approve anything. The organization promoted
the project, raised money, and turned the process over to the City. There
were public meetings, all of which I attended. No one raised concerns about
the trees until they marked them for removal.
Dean
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 1:00 PM, summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us wrote:
>
> Send Summit mailing list submissions to
> summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> summit-owner at sna.providence.ri.us
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Summit digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 15 (Jon Howard)
> 2. Survey Answers (Ophelia12)
> 3. In denial, who's who, reactionary (Fr Eng)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2015 17:04:01 -0500
> From: Jon Howard <jon at ceffect.com>
> To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 15
> Message-ID: <54BADC51.7030708 at ceffect.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed"
>
> Hi, Dean and neighbors
>
> No - we should not post anonymously.
> Yes - I would follow the discussion over to Facebook. In some ways I
> would prefer that format
> No - I don't think an anonymous survey would be a better way to thrash
> this out. We should comment right here like we discuss everything else.
> (Although it might make sense to also survey people who are not on this
> list.)
>
> We don't need an elaborate verification process - just let's set an
> expectation that we will all use our real names. The only thing this
> list really needs is enforcement of some minimum standards of discourse,
> including knowing who's speaking, by a moderator. From my observation, I
> don't think the moderator would have to step in often
>
> We need to remember that SNA and all its works are the product of
> voluntary effort by unpaid neighbors. A major purpose of SNA is for all
> us neighbors to get to know each other, and work together on things we
> care about. Anonymity defeats that purpose.
>
> SNA excludes no one, including the many people who consider themselves
> members but who have not paid dues. But it is a private membership
> organization and certainly has every right to exclude non members when
> they disrupt the purpose of the organization.
>
> I think it's silly for SNA to tolerate the amount of anonymous,false and
> tedious abuse meted out against it by one person on its own forum. That
> person should be banned.
>
> Jon Howard - Ninth St
>
>> On 1/17/15 1:00 PM, summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us wrote:
>> Send Summit mailing list submissions to
>> summit at sna.providence.ri.us
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> summit-request at sna.providence.ri.us
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> summit-owner at sna.providence.ri.us
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Summit digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (Kim Clark)
>> 2. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (Emlyn Addison)
>> 3. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (James Barfoot)
>> 4. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (aw)
>> 5. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (Emlyn Addison)
>> 6. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (Robert Mathiesen)
>> 7. Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (Art Norwalk)
>> 8. Re: SPAM-LOW: Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13 (John Bazik)
>> 9. Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 14 (Michael McGlynn)
>> 10. please unsubscribe me - after 40 some emails regarding one
>> subject, I am exhausted! (Karen Mcaninch)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:09:21 -0500
>> From: Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>
>> To: Elizabeth Grossman <egrossman1 at cox.net>
>> Cc: Neighborhood Association <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID: <6F9ECAA1-C95A-49EF-A6E1-692006B77577 at cox.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> the thing is, that harmless people like me, most of us? ok, maybe all of
us except one clearly angry, unstable individual might not want THAT person
to have OUR addresses.
>>
>> kim
>> dexterdale
>>
>> <http://www.rhodycraft.com/>
>>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Elizabeth Grossman <egrossman1 at cox.net>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John, wouldn't it be possible to ask everyone to self identify
giving street address? In fact the board must already has that
information for most subscribers because you hand deliver the newsletter.
Admittedly this would be an honor system but that to be seems better than
anonymity as it now operates. Elizabeth
>>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 11:31 AM, John Bazik wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 1. What is your simple Yes/No vote on making this list no longer
anonymous?
>>>> Hey everyone, list administrator here. There are over 300 subscribers
>>>> to this list last time I checked. Any process for verifying subscriber
>>>> identity would be a manual one and would require that the list become
>>>> closed (in the sense that one cannot simply subscribe). I have little
>>>> doubt that the number of subscribers would drop precipitously in that
>>>> case. I'm not sure who is willing to vet new subscribers, or what that
>>>> process might be, but it sure isn't going to be me. Frankly, I don't
>>>> consider it practical or advisable, and I've said so privately to the
>>>> SNA board.
>>>>
>>>> Also, though some of you consider this to be a forum only for
neighbors,
>>>> there are other kinds of subscribers. For instance, prospective and
>>>> elected officials, people shopping for housing, journalists, police
>>>> officers, expat neighbors. Do we shut them all out?
>>>>
>>>> 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/attachmen
ts/20150116/26380d31/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 13:23:15 -0500
>> From: Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com>
>> To: Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>
>> Cc: Neighborhood Association <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAEAT3ME0QXefG2S3EaGG4tNYr6FJvSBtZAMd0FbxU25uQpNs-A at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> We can be assured in the knowledge that trolls' courage only manifests
>> itself from behind their keyboard fortresses.
>>
>> Emlyn
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> the thing is, that harmless people like me, most of us? ok, maybe all of
>>> us except one clearly angry, unstable individual might not want THAT
person
>>> to have OUR addresses.
>>>
>>> kim
>>> dexterdale
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachmen
ts/20150116/32e7b4b0/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 14:24:59 -0500
>> From: James Barfoot <barfootjim at gmail.com>
>> To: David Schrag <david at schrag.net>
>> Cc: Dean W <thedeaner at gmail.com>, Summit Listserv
>> <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID: <EE07FDA8-E40C-4058-8F42-7A1ABC50ABE1 at GMAIL.COM>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>
>> You can't have a proper community (village) without a village idiot.
Tolerate, even enjoy an occasional rant, learn from whatever nugget of
wisdom might be there, and carry on.
