Re: Common Goals II

["James Purchase" <jpurch@interlog.com>]

Good Morning,

After a good night's sleep, I am not as angry as I was when I entered my
last posting, but I remain frustrated.

There is no point in our discussing _anything_ else until we can agree on a
number of points. To help everyone focus on what those are, I submit the
following to you for your consideration and comment:

1. While the word I initially used on the APD to describe what we are here
for was "contest", what I really had in mind, and what I sense a lot of you
favoured, was more of a "showcase" of the "state of aquascaping as it exists
today in various parts of the world". Now, this concept is large enough to
encompass aspects of both "showcase" AND "contest", but the prime purpose of
the event is the "showcase".

Am I wrong in thinking this? Yes or no? If no, what _alternative_ vision do
_you_ have to offer / put forward for the group's consideration?

2. Inclusion is a word you have read quite often in my posts here. Karen
stressed the point that we _must_ include those members of the AGA who are
not Internet capable in this event. A lot of discussion has occured over
whether or not our use of the term "aquascape" is limited to "our"
definition, as "aquatic gardeners", of that word, or is this event to be
open to "other" definitions/visions as well.

Keeping in mind the focus of the AGA, but attempting to balance that against
the reality of both the English language and the practice of most aquarium
hobbyists, I suggested that perhaps we attempt to "include" everyone in this
event. This would mean, when carried to its logical conclusion (logical in
my mind anyway) that this event be open to "aquascapes" of all kinds. We
could limit (or not, depending upon both the group's common feeling and the
AGA's ability/willingness to accespt other points of view) the participation
of those aquascapes which were _not_ aquatic gardens with living plants (I
heartily agree with GB's feelings toward the word "aquatic") to the
"showcase" only and not allow them to be submitted to the "contest" and thus
any possibility that the AGA's prize winning aquacape could be a creation
full of plastic plants.

What is the common concencus here on HOW we define the term "aquascape"? Do
we accept the "Webster's" or "Oxford English Dictionary" version of the
term, or does our "inclusion" policy have its limits? Are we ONLY open to
underwater gardens full of living plants?

Depending upon HOW we perceive these two BASIC issues, we should be able to
formulate the rest of this process. However, as I said last night, after
more than 10 days of discussion, there is still a lot of divergent points of
view on both. Suggesting that I alone make the decision is abrogation of the
expectations I have for your presence here and the basic purpose for my
having invited you here in the first place. Your opinions/thoughts/ideas DO
matter to me, otherwise I wouldn't have asked in the first place.

PLEASE help in deciding these two issues. I don't wish to hear snide remarks
or off topic points being discussed right now. I am taking this effort very
seriously and want this to be a success.

James Purchase
Toronto

  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@aquatic-gardeners.org
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest