I think that the Internet is the key to effective communication. Face-to-face discourse is fine when both sides have the access to the same information. However, many unions and especially the business unions have viewed information and knowledge a power and they have not been willing to share power. Therefore, they don't share a lot of information or knowledge. They give only what they unilaterally determine to be prudent in any given circumstance.
For a prime example of how great the Internet is, we look at UFCW_Scott. He's calmed right down, and when he gets information that he can't respond to immediately, he says, "I'll be right back with my response." He goes away, gets information and returns with a response. Fact to face, he'd be made to look like a dummy. The Internet allows him to be viewed as he really is, thoughtful and pretty down to earth--like so many that visit here. [Yes, I know, we all have our good days and bad day and Scott is no different than most of us here. Hey, I've been snarkey with the best of them.]
I think the Internet can prepare us for the face-to-face meetings. We can come prepared. We can discuss, investigate, read and make reasoned determinations. Sometimes there will be no face-to-face meetings. Guys like Brooke Sundin and Gib Whitlock will get blown away at the ballot box. I said, "guys like" because Whitlock will jump into multiple-pension heaven before his next election.
Bill is right in assuming that the Internet won't replace face-to-face, but it will be the training ground that will disseminate information and knowledge formerly kept under lock and key. It will provide the information and knowledge that will allow reformers to overthrow their predecessors.
Hey, Bill, think of it this way. If the last guy was doing his job the way you thought it should be done, he'd still be there. He isn't, and therefore, like it or lump it, you are a reformer. With the backing of the Power Source, you performed a much-needed transplant in your local.
That happened because you were on the inside. You had the connections. You couldn't be doing what you are doing now if you hadn't infiltrated the inside. What's amazing is that in doing so you weren't corrupted by the warmth and bacterial culture of rotting business unionism. That being said, in my opinion, even being on the inside, you would have never been allowed to pull off what you did if let's say, you were a BA in Local 400 or one of the locals like it.
Nonetheless, you're a reformer, Bill. 
The Internet allows free flow of information and gives the Power Source the ability to communicate. You'll see the Power Source electing one of its own in the near future.
One word of warning to the Power Source. The Internet, for the time being, relies heavily on the written word. If you want to lead, learn to spell. If you don't spell all that well, make sure you have someone who does proof read your communications.
Face2Face vs TeXt - CAGE MATCH!
Over here: http://www.ufcw.net/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000033
Bill said this;
quote:
and i do believe in the power of the net, but it has it's limitations.
and LBM said this;
quote:
Bill has a point about face to face interaction...it is important...almost required...[...] People really heavily on social interaction...they require it...the internet can supply information over a great distance...but it can't compensate for good old fashioned face to face conversation
Which leads me to my question;
What are the advantages of face-to-face interaction?
Why are they so critical to the "movement"?
quote:
at the end of the day everything done on the net is just text...you are still just sitting at a keyboard.
Yes, but your words, ideas and opinions are there for the world to see, share, debate and, in some cases, decipher.
Try and do that over coffee.
Other distinct advantages:
- Archival: may as well be written in stone
- Reference: I can review your statements at my leisure, analyse it at my pace and develop my opinions, questions and responses in my time. Not at the pace (or impatience) of the speaker or circumstance.
- Distribution: Has there ever been a more efficient way to "get the word out"?
Those are the three main advantages "just text" has over face-to-face especially when considered in the terms of "movements".
So? On with it now! 
Unless we are a large enough force that the unions and the CLC can not discount us, face to face will strenghten the resolve of the "status quo". We must draw our numbers and our collective strength to force the "big boys" to the table.
Right now I believe that they could care less or at least that is how they appear to act. So long as the CLC continues to support such a rigid constitution, little may change. CAW tried and were relegated to the back of the room and chastised for their actions. I personally was proud of "Buzz".
To me, if the CLC allowed locals to change unions, that would force "status quo" unions to have to adapt to the changing state and be more responsive to the needs of their members. Being responsive to the needs of members would strengthen solidarity among all unions.
Why should we not be able to choose feely the best representative union. Then would unions not fight hard for better contracts and actually fight for members grievances!!
