Return-Path: <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id j0DJGvn05132; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:16:57 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 14:16:57 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <3490E0AE.7DBB6800.0A349A3F@aol.com> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: AWilder106@aol.com To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-aalpd@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-AALPD:1897] RE: Partisan issues X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Mailer: Atlas Mailer 2.0 Status: O Content-Length: 922 Lines: 13 Colleagues-- One more comment then I'm off this topic. I grew up in a small town with the New England Town Meeting (March) as a public forum. Depending on the issues of course it could get pretty heated, but there was room for people to be heard. Listening to others' viewpoints doesn't necessarily mean that your own becomes even more rigid. Example: I listened yesterday to a radio discussion of the merits/constitutionality of cheek swabs for DNA in Truro, MA, where 2 years ago a woman was murdered. As a result of the discussion I changed my mind. It is possible to learn something from substantive discussions. It is even possible to change legislation for the better. I understand the lobbying point of view, and I have stated another point of view. Our resolution of the issue was to create another non-governmental list serv, thank you David Rosen. It is a compromise, but workable, I think. Andrea
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 31 2005 - 09:48:29 EST