>>
>>> On Jan 15, 2015, at 11:25 PM, David Schrag <david at schrag.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Non-anonymity will be rather difficult to enforce. Are you planning to
have folks e-mail you their latest utility bill to verify that they're using
their real names? Lots of people have legitimate e-mail addresses without
full identifiers (such as "thedeaner at gmail.com"), and if Bob Smith wants to
call himself Sue Jones in his e-mail program he won't have any trouble doing
so.
>>>
>>> I think you'll find it more practical to encourage people to use their
real names (even Facebook can't enforce this policy) and to reserve the
right to kick people off the list for obnoxious behavior, following some
sort of due process (like a committee vote rather than a single person's
decree).
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Dean W <thedeaner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> From purely a "can of worms" perspective, I'm already regretting that I
will send this email, but I have a few questions that some may want to weigh
in on:
>>>
>>> 1. What is your simple Yes/No vote on making this list no longer
anonymous?
>>>
>>> 2. Would you follow this list over to a Facebook Group format?
>>>
>>> 3. Would you rather these questions be asked in the form of an anonymous
survey?
>>>
>>> Also, from my perspective as someone who has been intimately involved
with SNA for over five years, everything this troll spews is 100% incorrect.
There is exactly zero truth to any of it. It was suggested earlier that
there may be a "little truth buried in their tirades", etc, but I am
reporting to my neighbors today that there is in fact zero truth buried
there.
>>>
>>> Sorry, the troll looked hungry.
>>>
>>> Lastly, as always I will report that SNA monthly meetings are ALWAYS
open to EVERYONE, and in fact, we beg and plead you to please come join us.
We are you. And it's fun! Third Monday of every month, 7pm at Summit
Commons, 99 Hillside Ave. It's a neighborhood association for crying out
loud, let's take it easy. :)
>>>
>>> Dean
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/attachmen
ts/20150116/58288990/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 4
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 20:47:16 +0000 (UTC)
>> From: aw <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
>> To: Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>, Elizabeth Grossman
>> <egrossman1 at cox.net>
>> Cc: Neighborhood Association <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID:
>>
<122385343.1403792.1421441236534.JavaMail.yahoo at jws100196.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
>
>>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I would place a 'no' vote on the requirement. ?As someone mentioned, any
attempt would / could just lead to false data. ?But, more importantly
>> then what? ?if you know who this person is, what would that change. ?
>> To add to the work of the volunteers for policing / administrating and
end up with no different results doesn't seem worthwhile.~ amanda w.
>>
>> On Friday, January 16, 2015 1:10 PM, Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>
wrote:
>>
>>
>> the thing is, that harmless people like me, most of us? ok, maybe all of
us except one clearly angry, unstable individual might not want THAT person
to have OUR addresses.
>> kimdexterdale
>> ?? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ??
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Elizabeth Grossman <egrossman1 at cox.net>
wrote:
>> Hi John, ?wouldn't it be possible to ask everyone to self identify giving
street address? ??In ?fact the board must already ?has that information for
?most subscribers ?because you hand deliver the newsletter. ?Admittedly this
?would be an honor system ?but that to be seems ?better than anonymity as it
now operates. Elizabeth
>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 11:31 AM, John Bazik wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. What is your simple Yes/No vote on making this list no longer
anonymous?
>>
>>
>> Hey everyone, list administrator here. ?There are over 300 subscribers
>> to this list last time I checked. ?Any process for verifying subscriber
>> identity would be a manual one and would require that the list become
>> closed (in the sense that one cannot simply subscribe). ?I have little
>> doubt that the number of subscribers would drop precipitously in that
>> case. ?I'm not sure who is willing to vet new subscribers, or what that
>> process might be, but it sure isn't going to be me. ?Frankly, I don't
>> consider it practical or advisable, and I've said so privately to the
>> SNA board.
>>
>> Also, though some of you consider this to be a forum only for neighbors,
>> there are other kinds of subscribers. ?For instance, prospective and
>> elected officials, people shopping for housing, journalists, police
>> officers, expat neighbors. ?Do we shut them all out?
>>
>> 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/
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/attachmen
ts/20150116/fa52bcd7/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 5
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:15:44 -0500
>> From: Emlyn Addison <noisyblocks at gmail.com>
>> To: aw <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
>> Cc: Neighborhood Association <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAEAT3MFkg9V7=A1QLEOpJC9jgkGNJ-ykw2H65iWZa_hBiKhwGA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> "if you know who this person is, what would that change."
>>
>> There's the rub; trolls don't troll without the cover of anonymity.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM, aw <awoodward7 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would place a 'no' vote on the requirement. As someone mentioned, any
>>> attempt would / could just lead to false data. But, more importantly
>>>
>>> then what? if you know who this person is, what would that change.
>>>
>>> To add to the work of the volunteers for policing / administrating and
end
>>> up with no different results doesn't seem worthwhile.
>>> ~ amanda w.
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachmen
ts/20150116/ba95acb3/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 6
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:19:52 -0500
>> From: Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com>
>> To: aw <awoodward7 at verizon.net>
>> Cc: Neighborhood Association <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID:
>> <CALgP6HcdGhAT9ALKmA0vc2J1fUOzmrXsEmXUToWAA1X9G8CXCA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>> I think, after some reflection, that I will vote "no" also, roughly for
>> Amanda W's reasons: too much work for the moderators, and too many
>> practical difficulties.