On a Cupe Manitoba web page last year a statement was made that there was no truth to the rumor that Cupe did not file grievances because there was no money. I am sure that there is no problem with money. It is my political opinion from my past personal experiences as both a member and a past executive member that Cupe officials do not file grievances on purpose. In one situation management sent me a letter stating that in conference with both the local President of Cupe local 1112 and the Cupe National Rep, that my grievance was to be sent back to me. I sent in the grievance again and this time told them that not only does the wording of the collective agreeement allow an employee to file a grievance, but so did the Manitoba Labour Relations Act. It was sent back with the same response. I sent a letter to President Sister Darcy. No rely but not surprised. Cupe Manitoba, if it is any indicatiion of how other Cupe members are treated across this country,it is pathetic to say the least.
Do we need big change in unions?
Hell Ya, but face to face right now won't accomplish much except that we can say we tried.
ABOUT UNIONS 
The more that I think about it the more convinced I become that the way to facilitate change is to reach out directly to workers themselves. The net provides a way for us to do that. If enough workers decide they want change, the existing structures will respond for their own survival. If they don't respond, the newly-connected workers will build their own organizations. The old structures will become irrelevant.
We need to keep the heat turned on the CLC and the mainstream orgs. But at the same time we should not lose sight of the potential there is in engaging workers themselves in a dialogue about how it should be.
quote:
The more that I think about it the more convinced I become that the way to facilitate change is to reach out directly to workers themselves
by remote viewer
I could not agree more. We could learn a lot from how the "big boys" network in an effort to maintian the "status quo". Members can e-mail one member or two at a time and invite them into the debate or just to let their frustrations go. Things have to be very simple for people to follow. Maybe a forum that does not move off the front page so get people used the system first and can just listen or vent or contribute. We must not make the mistake like the "big boys" and exclude brothers and sisters just because we think they should know. Things must be kept simple, for it is human tendency to move on to something much easier. If we all bring one member closer soon there will be many more to tell others. The more exposure we get the better for all members.
ABOUT UNIONS
------------------------------------------------
the old stuctures will become irrelevant.
-------------------------------------------------
There-in lies the ultimate truth of the internet. You may make some inroads in affecting change, but no-matter what you do there will have to be stuctures. The internet limitations are what you fail to grasp. You can spread information , you can link workers and you can even educate. That won't replace what Unions do for workers every day. Negotiations, grievannce resolutions, getting to know workers, ratifying contracts. The personal stuff is incredibly important. The internet is impersonal and limited .When it's all said and done you'll still need structures similar to what exists today.
quote:
The internet limitations are what you fail to grasp.
No. That's what you have failed to point out.
Even the things you list: negotiations, grievannce resolutions, getting to know workers, ratifying contracts, aren't strictly person-to-person.
So, tell me which of those 4 items couldn't be done online and why?
Slek: Virtually everything i do is on an interpersonal basis. In theory you could take the human element out of the process, but what is left. One of the things that facinated me when i left the grocery business, was that working for the union wasn't a job where i put stuff on a shelf, but dealt with the human drama of workers problems and needs. To reduce any of the above functions to keystrokes limits what Unions are all about,people.
Just look at how posters mask their identities here. A world run by people whose only interactions are over the internet reduce themselves to a very cold and impersonal existence. To only reveal so little of ones self makes trust a real challenge. In my job, the ability to lead or negotiate or many of the other things i do is dependant on whether workers or others believe or trust in what i do.
breathless young women running up to you and telling you that you are natural born leader can't be done well online. the breathless part doesn't translate in type. cults of personality are hard to carry off when there's no face-time or voice-time: writing is a difficult art.
but seriously, folks, the future is a hybrid of
online and off: some nodes in the network are going to resemble old-school (or high school?)hierarchies, others won't.
I've thought a bit about the proper use of the Internet.
The vast majority of the people in my store do not own a computer, and can not afford a computer.
If winning a good contract depends on the Internet, well, then we won't have a good contract.
Sure, they could take a bus to a public library, but get real.
A lot of young people with the means and with the inclination spend a good deal of their time on the computer. And they believe online publications like Wired magazine, which celebrates free-market capitalism and Internet technology as the "new paradigm" which will usher in a new age of marketized democracy and personal liberty.
I don't believe that. But then again I don't buy Nike shoes, either.
There's another problem. When most people do go to a computer, people don't go to communicate about problems, to revolutionize their life priorites, or to challenge themselves in any way.
Too bad. Usually, they have just entertainment in mind.
Now I'm not going to challenge them on this, to fight them on this, or to ask them to "explain something" to me as to why they are this way.
And then there is the problem of "information overload." Very real. Not to mention poor reading skills, bad or non-existent typing ability, etc.
Most, if not all, healthy organizations depend on face-to-face contact to train people, to maintain commitment, to solidify decision-making, to deliberate on decisions, etc.
