Participation

[Nan Bradford-Reid]

>>>So, how much do you have to play in order to have some say?
>>
>>Michael--it's not *what* you say, it's *how* you sometimes say it.
>
>I don't think that you can seperate the two, that medium intimately effects
>a message to a fundamental degree, HOW you say something is in effect WHAT
>you are saying. Saying "I oppose the US's policy in regards to East Timor"
>is radically differnt than burning a flag in front of the Indonesian
>Embassy, The two statements are NOT the same.

The two are very much separable.  Read Earl Kein's message re this subject
again, as I would just be reiterating what he said.  If you still don't get
it, then you won't get it.

>
>However even if they were somehow seperable, isn;t the underlying thrust of
>the message the more important aspect? A truth is still a truth if it is
>written on watermarked stationary or screamed out by a drunken bum. If you
>limit your allowable perceptions to those which do not offend than you may
>miss many things.
>

No one listens to a drunken bum, because he is a) drunk and therefore not
in his right mind, and b) why would we want to listen to someone who has
ruined their
own life.  People will always listen more readily to rational, considerate
statements as opposed to insulting rantings, peppered with expletives.


>>And there are
>>some who feel you should be *active* as in showing up for events to have a
>>say.  I'll leave that one alone.)
>
>It certainly seemed to be what YOU were saying in the earlier post that I
>replied to, and it is something i disagree with rather strongly. Are you
>backing away from this statement? If not how about explaining it? Hoe much
>should one have to play in order to get some say?

I'm not backing away from it, I merely intimated that I prefer not to
discuss it.  It is my opinion and I am entitled to it, but I also realize
that there are those who do not feel that way and they also are entitled to
their opinion.
>
>>Catherine Harwell, CIM AST
>
>-Michael

Catherine