The recent uproar over the anti-Muslim film, and the on-going violence occasioned by the Danish publication (Jyllands Posten) of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have occasioned some thoughts about Freedom of Speech. Here they are, and your comments are most welcome. Free Speech Sept. 2012 The ideal of freedom of speech has been enshrined in the U.S. way of life since the beginning. Some even argue that it was a driving force for those who settled from Europe where people were sometimes persecuted for voicing their opinions on sensitive matters. So our forefathers fought and died in part over the principle that anyone could voice any opinion, however contrary or disruptive to the established view of the majority. The principle is embodied in Amendment 1 of the Constitution (Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.. first introduced to Congress in 1789.) In consequence we have all sorts of opinions making their way across the country, sometime by airwaves, sometimes by newspaper, often by Internet. Our heralded diversity includes those who believe in the immanence of the second coming, conspiracy theories of many sort, the reality of Bigfoot, flying saucers, and ghosts, and numerous versions of racial prejudice. All are granted their right to speak out without fear of legal prosecution. Surely, however, there are limits, if not of law, then of propriety. One simply does not speak up in praise of Hitler in a Jewish Synagogue. One needs to consider the consequences of ones speech on others, not simply the desire to express ones opinions. The editors of the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed still struggle with that insight: their exercise of freedom of the press violated no legal strictures, but brought considerable financial loss and suffering to Danes living and working in Muslim countries. Where does the freedom end? Perhaps there are some common sense guidelines. One may be free to walk wherever one pleases, but when there are poisonous snakes or alligators on the path, one limits ones choices. One may be free to pick the foliage in the forest, but if it is poison oak, one elects to leave it alone. And one does so without blaming the snakes or the gators or the poison oak theyre just acting the way they are. Its in our best interest to keep out of their way. This principle is enshrined in the Harry Potter books with the slogan of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry: Draco Dormiens Nunquam Tittilandus. (Never tickle a sleeping dragon.) One may be free to tickle, but it is certainly unwise to exercise that right on a dragon in repose. Now the Danish publishers of Jyllands Posten and the makers of the recent film, both obviously anti-Muslim, are quite free to their opinions, and have violated no law in their work. But they have occasioned a great amount of violence and suffering that could have been both anticipated and avoided. And both, it seems, fear for their lives. That may be the key point. Our forefathers were willing to fight and die for their freedom. Current practitioners seem outraged when their freedom occasions threats and violence. Maybe they are not as committed as theyd like us to believe. This is not to suggest that Muslims resemble dragons or snakes or alligators or poison oak, but it is certainly to acknowledge their sensitivity about criticisms of the Prophet. Certain things in that culture are taboo, and the taboo extends beyond members of their religion. Propriety demands that the taboo be respected. The alternative is to face the consequences. In a global society, one needs to consider sensitivities of many potential audiences before expressing controversial opinions. This is not to say one must compromise ones principles or alter ones opinions. But it is to say that one needs to be willing to take responsibility for the outcome of ones pronouncements. Freedom without responsibility is quite limited. Of course free speech does have limits and controls, even in the West. Child pornography is illegal and blocked from the Internet and from publication. It seems that the public is unwilling to tolerate some types of expression that cross the boundaries. The question becomes where to set those bounds. It seems like free expressions of opinion that occasion physical harm to others might also be a candidate for banning. That is a slippery slope, but one that needs exploring. We have no trouble with the principle that Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins. Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people? John
"Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people?" While on the surface I agree, I find myself easily vilifying the reactionary government of my own country, Canada. Hyperbole is normal in North America's political climate. Certainly the political elites vilify and demean. Would that we lived in the world of 'thee and thou' Quakers, whose speech would be non-violent and reasonable. And.. in Canada we have legislation regarding hate crime. The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done. A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property In Canada it is also a crime to incite hatred. Sections 318 and 319 are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code. e.g. Two Nova Scotia men were convicted under Canada's hate crime laws in relation to a cross-burning incident on the lawn of an interracial couple in Windsor, N.S. Let's have the World Court debate it. Ken On 2012-09-18, at 7:07 AM, jlepps@pc.jaring.my wrote: The recent uproar over the anti-Muslim film, and the on-going violence occasioned by the Danish publication (Jyllands Posten) of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have occasioned some thoughts about Freedom of Speech. Here they are, and your comments are most welcome. Free Speech Sept. 2012 The ideal of freedom of speech has been enshrined in the U.S. way of life since the beginning. Some even argue that it was a driving force for those who settled from Europe where people were sometimes persecuted for voicing their opinions on sensitive matters. So our forefathers fought and died