If a reform group, or a union, for that matter, isn't having regular meetings - both in the stores and off the property, then that's not a very healthy organization, and you can bet that its claim on the loyalty of the membership is probably pretty low.
Example: any large UFCW grocery local.
And what if a lot more people came to a meeting? Big explosion of angry and disappointed people -- in most UFCW locals, that is.
That's why the leadership spends a lot of time keeping people inert and unquestioning, or at least despairing that things can be any different. They do it to protect themselves.
It is the role of a reform caucus to organize people to make a different both at, on the shopfloor, and in the union itself.
The way to do that is by face-to-face interaction.
Otherwise, you may think you're part of a "new paradigm" bring freedom and enlightenment via the Internet, but in reality you're just sitting on your backside in front of a computer.
So what is the role of the Internet for union democracy caucuses and reform groups?
Good Question. I believe that websites and such are best used by confirmed activists who need concrete information, extensive details, news, official documents -- and maybe even a flyer or two for distribution.
That information can then be used to pursue a course of action which the group separately and face-to-face (and in private) decides upon.
The Internet is not a substitute for shopfloor meetings; the Internet is not a substitute for organizational meetings; the Interent is not a substitute for human interaction (How could anyone ever suggest that?).
Sure, you can deliberate online, but how many caucuses want all their strategy sessions published? How many union halls bug every room in the office, and broadcast it all on the radio?
Not many!
Formal democracy (with rules - and votes) has a place, as does informal (and private) planning.
The Internet is primarily of use to activists who are spread out over a wide area. These activists will still need to meet with other activists, and to meet continually with the members.
The process of getting a good contract, or of doing other things necessary to reform a union, isn't easy. It takes work. The initial group needs continually to expand. You need to train leaders.
Nothing about that it is automatic, even if you "go online."
In my own life, I find that the more time I spend on the computer, the less gets done in terms of union work, for the reasons I have outlined above.
Gotta go!
That doesn't answer the question Bill. You've mentioned "limitations" but you have not listed any specifically.
I gave you three examples of the advantages text has over person-to-person in the context of movements.
So what are the limitations?
quote:
In theory you could take the human element out of the process, but what is left.
Human element? Um... I am a Human leaving you a message.
Human element remains.
quote:
To reduce any of the above functions to keystrokes limits what Unions are all about,people.
Does there exist a better tool to communicate with the people?
Membership meetings can't compete. Text beats those hands down, logistics, you know.
quote:
A world run by people whose only interactions are over the internet reduce themselves to a very cold and impersonal existence.
That's just your opinion, and we're not talking about the world, we're talking about movements, specifically unions.
quote:
To only reveal so little of ones self makes trust a real challenge.
That's why we have profiles!
Trust isn't an issue anyways. Information is what it's all about. Accountability is what it's all about. Two things text provides better than p2p for the reasons stated in my first post.
I wouldn't trust a d00d(ette) who wouldn't put his words out for the world to see anyways.
Participant:
quote:
Most, if not all, healthy organizations depend on face-to-face contact to train people, to maintain commitment, to solidify decision-making, to deliberate on decisions, etc.
Dependance on anything is not a sign of health. It's a sign of sickness.
If you're not ready & willing to embrace the advantages technology offers you will extinct yourself.
quote:
The Internet is not a substitute for shopfloor meetings; the Internet is not a substitute for organizational meetings;
Agreed. However, the internet is an extension and has yet to be fully utilized because of lingering old-school "limitations" (of which no one can seem to list any).
quote:
How many union halls bug every room in the office, and broadcast it all on the radio?
Not many!
They should. They will. Whether they like it or not. It will happen.
quote:
The Internet is primarily of use to activists who are spread out over a wide area. These activists will still need to meet with other activists, and to meet continually with the members.
No. The internet is for information dissemination. You don't need p2p do acomplish that.
Slek: I have gone to profiles on a number of occassions, and i'm sure they only tell me what the poster wants to be revealed. Curious your reaction to this, i did agree that the net is a great tool for communication, but so is talking to someone. Limiting potential, is always just another way to set yourself up to fail.
1. Internet eliminates the distractions of p2p.
2. Internet allows thousands to speak at once.
3. Internet reduces the time needed for disseminating information. ( and a definite plus if you are an environmentalist trying to save a tree)
4. p2p is a breeding ground for discrimination. (good/innovative ideas overlooked because of the way one might look, dress, smell, walk, talk, be)
quote:
Limiting potential, is always just another way to set yourself up to fail.