>>
>> Also, there's no point using a pile-driver to swat a mosquito or two,
when
>> a rolled-up newspaper would suffice. Also, so far as I can easily tell,
>> there is only one person (Fr Eng) who might be affected (or deterred?) by
>> this new requirement. Surely there are easier ways to deal with the
>> annoyance?
>>
>> And I think it might not be too hard for some computer-savvy people to
work
>> out Fr Eng's real identity (without any criminal hacking), if they cared
to
>> bother. He or she has given us a number of strong clues over the years.
>> That might be the best way to start rolling up the newspaper.
>>
>> Bob M
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM, aw <awoodward7 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would place a 'no' vote on the requirement. As someone mentioned, any
>>> attempt would / could just lead to false data. But, more importantly
>>>
>>> then what? if you know who this person is, what would that change.
>>>
>>> To add to the work of the volunteers for policing / administrating and
end
>>> up with no different results doesn't seem worthwhile.
>>> ~ amanda w.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, January 16, 2015 1:10 PM, Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> the thing is, that harmless people like me, most of us? ok, maybe all of
>>> us except one clearly angry, unstable individual might not want THAT
person
>>> to have OUR addresses.
>>>
>>> kim
>>> dexterdale
>>>
>>> <http://www.rhodycraft.com/>
>>>
>>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Elizabeth Grossman <egrossman1 at cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi John, wouldn't it be possible to ask everyone to self identify
giving
>>> street address? In fact the board must already has that information
for
>>> most subscribers because you hand deliver the newsletter. Admittedly
>>> this would be an honor system but that to be seems better than
anonymity
>>> as it now operates. Elizabeth
>>> On Jan 16, 2015, at 11:31 AM, John Bazik wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. What is your simple Yes/No vote on making this list no longer
anonymous?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey everyone, list administrator here. There are over 300 subscribers
>>> to this list last time I checked. Any process for verifying subscriber
>>> identity would be a manual one and would require that the list become
>>> closed (in the sense that one cannot simply subscribe). I have little
>>> doubt that the number of subscribers would drop precipitously in that
>>> case. I'm not sure who is willing to vet new subscribers, or what that
>>> process might be, but it sure isn't going to be me. Frankly, I don't
>>> consider it practical or advisable, and I've said so privately to the
>>> SNA board.
>>>
>>> Also, though some of you consider this to be a forum only for neighbors,
>>> there are other kinds of subscribers. For instance, prospective and
>>> elected officials, people shopping for housing, journalists, police
>>> officers, expat neighbors. Do we shut them all out?
>>>
>>> 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/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/attachmen
ts/20150116/8f946614/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 7
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:26:56 -0500
>> From: Art Norwalk <art at norwalkcom.com>
>> To: Neighborhood Association <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] SPAM-LOW: Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID: <20150116212723.2284B900F8 at clustermx1.nwk01.hosting.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"
>>
>> Wouldn't the simplest thing be to just bounce one clown off the list?
>>
>> At 04:15 PM 1/16/2015, Emlyn Addison wrote:
>>
>>> "if you know who this person is, what would that change."
>>>
>>> There's the rub; trolls don't troll without the cover of anonymity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 3:47 PM, aw
>>> <<mailto:awoodward7 at verizon.net>awoodward7 at verizon.net> wrote:
>>> I would place a 'no' vote on the
>>> requirement.? As someone mentioned, any attempt
>>> would / could just lead to false data.? But, more importantly
>>>
>>> then what? ? if you know who this person is, what would that change. ?
>>>
>>> To add to the work of the volunteers for
>>> policing / administrating and end up with no
>>> different results doesn't seem worthwhile.
>>> ~ amanda w.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/attachmen
ts/20150116/786f3459/attachment-0001.html>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 8
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 16:56:25 -0500
>> From: John Bazik <jbazik at gmail.com>
>> To: Art Norwalk <art at norwalkcom.com>
>> Cc: Neighborhood Association <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] SPAM-LOW: Re: Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 13
>> Message-ID: <20150116215624.GB18333 at cs.brown.edu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>>
>>> Wouldn't the simplest thing be to just bounce one clown off the list?
>> I cannot ban people, only email addresses, and those are easy to come by.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 9
>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:51:35 -0500
>> From: Michael McGlynn <mmcglynn at gmail.com>
>> To: "summit at sna.providence.ri.us" <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> Subject: Re: [Summit] Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 14
>> Message-ID:
>> <CACmCVg65LbOpZcdazgxjdj5PX9Pp3Qz=U_NswwF+ydf4ZxN+Lg at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>
>>>> 1. What is your simple Yes/No vote on making this list no longer
>> anonymous?<<
>>
>> No. Further, it is impossible to ensure identity short of a user
>> presenting, in person, his or her driver's license. We are quite unlikely
>> to do that and even that circumstance can be spoofed (ask any thirty
>> college student). A small community like that can and should police
itself.
>>
>>>> 2. Would you follow this list over to a Facebook Group format?<<
>> No. Facebook has no right to advertise against our discussions.
>>
>>>> 3. Would you rather these questions be asked in the form of an
anonymous
>> survey?<<
>>
>> Not necessary for me.