in part over the principle that anyone could voice any opinion, however contrary or disruptive to the established view of the majority. The principle is embodied in Amendment 1 of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no laws abridging … the freedom of speech..” – first introduced to Congress in 1789.) In consequence we have all sorts of opinions making their way across the country, sometime by airwaves, sometimes by newspaper, often by Internet. Our heralded diversity includes those who believe in the immanence of the second coming, conspiracy theories of many sort, the reality of Bigfoot, flying saucers, and ghosts, and numerous versions of racial prejudice. All are granted their right to speak out without fear of legal prosecution. Surely, however, there are limits, if not of law, then of propriety. One simply does not speak up in praise of Hitler in a Jewish Synagogue. One needs to consider the consequences of one’s speech on others, not simply the desire to express one’s opinions. The editors of the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed still struggle with that insight: their exercise of “freedom of the press” violated no legal strictures, but brought considerable financial loss and suffering to Danes living and working in Muslim countries. Where does the “freedom” end? Perhaps there are some “common sense” guidelines. One may be free to walk wherever one pleases, but when there are poisonous snakes or alligators on the path, one limits one’s choices. One may be free to pick the foliage in the forest, but if it is poison oak, one elects to leave it alone. And one does so without blaming the snakes or the gators or the poison oak – they’re just acting the way they are. It’s in our best interest to keep out of their way. This principle is enshrined in the Harry Potter books with the slogan of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry: “Draco Dormiens Nunquam Tittilandus.” (“Never tickle a sleeping dragon.”) One may be free to tickle, but it is certainly unwise to exercise that right on a dragon in repose. Now the Danish publishers of Jyllands Posten and the makers of the recent film, both obviously anti-Muslim, are quite free to their opinions, and have violated no law in their work. But they have occasioned a great amount of violence and suffering that could have been both anticipated and avoided. And both, it seems, fear for their lives. That may be the key point. Our forefathers were willing to fight and die for their freedom. Current practitioners seem outraged when their “freedom” occasions threats and violence. Maybe they are not as committed as they’d like us to believe. This is not to suggest that Muslims resemble dragons or snakes or alligators or poison oak, but it is certainly to acknowledge their sensitivity about criticisms of the Prophet. Certain things in that culture are taboo, and the taboo extends beyond members of their religion. Propriety demands that the taboo be respected. The alternative is to face the consequences. In a global society, one needs to consider sensitivities of many potential audiences before expressing controversial opinions. This is not to say one must compromise one’s principles or alter one’s opinions. But it is to say that one needs to be willing to take responsibility for the outcome of one’s pronouncements. Freedom without responsibility is quite limited. Of course “free speech” does have limits and controls, even in the West. Child pornography is illegal and blocked from the Internet and from publication. It seems that the public is unwilling to tolerate some types of expression that cross the boundaries. The question becomes where to set those bounds. It seems like “free expressions of opinion” that occasion physical harm to others might also be a candidate for banning. That is a slippery slope, but one that needs exploring. We have no trouble with the principle that “Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.” Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people? John _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
There is another issue involved in all of this. From what I gather, the latest clashes were not spontaneous. The movie had been around for quite a while - then someone decided to dub it into Arabic. It looks like someone or some group were looking for material to use baiting segments of the world's population who easily allow themselves to be baited. And it also appears that there were organisers distributed across several countries who probably played a large part in triggering the various protests going on across the world. So something else is going on - there is a cynical manipulation by some group for some hidden purpose. And it may not neccessarily be Al-Qaeda. Dharma
________________________________ From: Ken Fisher <hkf232@gmail.com> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Free Speech
"Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people?"
While on the surface I agree, I find myself easily vilifying the reactionary government of my own country, Canada. Hyperbole is normal in North America's political climate.
Certainly the political elites vilify and demean.
Would that we lived in the world of 'thee and thou' Quakers, whose speech would be non-violent and reasonable.
And.. in Canada we have legislation regarding hate crime.
The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done. A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property In Canada it is also a crime to incite hatred. Sections 318 and 319 are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code.
e.g. Two Nova Scotia men were convicted under Canada's hate crime laws in relation to a cross-burning incident on the lawn of an interracial couple in Windsor, N.S. Let's have the World Court debate it.
Ken
On 2012-09-18, at 7:07 AM, jlepps@pc.jaring.my wrote:
The recent uproar over the anti-Muslim film, and the on-going violence occasioned by the Danish publication (Jyllands Posten) of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have occasioned some thoughts about Freedom of Speech. Here they are, and your comments are most welcome.