Then why are you doing it?
I wonder how many presidents would freely give all their members this web site address for the betterment of the labour movement and or allow members access to a computer for said above purpose.
ABOUT UNIONS
quote:
or allow members access to a computer for said above purpose.
A good start would be negotiating contracts that would enable members to buy their own.
Hell Ya GREAT POINT.
ABOUT UNIONS
quote:
When most people do go to a computer, people don't go to communicate about problems, to revolutionize their life priorites, or to challenge themselves in any way.
That's not necessarily true. I've been a long-standing member of a couple different internet communities and the relationships these types of communications develop, while they may seem minor to non-existant to the unitiated, are quite strong and endearing.
"Brotherhoods" (for lack of a better term) have developed, and will continue to develop online.
You wouldn't believe what some of these people, most of whom have never met face to face, will do for each other.
As evidence I submit the story of ispy.
I have been thinking ?????- a computer grievance procedure that deals with only the facts. There is a recorded version and no discrimination is present as to age, sex, colour, POLITICAL OPINION etc. Now we just have to change the rigid CLC and most labour relations acts in favour of INDIVIDUAL members rights.
ABOUT UNIONS
quote:
a computer grievance procedure that deals with only the facts. There is a recorded version and no discrimination is present as to age, sex, colour, POLITICAL OPINION etc.
That would be a good start.
It would still require some face-to-face, or at least voice-to-voice, contact to make some clarifications because, as Participant has stated:
quote:
Not to mention poor reading skills, bad or non-existent typing ability, etc.
Not terribly difficult to correct however, as everybody benefits from practice!
Maybe the first thing is to have a constituion and pay the computer wizard $153,000.21. Then we will tell the members what we have to offer them, but don't tell them how much we are paying the CW!!![[look up]](graemlins/lookup.gif)
ABOUT UNIONS
On the subject of anonymity in the forum: For the time being it is both necessary and beneficial. Here's why:
People are afraid of being persecuted for expressing their views on this site and others like it. The UFCW sues people who are critical of it. That is a fact. Most people don't want to get sued by an organization that has millions of dollars at its disposal. That, I think, is also a fact. Have you noticed that most people who have identified themselves on this site are being sued by the UFCW? Think about it: Bill Gammert, HJ Finnamore, Kelsey Sigurdur, Sharyn Sigurdur, "John & Jane Doe" (what you you think that's about?). Scott McPherson - is not being sued at the moment but his life was made miserable in other ways. Now maybe this is all just coincidence but I think you've got to admit that there's enough UFCW litigation floating around to make most people quite leary of identifying themselves publicly. The UFCW's lawsuits also make those of us who are Canadians that much more concerned because it is Canadians who are being singled out for this kind of treatment. Your laws in the US make it more difficult for your union to sue its American members. We don't have these kinds of legal protections here in Canada, so guess what?
Bill Pearson: I have a lot of respect for you but if you would prefer for MFD forum posters to come forward and ID themselves, maybe you could formally ask your leaders in Washington to stop with the lawsuits. For the moment this site is a "safe house" of sorts. It affords people the opportunity to relate and interact without the high probability that they will be subject to economic terrorism for doing so.
The anonymity is also beneficial for anther reason. This will be more controversial but I'll put it out there anyway:
From earliest childhood we are conditioned by the dominant forces in our society, to trust and mistrust others based on physical and social characteristics. This is a way of keeping us all in our places. Most of us cringe at this kind of talk but we are all to some extent affected by it. If I tell you my name, you will gain from that certain information about me which you can then use to judge me: you will almost certainly know my gender, you may be able to tell my race, ethnic background, possibly my religion. If you know where I live, what work I do, where I go to school, you may also make certain judgements about me. These will overshadow anything that I may have to say, or any ideas that I may have, or whatever I may have to contribute. Many, many people are affected by this tendency to judge others based on the labels that are assigned to them. Look at the arguments that many of the UFCW supporters use against their critics on this web site - it's all personal attack stuff.
The anonymity is helping us to get over the tendency to act and react based on our conditioning. It makes us focus on what is being said rather than who is saying it. It's making us concentrate on thoughts, ideas and information, rather than gender, colour, occupation, income and so on. Frankly, I don't care what someone's name is or about the basic personal details concerning their lives. Even if they told me, what difference would it make? If they want to tell me or the others posters, that's great. It's nice to know a little more about someone but it's not essential.
Think about it: If I were to ask you "Why is it so important to you that forum posters ID themselves?" you will probably say something like "Because I like to know who I'm talking to". My next question to you would be, "Why is that so important to you?"
