Cohousing-L Mailing List: Who should participate in cohousing-L [ was Fwd: Poly...

[Fred H. Olson (fholson]

In a message with the subject ' Fwd: Polyamory et al and Ethnic Diversity'
Verna Denny raised the issue of who should participate in
cohousing-L.  I am responding somewhat as list manager but also
somewhat as my personal opinion (too hard to sort out...):

> I don't think its 
> fair to be a lurker on a list such as this now that I have no intention of 
> being part of a co-housing community so I will unsubscribe at some point.  I 
> will miss the discussions and being part of what I feel is an important 
> movement, if taking from the perspective of an ideal housing situation 
> without all the other ramifications (not possible I guess).  I wish you all 
> the best.

I disagree, I think is IS fair and desireable for 'others' to participate
in cohousing-L.

There are many reasons why one might not intend to be part of a cohousing
community: one does not exist where one wants to live, economics, one
might not want to spend one's life getting a community started, the one
that does exist does not feel right for ones preferences (communities
differ a lot), other alternatives to achieve community are easier etc etc.  
I dont expect to move to a cohousing community tho I still have hopes that
the block where I live will someday resemble cohousing a bit but even that
is iffy.  

If participation in cohousing-L were limited were limited to ..., I'd have
to ask why I spend so much time related to it :)

I think anyone who supports the idea cohousing or intentional community
and is of good will is welcome to read / participate in cohousing-L.  I
think having a diverse array of participants is particularly desireable to
keep the discussion from running amuck. Cohousing , IMHO, should not
develop in isolation but as part of a much broader effort to make the way
we live more humane, nurturing etc etc.  Verna, please reconsider dropping
off the list.

This borders on the larger question of why is diversity valuable that I
dont currently feel competent to address.  Clarifying that would be
very desireable.


Regarding the polyamory discussion.  

This list is not moderated, anything a subscriber chooses to post gets
distributed (unless a gremlin gets it and then I usually post it for them
fairly promptly without modification except for the preamble). We are
fortunate to have subscribers who generally post thoughtful messages.  I
felt that the polyamory dicussion is/was appropriate and useful but I must
admit that I can see a downside to a discussions like the polyamory
discussion. It is possible that individuals or media (ack!) could get
inaccurate impressions about cohousing from discussions that deal with out
of the mainstream aspects of some communities.  See my message about
"Prevalence ..."

I have not gotten around to reading all the flurry of messages in the last
10 days or so but I did not think they were too uncivil in tone tho clear
strong differences of opinion did emerge.  Flame wars get much hotter;
I expect we can avoid them.

Fred

p.s. Verna has previously mentioned being an English teacher; it's amazing
how knowing an English teacher is going to look at my writing makes me
self-conscious...

--
Fred H. Olson  fholson [at] cohousing.org    Minneapolis,MN   55411  
(612)588-9532  Amateur radio: WB0YQM          List manager of:
Cohousing-L  See http://www.cohousing.org and Nbhd-tc --  Twin 
Cities Neighborhood issues list.  See http://freenet.msp.mn.us