>
> --
> Jonathan Howard Cause & Effect. Inc. 401.331.2272 Find your most
> effective future with Cause & Effect ? www.ceffect.com
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: jon.vcf
> Type: text/x-vcard
> Size: 306 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL:
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachmen
ts/20150117/a38e8351/attachment-0001.vcf>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 02:39:55 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Ophelia12 <ophelia12 at ymail.com>
> To: SNA Mailing List <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>,
> "thedeaner at gmail.com" <thedeaner at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Summit] Survey Answers
> Message-ID:
>
<635553248.1651567.1421548795115.JavaMail.yahoo at jws100106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> 1. Anonymity: As long as this list is public and/or open to anyone to
join, I feel very strongly about keeping anonymity. If I post a curb alert,
anyone could use my name, email address and street address for fraudulent
purposes. If I were a domestic abuse victim trying to start over, the
information in my emails could be used to locate and stalk me. This is why I
use a pseudonym now for my email address. Losing this protection because of
ONE troll seems to me to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
> 2. Facebook: No. Aside from the privacy/advertising issues, the format
itself isn't flexible enough for some features, such as sharing documents
(e.g., lists of contractors) easily. [I could be wrong on this.]
>
> 3. Anonymous survey: It would help ease traffic on the listserv.
SurveyMonkey offers free online surveys.
>
> Unsolicited opinion on trolls: It's the price of free speech, and while I
do feel for the people who are slandered by the troll, I have been on the
listserv long enough to ignore pretty much anything the troll has to say. I
think others on the list do the same.
> Finally, thank you to Dean and others on the board for their service. It's
unpaid and generally thankless work, but critical for our neighborhood and
community.
> Best,
> Anonymous resident on 12th
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachmen
ts/20150118/73e7fb30/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 10:49:55 -0500
> From: Fr Eng <ridotshaw at gmail.com>
> To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> Subject: [Summit] In denial, who's who, reactionary
> Message-ID:
> <CAPcQ81LGDzMMO+87zqtbCC0fSWxKpYU8rUj+ur5TCvdkZHiabg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> So,
> I have referred to a very factual incident - the destruction of trees on a
> much loved park. That was planned and started so a fountain could be
> rebuilt. Why go back to this terrible incident? Because when I first
> objected to the plan - when it was just a plan - the forum was told to
just
> forget my objections. They would go away when the fountain was built.
> Well, when the destruction of trees started, the real neighborhood rose
up,
> not SNA which had really proposed the project and approved the tree
> destruction.
>
> So now in addition to working to forget the mistake that was made and who
> was responsible (SNA), we want to obliterate any memory and objection to
> what some people think should happen in a neighborhood.
>
> And people wonder why some think the East Side is elitist????
>
> Nice broad brush reactionary response and responses. What do you want for
> me to id myself... my SS #? my blood type? my preferences? Wow!!!
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachmen
ts/20150118/b37f1164/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 16
> ***************************************
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:42:42 -0500
From: <mdubose1 at cox.net>
To: summit at sna.providence.ri.us
Subject: [Summit] Front Porch Alert!!!! Free Sharp DVD Player
Message-ID: <20150118144242.LILB9.20070.imail at eastrmwml303>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Greetings Neighbors,
We are wrapping up our New Year's Purge. There's plenty of time before the
Pat's game so if interested, there is a free DVD player and wall art on our
front porch. Feel free to swing by 33 ninth street or shoot me an email if
you're interested.
Warm Regards,
Melissa
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 14:47:42 -0500
From: Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com>
To: Fr Eng <ridotshaw at gmail.com>
Cc: Summit Neighborhood <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Subject: Re: [Summit] In denial, who's who, reactionary
Message-ID:
<CALgP6Hf32vcDcaTNQhfC=6J5CLR2FMJLy8avsfyUO_Un7bM54Q at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
This post actually raises a serious question in a substantive way. Thank
you, Fr Eng.
I think, however, that your way of dealing with it is fundamentally wrong.
Hence this longish post.
The question, as I see it, is about the decision-making process within the
SNA, and more broadly, about how policy decisions should be mae in such
organizations.
My sense of the SNA membership is that on very many issues, a significant
fraction of the membership -- a different fraction from one issue to the
next -- doesn't care strongly enough about the outcome to put much time and
effort into influencing the outcome. And the remaining membership, the
ones who do care strongly about that issue, are divided about the outcome
they desire, but will be content in any case to go along with whatever
action the organization finally undertakes. Hardly anyone feels strongly
enough about any particualr issue to ne more than mildly annoyed when a
decision seems wrong to them. Righteous outrage, or even indignation, or
passion for any issue, seems to be in very short supply among us.
Under those conditions, not just here on the East Side in SNA, but in any
organization, the decisions end up being made by a fairly small group of
energetic members. In SNA, this is usually the Board of Directors. The
rest of us are mostly content to say, "Eh, whatever ..." when we would have
preferred a different outcome, or to applaud lightly when we like what was
decided.
Under conditions such as these, consensus-building processes simply don't
work as a means of democratic decision-making; the few people with the most
endurance and the fewest demands on their time elsewhere, shape the
decision and then present it -- mendaciously -- as the "consensus" of the
organization. Formal votes, like our own National Elections, work slightly
better, but very often leave a majority of the membership feeling more or
less dissatisfied with the outcome -- because the turnout for the vote is
such a small part of the entire membership.
The only was any organization can function at all, under these conditions,
is through a willingness to embrace, to actively welcome compromise, where
no one gets everything (or even most of what) they want, and everyone gets
a little. So it is, I think, with SNA.
And so it was, if memory serves me correctly, with the fountain and the
trees.
In your posts on the subject, I believe that I hear righteous anger.
(Please correct me if I am hearing you wrongly.) In what actually
happened, I see the sort of compromise that absolutely has to be made in a
world where there is no true consensus whatever on what is ther "right"
course of action in this case, or any such case. It is not in fact obvious
that trees are more important than a workign fountain. Nor is the reverse
obvious, either. Reasonable people may disagree on this issue, and on
ALMOST EVERY hot-button issue that impacts a neighborhood, a city, a state,
a nation or the entire world.