It is good meeting up with people face to face but I am finding that it's a lot better if you've met on line first. You have a much deeper appreciation for them and are not nearly as likely to be distracted by superficial considerations.
And about the accessibility of technology: The first union to equip all its members with wireless, hand-held, web-enabled gizmo's that have voice and text capability - will change the world we work in, forever.
RV: It's never been about knowing who the person is, it's about knowing the person. Computers insure we keep a space between us. On an earlier post i said a lot of the leaders you guys rip are good trade unionists. Right away posters challenged me to prove it. After years of working with them, you build relationships. You get to know the person. That's much more difficult on a computer screen, and some words people post. I've always operated off the phylosophy, it's not what people say, but what they do.
Slek : We've hardly limited our potential. We run two web sites, have an active membership e-mail list of some 300 and respond to questions from workers all over the Country. In 1996, we held a cyber surfing 789 party for our members where we sold incredibly cheap internet sevices through a nonprofit organization. The capper was the unbelievably ugly tie died t-shirts we gave to everyone in attendance. the net is just one of many of the ways we try to communicate with our members.
Bill, I guess the problem may be in what one defines as a "good trade unionist". You probably know some of these guys by what they say to your face and what they claim to be doing. Do you really know what they are doing in the back rooms?
Check out Talarico. I suppose he was considered a good trade unionist: Pretty words, dirty deeds.
When you read his words, you'd think you are dealing with a "good trade unionist," now wouldn't you? When you see what he was really up to, do you still think he's a good trade unionist.
There's a big difference about nice sociable people and good trade unionists.
Weiser: Please don't ever assume who i think was a good trade unionist. Words mean absolutely nothing compared to actions, which is where i think this thread actually began.
Oh, I wasn't trying to assume. I only responded to your comment that (this I assume) we were wrongly slagging good guys on this site. I don't know of anybody who has gotten slagged on this site that didn't deserve it. I merely used Talarico as an example of a guy who says one thing while secretly doing dirty deeds. I didn't mean in any way that you think anything about him.
Easy there, guys. I'm not sure what relevance Talarico has to this thread anyway. I realize this is supposed to be a CAGE-MATCH, but still...
Anyhow, as I understand it, there's three basic questions being asked. Or at least there were to start, before the conversation wandered.
1 What types union services currently only available on a face-to face basis could be provided online instead?
2. Could we use the internet to provide all sorts of new and previously unheard of benefits to members? and
3. Will the internet ever do away entirely with face-to-face contact in the union?
My answers would be:
1. Lots. Post collective agreements online, and organize them into a searchable database. File grievances online. E-voting in union elections. The list goes on and on.
2. Once again, lots. Even the most wired unions today have just barely scratched the surface.
3. Probably not. After all, we still have to work together. (although the internet may also be a boon to organizing home-workers, currently almost impossible to reach.) Besides, I think people need direct human contact at least sometimes, if for no other reason than to get out of the house and breathe fresh air. I don't really like the idea of an online labour day parade or a virtual union picnic.
quote:
1 What types union services currently only available on a face-to face basis could be provided online instead?
- Contract proposals
- Comprehensive & searchable FAQ's
- Campaigning services for challengers
- Q&A with your BA (eliminate phone-tag)
quote:
2. Could we use the internet to provide all sorts of new and previously unheard of benefits to members?
- Instant messaging
- save money currently wasted on paper based communications (bulletins, mailouts, magazines)
- Have a BA at your diciplinary meeting with management via IM
quote:
I don't really like the idea of an online labour day parade or a virtual union picnic.
That's the only thing the internet doesn't provide as well as p2p - Socialization - AFAIC socializing isn't what the unions' getting paid for anyways.
A new report suggests the "digital divide" is closing.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html
What's that quote again?...
quote:
Change or get out of the way.
... yeah, that's it.
quote:
In the last few years, Americans' use of the Internet and computers has grown substantially.
· The rate of growth of Internet use in the United States is currently two million new Internet users per month.
· More than half of the nation is now online. In September 2001, 143 million Americans (about 54 percent of the population) were using the Internet - an increase of 26 million in 13 months. In September 2001, 174 million people (or 66 percent of the population) in the United States used computers.
Children and teenagers use computers and the Internet more than any other age group.
Ninety percent of children between the ages of 5 and 17 (or 48 million) now use computers.
Seventy-five percent of 14-17 year olds and 65 percent of 10-13 year olds use the Internet.
