Re: All these discussions about meeting venues

[Melinda Shore <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 12, 2010, at 6:57 PM, George Michaelson wrote:
> 
> in another time and place, we invented killfiles because this class of discussion proves so counter-productive, its better not to see it.

Note that killfiles didn't end discussion, they just allowed
individuals who didn't want to see some traffic not to see
it.  I expect your mailer has similar functionality.

> My impression of what some people seem to want, is that their personal constraint-set be applied globally.

I suppose there's some of that, but there really are people
with particular needs (food, accessibility, other issues) and
I would place their requirements as more pressing than people
who are weenies about the cold.  

> I might add that if the excluded party feels this is oppressive, I am sorry. It is not intended to be. But, at some level, sooner or later, you have to be willing to say "I'm the problem here, not the remaining 999 people who have lesser constraints"

There was a rather nice piece on diversity in, I think, the
Chronicle of Higher Education, where the author said something
along the lines of suggesting that if everybody shared your
attitude we'd be living in a world with no left-handed 
scissors.

> "its not fair" is really really bad, when its one or two voices against the wider community interest. "its not fair, but I accept its going to exclude me" is far better.

Not to belabor the obvious, but if you can't be bothered to
tune up your mail filters, why do you expect people who can't
find food it's safe for them to eat for a week-long meeting,
or who can't get in and out of the building in which the 
meeting is to be held, to be the noble ones?  Telling other
people that they're the ones who must sacrifice for (your
individual vision of) the greater good doesn't strike me as 
particularly noble, friend.  

Melinda