And so we compromise: we have a fountain that runs part of the time, and we
have some trees, though ot as many as we once had. Also, we do not have a
purely one-person-one-vote-and-everyone-votes decision-making process, for
that doesn;t work-- period! Instead, we have a practical, political
compormise for getting things done.
Me, I consider myself a realist, not an idealist, and a centrist, neither
left-leaning or right-leaning. So I am content with what happened in the
park. Indeed, I think that compromise is almost always the best way to
resolve a disputed issue, not victory for one side or the other. But I can
see how an idealist might find this point of view abhorrent. If you are
such an idealist, then I feel for you, because (in my experience) the world
is rarely kind to idealists.
I would be glad to discuss these matters more fully with you, either
on-list or privately, if you think it would be productive to do so. And I
concede in advance that I may have misunderstood some of the motives that
lead you to post, and I stand ready to be corrected. In return I would
welcome a concession from you that -- just possiby -- very few people in
the SNA care as passionately as you do about the things you repeatedly
stress, and the -- just possiby -- nothing you or anyone can do or say will
ever change that.
Bob Mathiesen
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Fr Eng <ridotshaw at gmail.com> wrote:
> So,
> I have referred to a very factual incident - the destruction of trees on a
> much loved park. That was planned and started so a fountain could be
> rebuilt. Why go back to this terrible incident? Because when I first
> objected to the plan - when it was just a plan - the forum was told to
just
> forget my objections. They would go away when the fountain was built.
> Well, when the destruction of trees started, the real neighborhood rose
up,
> not SNA which had really proposed the project and approved the tree
> destruction.
>
> So now in addition to working to forget the mistake that was made and who
> was responsible (SNA), we want to obliterate any memory and objection to
> what some people think should happen in a neighborhood.
>
> And people wonder why some think the East Side is elitist????
>
> Nice broad brush reactionary response and responses. What do you want for
> me to id myself... my SS #? my blood type? my preferences? Wow!!!
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/attachmen
ts/20150118/22715b2f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 15:49:42 -0500
From: Anna Highsmith <anna at occupant.org>
To: Summit Neighborhood <Summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Subject: [Summit] curb alert: baby gates
Message-ID:
<CAD82KMvGBEk9Kn=ak80N1vVG2Q+9GyXbt7ri-ySOAKwUYmfbhw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Neighbors,
There are assorted baby gates free for the taking in front of 27 Colonial
Rd.
One is large enough to span a wide doorway, and is adjustable. One is
normal-doorway width. They are white-painted steel, in good condition,
heavy-duty, purchased in 2009 or so.
thanks,
Anna
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachmen
ts/20150118/875d727e/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 16:17:39 -0500
From: Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>
To: Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com>
Cc: Summit Neighborhood <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Subject: Re: [Summit] In denial, who's who, reactionary
Message-ID: <3C259676-0744-4F8E-A027-C99EABEB73A3 at cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
i object to the word ?mendacious?.
thing is? that this dialog is repetitious. every time this one person does
his repetitive rant, the conversation unfolds the same way, we have the same
discussion, it starts with similar comments, moves to the proposed rules and
rejection of those rules, is followed by the same manifestos?
leaves me scratching my head upon following this same convo for the 3rd or
4th time.
k
<http://www.rhodycraft.com/>
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This post actually raises a serious question in a substantive way. Thank
you, Fr Eng.
>
> I think, however, that your way of dealing with it is fundamentally wrong.
Hence this longish post.
>
> The question, as I see it, is about the decision-making process within the
SNA, and more broadly, about how policy decisions should be mae in such
organizations.
>
> My sense of the SNA membership is that on very many issues, a significant
fraction of the membership -- a different fraction from one issue to the
next -- doesn't care strongly enough about the outcome to put much time and
effort into influencing the outcome. And the remaining membership, the ones
who do care strongly about that issue, are divided about the outcome they
desire, but will be content in any case to go along with whatever action
the organization finally undertakes. Hardly anyone feels strongly enough
about any particualr issue to ne more than mildly annoyed when a decision
seems wrong to them. Righteous outrage, or even indignation, or passion for
any issue, seems to be in very short supply among us.
>
> Under those conditions, not just here on the East Side in SNA, but in any
organization, the decisions end up being made by a fairly small group of
energetic members. In SNA, this is usually the Board of Directors. The
rest of us are mostly content to say, "Eh, whatever ..." when we would have
preferred a different outcome, or to applaud lightly when we like what was
decided.
>
> Under conditions such as these, consensus-building processes simply don't
work as a means of democratic decision-making; the few people with the most
endurance and the fewest demands on their time elsewhere, shape the decision
and then present it -- mendaciously -- as the "consensus" of the
organization. Formal votes, like our own National Elections, work slightly
better, but very often leave a majority of the membership feeling more or
less dissatisfied with the outcome -- because the turnout for the vote is
such a small part of the entire membership.
>
> The only was any organization can function at all, under these conditions,
is through a willingness to embrace, to actively welcome compromise, where
no one gets everything (or even most of what) they want, and everyone gets a
little. So it is, I think, with SNA.
>
> And so it was, if memory serves me correctly, with the fountain and the
trees.
>
> In your posts on the subject, I believe that I hear righteous anger.
