| Author | Post |
|---|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Nov 20th, 2006 12:30 pm |
|
Everyone knows where I stand!!
Where has the love gone? I for one love this town. Summerfield, a place where people can leave their doors unlocked. Summerfield, a place people say "How ya' doooen" and mean it. Summerfield, a place people ask " Hows ya' mama and them" and wait for a reply. This will all disappear if the lies and half truths don't stop. These are the things that divide a town. This will turn friends into enemy's. My wife's family on both side can count back 8 and 9 generations in Summerfield. We love it here. I will bet that the CC's cannot say the same. But, there are some good Summerfield citizens that can. Growth in a town is best from within. This make a town a tight family. The future growth depends on our children. Having organized activities for children and children knowing they can have the same for their own children is what keeps them in Summerfield.
Now that I am up on my soap box. Summerfield needs affordable housing. $300K is not affordable housing. I am just like the rest in not wanting my property value to drop but, I did not build my house to sell and make a profit. I AM HERE TO STAY!! Where are our children going to live in Summerfield (when the time comes) that the houses are of affordable price or rent? When they come out of college there is no way they will be able to purchase a home here unless they hit the lottery or inherit from a rich Uncle. I want to see my Grandchildren grow up and live in Summerfield and add 2 to 3 more generations to the list.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Nov 20th, 2006 05:14 pm |
|
| Hey, BB, what do you think o' the meetin' idee Steve brought up?
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Nov 20th, 2006 08:01 pm |
|
| Common ground meeting is the best idea. A little Q and A would be for the best on both sides. There are alot of unanswered questions for the CC's to let us in on. I'll be there on my best behavior. I'll try not to let the big green guy bust out. Let the games begin!!
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Nov 20th, 2006 08:35 pm |
|
| A meeting here on the forum would also be better so we could ask Ms. Dunham questions without her talking over top of us. I had a one sided conversation with her once and could not get a word in. When I tried to speak she talked over me and her words were without point or reason, rambling from one thing to another. Then I started poking fun at her ( by acting as if I agreed totally) and this added fuel to the fire. Talk about eccentric. Debbie Hoffman saw this and thought I had lost my mind. Had to explain myself on that one.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 20th, 2006 09:39 pm |
|
My question (as an outside observer) is, what is or what would be the objective of a meeting as you're proposing? What does your side hope to accomplish? What would the other side hope to accomplish? What's in it (from a political or power standpoint) for either side to even agree to sit down for a discussion face to face?
It also seems to me that an outside trained facilitator neutral to all parties is and would be your and their only hope in trying to have each side honestly listen to the positions of the other side. Without neutrality and a guided discussion by a facilitator to seek out and find common ground, the chances for mutually beneficial success lie somewhere between slim and none.
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 20th, 2006 09:58 pm |
|
At the core of what I am suggesting is that any meeting needs to be based on an understanding and consideration for the concept of realpolitik.
I am enclosing two definitions to help in understanding this concept:
(1) Politics based on practical objectives rather than on ideals. The word does not mean “real” in the English sense but rather connotes “things”-hence a politics of adaptation to things as they are. Realpolitik thus suggests a pragmatic, no-nonsense view and a disregard for ethical considerations. In diplomacy it is often associated with relentless, though realistic, pursuit of the national interest.
(2) Governmental policies based on hard, practical considerations rather than on moral or idealistic concerns. Realpolitik is German for “the politics of reality” and is often applied to the policies of nations that consider only their own interests in dealing with other countries.
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 12:36 am |
|
So basically realpolitik is "my" agenda at any cost?
I think I understand where you are going with this. We being those posting on the forum seem to be the more idealist "dreamers" while the others are the realpolitiks, which are two very diverse ways of viewing things and would probably make any meeting fairly futile? Is this where you are going?
I promised my husband dinner tonight and since it is 8:30 I need to go for a bit but Jim expand on your thoughts.
|
Skiddles
Member
| Joined: | Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 622 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 01:10 am |
|
Frankly this meeting with a non-biased mediator would be a wonderful way to get to a common ground. Realistically you are probably correct Jane in saying, any meeting would be fairly futile, because I don’t think that all parties will go into it with an honest conviction.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 01:24 am |
|
Jane before we go jumping the gun on my comments about realpolitik, I would ask that you address my earlier questions so you can share an outline of what you would seek to accomplish. Here are those questions:
What is or what would be the objective of a meeting as you're proposing?
What does your side hope/seek to accomplish?
What would the other side hope/seek to accomplish?