Free Speech Sept. 2012
The ideal of freedom of speech has been enshrined in the U.S. way of life since the beginning. Some even argue that it was a driving force for those who settled from Europe where people were sometimes persecuted for voicing their opinions on sensitive matters. So our forefathers fought and died in part over the principle that anyone could voice any opinion, however contrary or disruptive to the established view of the majority. The principle is embodied in Amendment 1 of the Constitution (“Congress shall make no laws abridging … the freedom of speech..” – first introduced to Congress in 1789.)
In consequence we have all sorts of opinions making their way across the
country, sometime by airwaves, sometimes by newspaper, often by Internet. Our heralded diversity includes those who believe in the immanence of the second coming, conspiracy theories of many sort, the reality of Bigfoot, flying saucers, and ghosts, and numerous versions of racial prejudice. All are granted their right to speak out without fear of legal prosecution.
Surely, however, there are limits, if not of law, then of propriety. One
simply does not speak up in praise of Hitler in a Jewish Synagogue. One needs to consider the consequences of one’s speech on others, not simply the desire to express one’s opinions. The editors of the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed still struggle with that insight: their exercise of “freedom of the press” violated no legal strictures, but brought considerable financial loss and suffering to Danes living and working in Muslim countries. Where does the “freedom” end?
Perhaps there are some “common sense” guidelines. One may be free to walk
wherever one pleases, but when there are poisonous snakes or alligators on the path, one limits one’s choices. One may be free to pick the foliage in the forest, but if it is poison oak, one elects to leave it alone. And one does so without blaming the snakes or the gators or the poison oak – they’re just acting the way they are. It’s in our best interest to keep out of their way.
This principle is enshrined in the Harry Potter books with the slogan of
Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry: “Draco Dormiens Nunquam Tittilandus.” (“Never tickle a sleeping dragon.”) One may be free to tickle, but it is certainly unwise to exercise that right on a dragon in repose.
Now the Danish publishers of Jyllands Posten and the makers of the recent
film, both obviously anti-Muslim, are quite free to their opinions, and have violated no law in their work. But they have occasioned a great amount of violence and suffering that could have been both anticipated and avoided. And both, it seems, fear for their lives.
That may be the key point. Our forefathers were willing to fight and die
for their freedom. Current practitioners seem outraged when their “freedom” occasions threats and violence. Maybe they are not as committed as they’d like us to believe.
This is not to suggest that Muslims resemble dragons or snakes or
alligators or poison oak, but it is certainly to acknowledge their sensitivity about criticisms of the Prophet. Certain things in that culture are taboo, and the taboo extends beyond members of their religion. Propriety demands that the taboo be respected. The alternative is to face the consequences.
In a global society, one needs to consider sensitivities of many
potential audiences before expressing controversial opinions. This is not to say one must compromise one’s principles or alter one’s opinions. But it is to say that one needs to be willing to take responsibility for the outcome of one’s pronouncements. Freedom without responsibility is quite limited.
Of course “free speech” does have limits and controls, even in the West.
Child pornography is illegal and blocked from the Internet and from publication. It seems that the public is unwilling to tolerate some types of expression that cross the boundaries. The question becomes where to set those bounds.
It seems like “free expressions of opinion” that occasion physical harm
to others might also be a candidate for banning. That is a slippery slope, but one that needs exploring. We have no trouble with the principle that “Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins.” Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people?