(Please correct me if I am hearing you wrongly.) In what actually happened,
I see the sort of compromise that absolutely has to be made in a world where
there is no true consensus whatever on what is ther "right" course of action
in this case, or any such case. It is not in fact obvious that trees are
more important than a workign fountain. Nor is the reverse obvious, either.
Reasonable people may disagree on this issue, and on ALMOST EVERY hot-button
issue that impacts a neighborhood, a city, a state, a nation or the entire
world.
>
> And so we compromise: we have a fountain that runs part of the time, and
we have some trees, though ot as many as we once had. Also, we do not have
a purely one-person-one-vote-and-everyone-votes decision-making process, for
that doesn;t work-- period! Instead, we have a practical, political
compormise for getting things done.
>
> Me, I consider myself a realist, not an idealist, and a centrist, neither
left-leaning or right-leaning. So I am content with what happened in the
park. Indeed, I think that compromise is almost always the best way to
resolve a disputed issue, not victory for one side or the other. But I can
see how an idealist might find this point of view abhorrent. If you are
such an idealist, then I feel for you, because (in my experience) the world
is rarely kind to idealists.
>
> I would be glad to discuss these matters more fully with you, either
on-list or privately, if you think it would be productive to do so. And I
concede in advance that I may have misunderstood some of the motives that
lead you to post, and I stand ready to be corrected. In return I would
welcome a concession from you that -- just possiby -- very few people in the
SNA care as passionately as you do about the things you repeatedly stress,
and the -- just possiby -- nothing you or anyone can do or say will ever
change that.
>
> Bob Mathiesen
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Fr Eng <ridotshaw at gmail.com
<mailto:ridotshaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
> So,
> I have referred to a very factual incident - the destruction of trees on a
much loved park. That was planned and started so a fountain could be
rebuilt. Why go back to this terrible incident? Because when I first
objected to the plan - when it was just a plan - the forum was told to just
forget my objections. They would go away when the fountain was built.
Well, when the destruction of trees started, the real neighborhood rose up,
not SNA which had really proposed the project and approved the tree
destruction.
>
> So now in addition to working to forget the mistake that was made and who
was responsible (SNA), we want to obliterate any memory and objection to
what some people think should happen in a neighborhood.
>
> And people wonder why some think the East Side is elitist????
>
> Nice broad brush reactionary response and responses. What do you want for
me to id myself... my SS #? my blood type? my preferences? Wow!!!
>
> _______________________________________________
> Summit mailing list
> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us <mailto:Summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us>
> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/ <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/attachmen
ts/20150118/69002df2/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 17:25:21 -0500
From: Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com>
To: Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>
Cc: Summit Neighborhood <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Subject: Re: [Summit] In denial, who's who, reactionary
Message-ID:
<CALgP6HcsjTmLa4mN0spriYoW=OYZF+Yq9AWqMqVwUXCfcROgYw at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
And I stand by "mendacious" for the sort of abuse that can easily occur in
"consensus-building" from time to time. It is possible to build a
consensus honestly and respectfully, especially in a small group, but in
large groups it takes exceptional people for honesty and respect to prevail
over some people's lust for getting one's own way at any cost. And,
personally, I mistrust all consensus, and I find dissensus far more
condusive to realistic group action.
Fr Eng has been brief in the past, and the dialogue between him and others
has been on the order of, "You've got your facts wrong!" and "No. you
have!" I am genuinely curious about his/her thinking on the subject of
governance and decision-making in groups, and I am also hoping to move the
dialogue beyond outrage and anger. I have always learned far more from
people who go against the grain and cause trouble and dissension, than from
people who do not stand out from the group. I hope to learn from him/her.
It seemed only courteous to offer Fr Eng to conduct our conversation either
in public or in private, as he/she prefers,
If you don't want to observe it, don't follow the thread.
Bob Mathiesen
On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net> wrote:
> i object to the word ?mendacious?.
>
> thing is? that this dialog is repetitious. every time this one person does
> his repetitive rant, the conversation unfolds the same way, we have the
> same discussion, it starts with similar comments, moves to the proposed
> rules and rejection of those rules, is followed by the same manifestos?
>
> leaves me scratching my head upon following this same convo for the 3rd or
> 4th time.
>
> k
>
>
> <http://www.rhodycraft.com>
>
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This post actually raises a serious question in a substantive way. Thank
> you, Fr Eng.
>
> I think, however, that your way of dealing with it is fundamentally
> wrong. Hence this longish post.
>
> The question, as I see it, is about the decision-making process within the
> SNA, and more broadly, about how policy decisions should be mae in such
> organizations.
>
> My sense of the SNA membership is that on very many issues, a significant
> fraction of the membership -- a different fraction from one issue to the
> next -- doesn't care strongly enough about the outcome to put much time
and
> effort into influencing the outcome. And the remaining membership, the
> ones who do care strongly about that issue, are divided about the outcome
> they desire, but will be content in any case to go along with whatever
> action the organization finally undertakes. Hardly anyone feels strongly
> enough about any particualr issue to ne more than mildly annoyed when a
> decision seems wrong to them. Righteous outrage, or even indignation, or
> passion for any issue, seems to be in very short supply among us.
>
> Under those conditions, not just here on the East Side in SNA, but in any
> organization, the decisions end up being made by a fairly small group of
> energetic members. In SNA, this is usually the Board of Directors. The
> rest of us are mostly content to say, "Eh, whatever ..." when we would
have
> preferred a different outcome, or to applaud lightly when we like what was
> decided.