· Family households with children under the age of 18 are more likely to access the Internet (62 percent) than family households with no children (53 percent), and non-family households (35 percent).
· Computers at schools substantially narrow the gap in computer usage rates for children from high and low income families.
Internet use is increasing for people regardless of income, education, age, races, ethnicity, or gender.
· Between December 1998 and September 2001, Internet use by individuals in the lowest-income households (those earning less than $15,000 per year) increased at a 25 percent annual growth rate. Internet use among individuals in the highest-income households (those earning $75,000 per year or more) increased from a higher base but at a much slower 11 percent annual growth rate.
· Between August 2000 and September 2001, Internet use among Blacks and Hispanics increased at annual rates of 33 and 30 percent, respectively. Whites and Asian American and Pacific Islanders experienced annual growth rates of approximately 20 percent during these same periods.
· Over the 1998 to 2001 period, growth in Internet use among people living in rural households has been at an average annual rate of 24 percent, and the percentage of Internet users in rural areas (53 percent) is now almost even with the national average (54 percent).
· The highest growth rate among different types of households is for single mothers with children (29 percent).
· People with mental or physical disabilities (such as blindness, deafness, or difficulty walking, typing, or leaving home) are less likely than those without such disabilities to use computers or the Internet.
While 80 percent of Americans access the Internet through dial-up service, residential use of broadband service is rapidly expanding.
· Between August 2000 and September 2001, residential use of high-speed, broadband service doubled-from about 5 to 11 percent of all individuals, and from 11 to 20 percent of Internet users.
Americans are going online to conduct an expanding range of activities.
· Forty-five percent of the population now uses e-mail, up from 35 percent in 2000. Approximately one-third of Americans use the Internet to search for product and service information (36 percent, up from 26 percent in 2000).
· Among Internet users, 39 percent of individuals are making online purchases and 35 percent of individuals are searching for health information.
Use of the Internet and computers at work has contributed to higher use levels at home.
· The presence of someone who uses a computer or the Internet at work in a household is associated with substantially higher computer ownership or Internet use for that household, by a margin of about 77 percent to 35 percent.
With more than half of all Americans using computers and the Internet, we are truly a nation online. At work, schools, and libraries, as well as at home, the Internet is being used by a greater number of Americans.
Not one to run with the pack I think it's time for my two bits.
The Internet is the great equalizer for working people struggling to get their message out to the masses. No, not everyone has a cumputer but everyone does know somebody who does. People can be crushed but ideas live on forever.
That said, change cannot take place without the face to face Bill and others have talked about. Nor is change worth it if we de-personalize everything. I got into this because I wanted to make the world a better place to live, not only now but in the future when my son goes out on his own and tries to raise his own family. For me, nothing feels better than helping someone through a difficult time. I feel like I'm of value and want my life to mean more than how much my children inherit from my estate.
I'm not so good in this forum. I feed off my gut, my instints. I read peoples face's, body language and listen intently to their tone. I can't get that here. But this format is perfect for those who are not able to speak publically. Most people can't speak infront of crowds and they are afraid of what people will think of their ideas. This forum lets them express themselves and helps those of us who can speak publically know what these people are thinking. That's invaluable.
The truth is we can use, and we need both forums. People like slek give the voiceless faceless masses a spring board to contribute. People like Bill give them the courage to speak out in public. Both are needed, both are valuable and it's that diversity that makes us great.
I couldn't bare the thought of taking the human element out of this movement. I love people [even when I want to choke them] and like it or not this is a "what have you done for me lately" way of life. For me my answer is and always will be...'my best' and althought it's hard for me to admit, sometimes my best isn't good enough. The people who "piss and moan" push us to do better. They remind us we're not perfect. Our best is not finite and regarless of how much we achieve both as individuals or as a community there is always another mountain to climb. And...[just for you Scott_UFCW]
"that's not a bad thing...that's a good thing"
I think that you're right Scott. Both the net and the person-to-person communication are valuable and both are important. I see the net as a place for information and for people to meet and communicate about a wide range of subjects. The person-to-person communication though, is where ideas turn into action.
Each of us should be thinking about ways in which we can begin to change our own "environments". What are some things we can do that may lead to change? This can be just about anything and can start out very small. The important thing is that we reach out to others and start talking about "What do we want to do?" and "How can we do it?"
Small steps can lead to really big leaps. It's surprising what a small meeting of the minds can lead to.
Maybe we should start an "idea list" - something to give people an idea of things they may want to consider doing to start the people-to-people.