What's in it ("gain") (from a political or power standpoint) for either side to even agree to sit down for a discussion face to face?
(As a footnote: By injecting realpolitik into this discussion, I did not intend to "label" the "values" or ideologies of either side, but merely to suggest that objectives of the two parties might be somewhat different in purpose. Events and actions are generally neutral until one ascribes a 'value' to that event or act which labels it as good or bad or positive or negative. We all ascribe values to events and actions based on our own built in biases and belief systems. That leads to dissonance in our communications with our adversaries and generally results in communal name calling and finger pointing wherein we label our opponents actions or beliefs as wrong rather than simply different from our own.)
Last edited on Nov 21st, 2006 01:38 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
Skiddles
Member
| Joined: | Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 622 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 01:38 am |
|
| Sound advice, Jim
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 01:43 am |
|
Well we have two meetings being proposed I think. One meeting which I am in favor of is a meeting that sits down and says we live in Sumerfield because...... and we would like to see the Town accomplish...... Affordable house ordinanace, address urban sprawl, more parks, cleaner air etc and lobby towards our goals. Remind people why they live here and the advantages. Promote the positiveness.
The other meeting being proposed, I think, is a meeting between the two groups with a mediator. I am very pragmatic, feel every one has a right to his or her beliefs, and I would like to think that both groups have the good of Summerfield and our future as objectives but I do not truly believe that. Therefore I am very pessimistic that any good could come out of such a meeting. i would attend and I would try to keep an open mind because I have seen good facilitators do wonderful things.
How about the rest of you out there what do you think?
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 01:50 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Well we have two meetings being proposed I think. One meeting which I am in favor of is a meeting that sits down and says we live in Sumerfield because...... and we would like to see the Town accomplish...... Affordable house ordinanace, address urban sprawl, more parks, cleaner air etc and lobby towards our goals. Remind people why they live here and the advantages. Promote the positiveness.
Jane, I am going to break down my response to your post in two or three separate responses. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have after my having done that.
I concur with your meeting as described above as your objective seems clear and the participation of those with differing views or agendas is not necessary for the accomplishment of your objectives. Therefore I would second the motion to move forward with all due speed with this proposed meeting as you have outlined.
I am certainly not smarter nor as smart as many if not most of you, only perhaps I am a little more emotionally detached in my perspective and assessment.
Last edited on Nov 21st, 2006 02:26 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
Skiddles
Member
| Joined: | Nov 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 622 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 02:07 am |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: I am certainly not smarter nor as smart as many if not most of you, only perhaps I am a little more emotionally detached in my perspective and assessment.
This is a good thing. Sometimes when you are too close and passionate about an issue you can miss the elephant in the room.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1377 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 02:11 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote:
(1) The other meeting being proposed, I think, is a meeting between the two groups with a mediator.
(2) I am very pragmatic, feel every one has a right to his or her beliefs, and I would like to think that both groups have the good of Summerfield and our future as objectives but I do not truly believe that. (3) Therefore I am very pessimistic that any good could come out of such a meeting.
I have taken the liberty of breaking down your comments from your earlier post into 3 main themes as numbered above.
With regard to your Point (1), it would seem to me that the meeting being proposed is being proposed by only one side. Therefore it would be inherent that the group proposing such a meeting would only make such proposal with some objective in mind, such further being to seek to gain something of value from such a meeting. I am not at all sure of the intent of what the anticipated gain is at this point.
Is your purpose to listen to the other side and their viewpoint? Can you listen while showing respect for a purpose or viewpoint which is not right or wrong, but simply different from your own?
Your Point (2) is troublesome to me, as it starts find differences rather than commonalities and to attach values to different points of view. When we start to say that we don't truly believe that the other side shares our objective we immediately create obstacles to communication and respectful dialogue which takes us back to where we are now. Isn't it possible that both sides might share the same general objective that you annuciate, while differing on more specific objectives and the means and ends of obtaining them?
Your Point (3) obviously is one which is shared by many in the groups on both sides of which, I would agree, would not bode well for any success. Until both sides can see some benefit(s) accruing from such a meeting toward the attainment of their organizational goals, then no meaningful dialogue is likely nor any purpose served in conducting such a meeting.
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Nov 21st, 2006 02:23 am |
|
If I ever need a speech writer I want you. So far, for me, you have absolutely taken my illogical thoughts, put them in order and expressed them so I understand myself.
Us left handed people are creative, touchy, feely so I have been told but not necesarily logical.
|
|
|