>
> Under conditions such as these, consensus-building processes simply don't
> work as a means of democratic decision-making; the few people with the
most
> endurance and the fewest demands on their time elsewhere, shape the
> decision and then present it -- mendaciously -- as the "consensus" of the
> organization. Formal votes, like our own National Elections, work
slightly
> better, but very often leave a majority of the membership feeling more or
> less dissatisfied with the outcome -- because the turnout for the vote is
> such a small part of the entire membership.
>
> The only was any organization can function at all, under these conditions,
> is through a willingness to embrace, to actively welcome compromise, where
> no one gets everything (or even most of what) they want, and everyone gets
> a little. So it is, I think, with SNA.
>
> And so it was, if memory serves me correctly, with the fountain and the
> trees.
>
> In your posts on the subject, I believe that I hear righteous anger.
> (Please correct me if I am hearing you wrongly.) In what actually
> happened, I see the sort of compromise that absolutely has to be made in a
> world where there is no true consensus whatever on what is ther "right"
> course of action in this case, or any such case. It is not in fact
obvious
> that trees are more important than a workign fountain. Nor is the reverse
> obvious, either. Reasonable people may disagree on this issue, and on
> ALMOST EVERY hot-button issue that impacts a neighborhood, a city, a
state,
> a nation or the entire world.
>
> And so we compromise: we have a fountain that runs part of the time, and
> we have some trees, though ot as many as we once had. Also, we do not
have
> a purely one-person-one-vote-and-everyone-votes decision-making process,
> for that doesn;t work-- period! Instead, we have a practical, political
> compormise for getting things done.
>
> Me, I consider myself a realist, not an idealist, and a centrist, neither
> left-leaning or right-leaning. So I am content with what happened in the
> park. Indeed, I think that compromise is almost always the best way to
> resolve a disputed issue, not victory for one side or the other. But I
can
> see how an idealist might find this point of view abhorrent. If you are
> such an idealist, then I feel for you, because (in my experience) the
world
> is rarely kind to idealists.
>
> I would be glad to discuss these matters more fully with you, either
> on-list or privately, if you think it would be productive to do so. And I
> concede in advance that I may have misunderstood some of the motives that
> lead you to post, and I stand ready to be corrected. In return I would
> welcome a concession from you that -- just possiby -- very few people in
> the SNA care as passionately as you do about the things you repeatedly
> stress, and the -- just possiby -- nothing you or anyone can do or say
will
> ever change that.
>
> Bob Mathiesen
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Fr Eng <ridotshaw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So,
>> I have referred to a very factual incident - the destruction of trees on
>> a much loved park. That was planned and started so a fountain could be
>> rebuilt. Why go back to this terrible incident? Because when I first
>> objected to the plan - when it was just a plan - the forum was told to
just
>> forget my objections. They would go away when the fountain was built.
>> Well, when the destruction of trees started, the real neighborhood rose
up,
>> not SNA which had really proposed the project and approved the tree
>> destruction.
>>
>> So now in addition to working to forget the mistake that was made and who
>> was responsible (SNA), we want to obliterate any memory and objection to
>> what some people think should happen in a neighborhood.
>>
>> And people wonder why some think the East Side is elitist????
>>
>> Nice broad brush reactionary response and responses. What do you want
>> for me to id myself... my SS #? my blood type? my preferences? Wow!!!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/attachmen
ts/20150118/79124d86/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2015 18:13:52 -0500
From: Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net>
To: Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com>
Cc: Summit Neighborhood <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Subject: Re: [Summit] In denial, who's who, reactionary
Message-ID: <43B9C5D4-966F-4DA3-B248-5E2952D73706 at cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
i enjoy following the thread, and my contribution at the moment is to point
out the dej? vu aspect of this particular topic. It goes round and around
every time with the same people saying the same things in almost the same
order. It will finally stop and then this same cycle will begin in 4-6
months. Human nature I suppose, it takes us along time to move forward.
k
<http://www.rhodycraft.com/>
> On Jan 18, 2015, at 5:25 PM, Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And I stand by "mendacious" for the sort of abuse that can easily occur in
"consensus-building" from time to time. It is possible to build a consensus
honestly and respectfully, especially in a small group, but in large groups
it takes exceptional people for honesty and respect to prevail over some
people's lust for getting one's own way at any cost. And, personally, I
mistrust all consensus, and I find dissensus far more condusive to realistic
group action.
>
> Fr Eng has been brief in the past, and the dialogue between him and others
has been on the order of, "You've got your facts wrong!" and "No. you have!"
I am genuinely curious about his/her thinking on the subject of governance
and decision-making in groups, and I am also hoping to move the dialogue
beyond outrage and anger. I have always learned far more from people who go
against the grain and cause trouble and dissension, than from people who do
not stand out from the group. I hope to learn from him/her. It seemed only
courteous to offer Fr Eng to conduct our conversation either in public or in
private, as he/she prefers,
>
> If you don't want to observe it, don't follow the thread.
>
> Bob Mathiesen
>
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Kim Clark <ktcxyz at cox.net
<mailto:ktcxyz at cox.net>> wrote:
> i object to the word ?mendacious?.
>
> thing is? that this dialog is repetitious. every time this one person does
his repetitive rant, the conversation unfolds the same way, we have the same
discussion, it starts with similar comments, moves to the proposed rules and
rejection of those rules, is followed by the same manifestos?
>
> leaves me scratching my head upon following this same convo for the 3rd or
4th time.
>
> k
>
>
> <http://www.rhodycraft.com/>
>> On Jan 18, 2015, at 2:47 PM, Robert Mathiesen <rmath13 at gmail.com
<mailto:rmath13 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> This post actually raises a serious question in a substantive way. Thank
you, Fr Eng.
