|RE: rules and regs||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: truddick (truddickearthlink.net)|
|Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 06:14:55 -0700 (PDT)|
Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 13:49:10 EDT From: LouHarr [at] aol.com ... I can learn to say to myself "Oh so that's what it's like when I get mad about skates left on the walk or lights left on in the CH."... Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 23:40:12 -0700 From: "OCCNG11" <normangauss [at] charter.net> I have wondered several times about the reasoning behind certain provisions...If (a) provision is violated or not enforced, then the integrity of the CC&R's is threatened. Funny how these two posts collide in my mind. I think it was Suzette Haden Elgin ("The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense") who suggested that we alter that old guideline for expressing disapproval of another's actions-the one that goes "When you do ______ it make me feel ______" with one more clause: "because ________." And, she wrote, as you're thinking about the "because", you might realize that your own feelings are irrational and you shouldn't be upbraiding the other person at all. I can see a huge world of difference in the following "when/I/because" statements: "When you leave your skates on the sidewalk I feel concerned and a little frightened because it's dangerous for people walking, especially if they're carrying things." "When you leave lights on in the CH, I feel a lot of frustration because it's another little drain on our assets and it causes a little bit more pollution." "When you put a satellite dish on your personal dwelling, I get angry because I think satellite dishes are ugly." I'd submit that the first two cases invoke a "because clause" where there's a degree-however slight-of objective demonstrable harm to another; the third case invokes only a personal aesthetic. To me, rules based on objective or practical outcomes are entirely necessary. Those rules range from not leaving an infant unattended on the diaper-changing station, to the conventions and laws concerning the yellow line down the middle of the road. Rules based on appearances perhaps have some relevance, but at some point they beg the question of whether bad taste actually harms anyone. Does your CC&R also specify that only beautiful people may be residents-and that they better dress appropriately? I'd bet everyone here would reject that kind of restriction based on appearances (tho' on a forum for CEOs I'd expect it would receive support!). Perhaps it's reduction ad abserudum, but in cohousing one's residence is supposed to be one's space, an extension of one's self in many ways. Perhaps the majority thinks satellite dishes are ugly; some think that technology is attractive in a clean, utilitarian sort of way. Presuming that the installation is done in a fashion that doesn't reduce property values (the only objective consequence I can see to the controversy), then whose taste should prevail? I happen to think compost bins are really ugly... ___ ! _ Thomas E. "TR" Ruddick ! !_) Nunquam Vadis Levis! ! \
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.