John
_______________________________________________
Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
_______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
Reminds me of how Carter lost the election to Reagan due to backroom negotiations with Iran to hold the hostages until AFTER the election (perpetrated by the other party). I recollect a Jay Leno comedy routine years ago where he said something like "If you want a party that is REALLY smart, but rather corrupt, vote Republican. If you want a party that REALLY cares about people, but isn't very smart, vote Democrat." Yeah, politics really suck. Sunny Sunny Walker SunWalker Enterprises 303-587-3017 (cell) 303-671-0704 (home/office) sunwalker@comcast.net Aurora, CO No mattter how far you've gone down the wrong road, turn back. ~ Turkish Proverb _____ From: dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net [mailto:dialogue-bounces@lists.wedgeblade.net] On Behalf Of Dharmalingam Vinasithamby Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:04 AM To: Colleague Dialogue Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Free Speech There is another issue involved in all of this. From what I gather, the latest clashes were not spontaneous. The movie had been around for quite a while - then someone decided to dub it into Arabic. It looks like someone or some group were looking for material to use baiting segments of the world's population who easily allow themselves to be baited. And it also appears that there were organisers distributed across several countries who probably played a large part in triggering the various protests going on across the world. So something else is going on - there is a cynical manipulation by some group for some hidden purpose. And it may not neccessarily be Al-Qaeda. Dharma _____ From: Ken Fisher <hkf232@gmail.com> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Free Speech "Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people?" While on the surface I agree, I find myself easily vilifying the reactionary government of my own country, Canada. Hyperbole is normal in North America's political climate. Certainly the political elites vilify and demean. Would that we lived in the world of 'thee and thou' Quakers, whose speech would be non-violent and reasonable. And.. in Canada we have legislation regarding hate crime. The Criminal Code of Canada says a hate crime is committed to intimidate, harm or terrify not only a person, but an entire group of people to which the victim belongs. The victims are targeted for who they are, not because of anything they have done. A hate crime is one in which hate is the motive and can involve intimidation, harassment, physical force or threat of physical force against a person, a group or a property In Canada it is also a crime to incite hatred. Sections 318 and 319 are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code. e.g. Two Nova Scotia men were convicted under Canada's hate crime laws in relation to a cross-burning incident on the lawn of an interracial couple in Windsor, N.S. Let's have the World Court debate it. Ken On 2012-09-18, at 7:07 AM, jlepps@pc.jaring.my wrote: The recent uproar over the anti-Muslim film, and the on-going violence occasioned by the Danish publication (Jyllands Posten) of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed have occasioned some thoughts about Freedom of Speech. Here they are, and your comments are most welcome. Free Speech Sept. 2012 The ideal of freedom of speech has been enshrined in the U.S. way of life since the beginning. Some even argue that it was a driving force for those who settled from Europe where people were sometimes persecuted for voicing their opinions on sensitive matters. So our forefathers fought and died in part over the principle that anyone could voice any opinion, however contrary or disruptive to the established view of the majority. The principle is embodied in Amendment 1 of the Constitution ("Congress shall make no laws abridging . the freedom of speech.." - first introduced to Congress in 1789.) In consequence we have all sorts of opinions making their way across the country, sometime by airwaves, sometimes by newspaper, often by Internet. Our heralded diversity includes those who believe in the immanence of the second coming, conspiracy theories of many sort, the reality of Bigfoot, flying saucers, and ghosts, and numerous versions of racial prejudice. All are granted their right to speak out without fear of legal prosecution. Surely, however, there are limits, if not of law, then of propriety. One simply does not speak up in praise of Hitler in a Jewish Synagogue. One needs to consider the consequences of one's speech on others, not simply the desire to express one's opinions. The editors of the Danish newspaper that published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed still struggle with that insight: their exercise of "freedom of the press" violated no legal strictures, but brought considerable financial loss and suffering to Danes living and working in Muslim countries. Where does the "freedom" end? Perhaps there are some "common sense" guidelines. One may be free to walk wherever one pleases, but when there are poisonous snakes or alligators on the path, one limits one's choices. One may be free to pick the foliage in the forest, but if it is poison oak, one elects to leave it alone. And one does so without blaming the snakes or the gators or the poison oak - they're just acting the way they are. It's in our best interest to keep out of their way. This principle is enshrined in the Harry Potter books with the slogan of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry: "Draco Dormiens Nunquam Tittilandus." ("Never tickle a sleeping dragon.") One may be free to tickle, but it is certainly unwise to exercise that right on a dragon in repose. Now the Danish publishers of Jyllands Posten and the makers of the recent film, both obviously anti-Muslim, are quite free to their opinions, and have violated no law in their work. But they have occasioned a great amount of violence and suffering that could have been both anticipated and avoided. And both, it seems, fear for their lives. That may be the key point. Our forefathers were willing to fight and die for their freedom. Current practitioners seem outraged when their "freedom" occasions threats and violence. Maybe they are not as committed as they'd like us to believe. This is not to suggest that Muslims resemble dragons or snakes or alligators or poison oak, but it is certainly to acknowledge their sensitivity about criticisms of the Prophet. Certain things in that culture are taboo, and the taboo