[Bards] Just a few words (really good words

[Jay Rudin]

Michael Silverhands and I have exchanged:

>> > But personally, I think we've still got the cart before the horse.
>> > We're talking about the mechanics of how a college should be
>> > structured, when we don't yet have a clear definition of what
>> > a college should do.
>>
>> By contrast, I feel like I'm fighting a rearguard action, trying to
>> keep us from putting the cart before the horse.  We aren't ready to
>> discuss the mechanics of how a college should be structured *or*
>> what a college should do, until we talk to a lot more people.
>>
>> The key word in your paragraph above is "we".  Who is "we"?
>
> (With respect, if you could answer a question without beginning with
> a sidebar about semantics, it would be a refreshing change.
> Seriously. I know that semantics are important. When we're working
> with words as our tools, we have to be careful how we use them. But
> this is a chat board, not a dissertation.)

It wasn't a sidebar, it was the core of my point.  "We" needs to be all the 
active bards in the kingdom.  I'm fighting accidental exclusion.

> Obviously, "we" = the people who are currently involved in the
> discussion, as in "we're talking" and "we don't yet have a clear
> definition".

If you were using "we" to mean just the people on the list, then "we're 
talking about the mechanics of how a college should be structured" is 
exclusionary and political.  The entire set of bards needs to be discussing 
that, not just a few of the ones on this list.  And it's not enough for us, 
the few people talking on the e-list to come up with "a clear definition of 
what a college should do".  The bards of Ansteorra need to come up with one 
that includes what everyone thinks.

>> The "we" for the college has mostly not heard about the idea yet.
>> "We", the very few people active on this list, can't begin to
>> discuss this yet.  First we need to contact a lot more bards.  Only
>> then can "we", the bards of Ansteorra, including the people on this
>> list and a whole lot more, begin to have meaningful discussions.

> I see. So the people on this list cannot, in and of and by
> themselves, have meaningful discussions? Then why broach a topic here
> at all? Seriously?

I withdraw my initial phrasing.  We can begin to talk; we can't reach any 
conclusions yet.  "I'm asking everybody here, and I will spend the next 
couple of months trying to ask the much larger group of bards who aren't 
here" Robin of Gilwell 11/ 06/2006

The people on this list cannot, in and of itself, conclude meaningful 
discussions about a kingdom-wide college without being exclusionary.  The 
discussion has to start somewhere, and here is a good place.  But it cannot 
end here without spreading out.

By itself, the dialog of less than one tenth of the people on this e-list 
does nothing.  If it spreads out into discussion throughout the rest of the 
e-list and the rest of the entire bardic community, it could be very 
valuable -- as the start (but not the whole) of something big and inclusive. 
If it attempts to reach a conclusion on this list, without input from the 
rest, then it will be what has been called "exclusionary and political".

For it to spread out and meaningfully include others, we need to slow down 
and not try to reach conclusions until the others are involved.

Ideas, yes.  Discussion, yes.  Conclusions, no.

>> I really, really, really believe that the college should respond to
>> its members -- and most of them aren't active on this list.
>
> Fair enough. That doesn't preclude dialog here, does it?
>
> On the other hand: if it does, then what purpose does the current
> dialog serve?
>
> That's not meant to be snarky, although I realize it probably sounds
> that way. Those are serious questions, expressed in earnest.

I've answered this already : "I'm asking everybody here, and I will spend 
the next couple of months trying to ask the much larger group of bards who 
aren't here:" Robin of Gilwell 11/ 06/2006

By itself, the dialog of less than one tenth of the people on this e-list 
does nothing.  If it spreads out into discussion throughout the rest of the 
e-list and the rest of the entire bardic community, it could be very 
valuable -- as the start (but not the whole) of something big and inclusive. 
If it attempts to reach a conclusion on this list, without input from the 
rest, then it will be what has been called "exclusionary and political".

For it to spread out and meaningfully include others, we need to slow down 
and not try to reach conclusions until the others are involved.

Ideas, yes.  Discussion, yes.  Conclusions, no.

Robin of Gilwell / Jay Rudin