>>
>> I think, however, that your way of dealing with it is fundamentally
wrong. Hence this longish post.
>>
>> The question, as I see it, is about the decision-making process within
the SNA, and more broadly, about how policy decisions should be mae in such
organizations.
>>
>> My sense of the SNA membership is that on very many issues, a significant
fraction of the membership -- a different fraction from one issue to the
next -- doesn't care strongly enough about the outcome to put much time and
effort into influencing the outcome. And the remaining membership, the ones
who do care strongly about that issue, are divided about the outcome they
desire, but will be content in any case to go along with whatever action
the organization finally undertakes. Hardly anyone feels strongly enough
about any particualr issue to ne more than mildly annoyed when a decision
seems wrong to them. Righteous outrage, or even indignation, or passion for
any issue, seems to be in very short supply among us.
>>
>> Under those conditions, not just here on the East Side in SNA, but in any
organization, the decisions end up being made by a fairly small group of
energetic members. In SNA, this is usually the Board of Directors. The
rest of us are mostly content to say, "Eh, whatever ..." when we would have
preferred a different outcome, or to applaud lightly when we like what was
decided.
>>
>> Under conditions such as these, consensus-building processes simply don't
work as a means of democratic decision-making; the few people with the most
endurance and the fewest demands on their time elsewhere, shape the decision
and then present it -- mendaciously -- as the "consensus" of the
organization. Formal votes, like our own National Elections, work slightly
better, but very often leave a majority of the membership feeling more or
less dissatisfied with the outcome -- because the turnout for the vote is
such a small part of the entire membership.
>>
>> The only was any organization can function at all, under these
conditions, is through a willingness to embrace, to actively welcome
compromise, where no one gets everything (or even most of what) they want,
and everyone gets a little. So it is, I think, with SNA.
>>
>> And so it was, if memory serves me correctly, with the fountain and the
trees.
>>
>> In your posts on the subject, I believe that I hear righteous anger.
(Please correct me if I am hearing you wrongly.) In what actually happened,
I see the sort of compromise that absolutely has to be made in a world where
there is no true consensus whatever on what is ther "right" course of action
in this case, or any such case. It is not in fact obvious that trees are
more important than a workign fountain. Nor is the reverse obvious, either.
Reasonable people may disagree on this issue, and on ALMOST EVERY hot-button
issue that impacts a neighborhood, a city, a state, a nation or the entire
world.
>>
>> And so we compromise: we have a fountain that runs part of the time, and
we have some trees, though ot as many as we once had. Also, we do not have
a purely one-person-one-vote-and-everyone-votes decision-making process, for
that doesn;t work-- period! Instead, we have a practical, political
compormise for getting things done.
>>
>> Me, I consider myself a realist, not an idealist, and a centrist, neither
left-leaning or right-leaning. So I am content with what happened in the
park. Indeed, I think that compromise is almost always the best way to
resolve a disputed issue, not victory for one side or the other. But I can
see how an idealist might find this point of view abhorrent. If you are
such an idealist, then I feel for you, because (in my experience) the world
is rarely kind to idealists.
>>
>> I would be glad to discuss these matters more fully with you, either
on-list or privately, if you think it would be productive to do so. And I
concede in advance that I may have misunderstood some of the motives that
lead you to post, and I stand ready to be corrected. In return I would
welcome a concession from you that -- just possiby -- very few people in the
SNA care as passionately as you do about the things you repeatedly stress,
and the -- just possiby -- nothing you or anyone can do or say will ever
change that.
>>
>> Bob Mathiesen
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Fr Eng <ridotshaw at gmail.com
<mailto:ridotshaw at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> So,
>> I have referred to a very factual incident - the destruction of trees on
a much loved park. That was planned and started so a fountain could be
rebuilt. Why go back to this terrible incident? Because when I first
objected to the plan - when it was just a plan - the forum was told to just
forget my objections. They would go away when the fountain was built.
Well, when the destruction of trees started, the real neighborhood rose up,
not SNA which had really proposed the project and approved the tree
destruction.
>>
>> So now in addition to working to forget the mistake that was made and who
was responsible (SNA), we want to obliterate any memory and objection to
what some people think should happen in a neighborhood.
>>
>> And people wonder why some think the East Side is elitist????
>>
>> Nice broad brush reactionary response and responses. What do you want
for me to id myself... my SS #? my blood type? my preferences? Wow!!!
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us <mailto:Summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us>
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/ <http://sna.providence.ri.us/>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Summit mailing list
>> Summit at sna.providence.ri.us <mailto:Summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
>> http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us>
>> SNA Website: http://sna.providence.ri.us/ <http://sna.providence.ri.us/>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://sna.providence.ri.us/pipermail/summit_sna.providence.ri.us/attachmen
ts/20150118/163cc5b8/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 08:59:37 -0500
From: Anna Kuperman <annakuperman at gmail.com>
To: "summit at sna.providence.ri.us" <summit at sna.providence.ri.us>
Subject: [Summit] Dishwasher repair
Message-ID: <90BBDAA6-C296-4766-9096-B717178B735A at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Can folks make suggestions for a dishwasher repair person? Thanks!
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Summit mailing list
Summit at sna.providence.ri.us
http://sna.providence.ri.us/mailman/listinfo/summit_sna.providence.ri.us
------------------------------
End of Summit Digest, Vol 118, Issue 17
***************************************
More information about the Summit
mailing list