extends beyond members of their religion. Propriety demands that the taboo be respected. The alternative is to face the consequences. In a global society, one needs to consider sensitivities of many potential audiences before expressing controversial opinions. This is not to say one must compromise one's principles or alter one's opinions. But it is to say that one needs to be willing to take responsibility for the outcome of one's pronouncements. Freedom without responsibility is quite limited. Of course "free speech" does have limits and controls, even in the West. Child pornography is illegal and blocked from the Internet and from publication. It seems that the public is unwilling to tolerate some types of expression that cross the boundaries. The question becomes where to set those bounds. It seems like "free expressions of opinion" that occasion physical harm to others might also be a candidate for banning. That is a slippery slope, but one that needs exploring. We have no trouble with the principle that "Your freedom to swing your fists ends where my nose begins." Might that not also apply to statements that insult, demean or otherwise vilify other people? John _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
I agree with Ken. There is a legal question related to hate crime. This is my observation entirely. Within the Coptic community, there is an anti-Islamic theme born out of real state supported repression that surfaces in the form of totally implausible and extremely derogatory statements about Islam as a religion and Muslims as people. It is ugly and the the statements/stories I have heard are downright foolish. Repressed feelings often emerge in the most grotesque forms. That does not justify any of that behaviour - and it ranges from stupid jokes that misuse language at the expense of islam all the way to something like this film which apparently wraps all of this hate into a narrative. It illuminates the repression in a way that perpetuates and strengthens the narrative. Another thread I think is related to this is the strengthing of the drive to individualism. It seems to have totally run amok. Had he written today, Neibur might have written a couple more paragraphs and punched a bit harder. Reaching to a sense of common good is pretty difficult. Social consensus - even informal consensus on norms of social behavoiur - is damn difficult to achieve, it seems to me. Every time we get people to work together, solve problems and resolve conflicts, we knock a brick out of that wall. \\/ - - - - - - - - - - Wayne Nelson wnelson@ica-associates.ca O - 416-691-2316 M - 647-229-6910
Sent from my Kindle Fire _____________________________________________ From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson@ica-associates.ca> Sent: Tue Sep 18 11:59:33 EDT 2012 To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Free Speech I agree with Ken. There is a legal question related to hate crime. This is my observation entirely. Within the Coptic community, there is an anti-Islamic theme born out of real state supported repression that surfaces in the form of totally implausible and extremely derogatory statements about Islam as a religion and Muslims as people. It is ugly and the the statements/stories I have heard are downright foolish. Repressed feelings often emerge in the most grotesque forms. That does not justify any of that behaviour - and it ranges from stupid jokes that misuse language at the expense of islam all the way to something like this film which apparently wraps all of this hate into a narrative. It illuminates the repression in a way that perpetuates and strengthens the narrative. Another thread I think is related to this is the strengthing of the drive to individualism. It seems to have totally run amok. Had he written today, Neibur might have written a couple more paragraphs and punched a bit harder. Reaching to a sense of common good is pretty difficult. Social consensus - even informal consensus on norms of social behavoiur - is damn difficult to achieve, it seems to me. Every time we get people to work together, solve problems and resolve conflicts, we knock a brick out of that wall. \\/ - - - - - - - - - - Wayne Nelson wnelson@ica-associates.ca O - 416-691-2316 M - 647-229-6910 _____________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
I didn't send anything re: this topic on my KF? Cynthia -----Original Message----- From: Cynthia Vance <facilitationfla@aol.com> To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net>; Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Sent: Tue, Sep 18, 2012 6:33 pm Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Free Speech Sent from my Kindle Fire From: Wayne Nelson <wnelson@ica-associates.ca> Sent: Tue Sep 18 11:59:33 EDT 2012 To: Colleague Dialogue <dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net> Subject: Re: [Dialogue] Free Speech I agree with Ken. There is a legal question related to hate crime. This is my observation entirely. Within the Coptic community, there is an anti-Islamic theme born out of real state supported repression that surfaces in the form of totally implausible and extremely derogatory statements about Islam as a religion and Muslims as people. It is ugly and the the statements/stories I have heard are downright foolish. Repressed feelings often emerge in the most grotesque forms. That does not justify any of that behaviour - and it ranges from stupid jokes that misuse language at the expense of islam all the way to something like this film which apparently wraps all of this hate into a narrative. It illuminates the repression in a way that perpetuates and strengthens the narrative. Another thread I think is related to this is the strengthing of the drive to individualism. It seems to have totally run amok. Had he written today, Neibur might have written a couple more paragraphs and punched a bit harder. Reaching to a sense of common good is pretty difficult. Social consensus - even informal consensus on norms of social behavoiur - is damn difficult to achieve, it seems to me. Every time we get people to work together, solve problems and resolve conflicts, we knock a brick out of that wall. \/ - - - - - - - - - - Wayne Nelson wnelson@ica-associates.ca O - 416-691-2316 M - 647-229-6910 Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net _______________________________________________ Dialogue mailing list Dialogue@lists.wedgeblade.net http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/dialogue-wedgeblade.net
participants (7)
-
Cynthia Vance -
Dharmalingam Vinasithamby -
facilitationfla＠aol.com
-
jlepps＠pc.jaring.my -
Ken Fisher -
Sunny Walker -
Wayne Nelson