GilfordGrok

Well, THAT was interesting - last night's BudComm meeting.

Not sure why it was called a meeting...generally at a meeting, there are discussions.  Sometimes easy discussions, and sometimes heated discussions when people of opposite and opposing views try hard to convince others of their stances. Last nite?  Not so much.  At least for the discussion side of things.  The stated purpose was to allow the Budget Committee listen to the public's input about the entirety of the School Budget. 

I looked forward to this discussion with interest - I always enjoy a good back and forth with reasoned people attempting to calmly discuss topics.  You may not believe me, given them perceived emnity between my stance (and Doug's) of how the Football process got "lost", but I did have one - but only one (with Kurt Webber).

We pretty much heard about three, and only three.  The last was when Linda Wright presented her warrant article on the sidewalk project.  No real discussion, no real debate.

The other two?  Big secret here - Football and health benefits.  Well, a discussion they weren't (and sorry for the mangled grammer).  I was not aware before going into the meeting that the use of the word "listen" mean exactly that.  It is hard to have a discussion, to correct mis-stated facts (on both sides) when only one side is allowed to speak - no one on the BudComm was allowed the same.  In those circumstances, the rhetoric tends to degenerate as people become more and more emboldened without rebuttal.

I'll tell you, I tried real hard to listen to everyone that stood up.  Yeah, a coupla / few times I'd look elsewhere.  But you know, when people try to paste, lambast, and otherwise roast one over and over almost word for word, it is hard to keep one's interest up, even when trying to.   

After all, wasn't the purpose of the most of the speakers to was to convince us "recalcitrant" ones to think like them?

Note to readers that disagree with me - invective, real or perceived, generally never changes opinions. 

The peanut gallery "whispers that really aren't" are rather distracting and lend nothing to the argument that you are trying to make. And it is never good form in a debate to use a preponderance of emotional appeals.  For me, getting hit over the head with it so often, it became emotional blackmail, attempting to portray those of us with opposing views as, well, pond scum (and that would be at the high end). 

Note to readers that disagree with me - emotional blackmail will ALWAYS fail with me.  And I will mention the lady that kept bringing up her son with the severe disability - I cannot completely understand your situation, but I am glad you are proud of your son.  However, my perception of your argument was that it came across like a battering ram.  That gets old, too, as using that tactic on rarely works.  If you were trying to "guilt" me into changing my mind, it didn't work. 

I also noticed that many of the speakers were staff from the SAU, so I guess I'm a bit surprised given that diversity is a word that seems to be so highly promoted in academia. I hear often that diversity is wonderful, a goal to be sought after, and should be ingrained in us all, valued and honored. Then how come everyone wanted me to think like them, to agree with them, "go along to get along"?  Just give in to the School Board!

And not respect and value my right to an opposing opinion? 

Seems to be a double standard....