Complications?

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

Robert, I appreciate your comments but I ask your indulgence - stick to the
issue at hand, which was not the subject of your post. Please refer to my
posts "Re: Common Goals II" ( July 18, 1999 - 06:25) and "Additional
Question" (July 18, 1999 - 16:58). In those two messages, I ask several
simple questions of everybody in an effort to help determine if ALL of the
preceeding talk had produced anything in the way of a basis for commonality.

That is what I would like you to address right now, please.

And, just for the record, I am not "trying to make everybody happy". This
whole thing was my idea, at least in the first place. I invited others to
help me in an effort to ensure that MY way of thinking was tempered and that
this idea was developed in a manner and fashion that could best consider as
wide a range of viewpoints as possible.

Being open minded is not a fault, in my not so humble opinion.

Inclusive thinking need not "cost" anything, either financially or in terms
of ultimate complexity and it has the potential of lifting this event from
the level of being just another poorly subscribed speciality show to the
level of being something which can draw both the attention and submissions
of a much wider range of aquatic hobbyists. In the process, we can have the
opportunity to expose those "unwashed masses" to the beauty of the planted
aquatic garden, which is the personal focus of most people here and the sole
focus of the organization I hope becomes its sponsor.

The ultimate focus of the show will _still_ be on aquatic gardening, we can
ensure that during our future discussions on advertising and promotion.

How better to convince the unconverted that living plants are superior and
aquatic gardens are beautiful than to allow them to be displayed side by
side with other points of view, _especially_ with those composed of fake
plastic plants? They will be _showcased_ side by side, but the Judging can
clearly favour aquatic gardens and our advertising and promotion can make it
clear that the event is primarily _focused_ on aquatic gardens.

Details do sometimes seem to cause complexity, this is true. But ignoring
details during a planning discussion can lead to the ultimate failure of a
project should there have been anything missing or overlooked in the
original idea. I've been involved in enough planning discussions in other
arenas to not have been surprised at what happend here a few days ago. It
seems however, at least to me, that the rapidly crystallizing common purpose
being expressed in post after post indicates that we are close to finally
agreeing, as a group, on a core set of values with which to proceed and
which can be referenced in future discussions.

Now, please consider the points in the two previous posts mentioned above
and give me your considered opinion. I await your input. Incidentially, are
your an AGA member?

James Purchase
Toronto
AGA member



  ------------------
  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