hannah johns

so i am assuming my name sounds real enough? funny since i can't get a driver's license now because of the real i d law that kansas uses now.....i have copious amounts of proof and the ss office won't change my ss name without more. it is my legal name (with two middle names) encompasses my birth name, and i have expired dls, pps, income tax returns, sealed divorce with name change. at least i can use it here and everywhere other than on my dl.

to jack, i think this is where my stepson worked for awhile!

okay, now i get it. i applied for a name change though. at first i though i had been hacked!

i was looking for a specific port townsend treehouse i know, but found this one.

H Ludi Tyler wrote:
This famous scene reflects upon some of the pros and cons of different community arrangements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Xd_zkMEgkI

thanks, i love that movie and that scene!  strange women lying in ponds distributing swords!

LasVegasLee wrote:
The feudal model is a topic of occasional discussion amongst those mulling the post-apocalyptic world.

Those I have known who seemed attracted to a feudal model tended to imagine themselves as the benign feudal lord rather than the subservient serf.

What role do you imagine yourself occupying in a feudal system?

If your role was stipulated from the onset as being that of the subservient serf who is entirely dependent on the good will of the feudal lord, would you be comfortable with that?

reminds me of people's tales of past lives, they are always cleopatra, never the handservant.

Todd Chinnock wrote:
Check out http://commongoodbank.com/democracy for some ideas on how to create a solid decision making process for any size of group.

I love consensus myself.  Have successfully facilitated groups dealing with hot issues, and find the process very solid. 

The establishing of a statement of purpose of any group is so important.  Many groups fail/fall apart because they are all looking at the reason for gathering/working together from differing viewpoints.  This includes defining what the group is NOT as much as what it IS.  Such as, the group may be to provide garden space for all members of the group, but not for friends of members who don't work.  or living space but not maid service (this goes back to sharing a home).

LasVegasLee wrote:
It is more complicated and more simple than that.

Because not all relationships are one-to-one. Some are one-to-many, many-to-one, or many-to-many, having to do with family groups, cliques, ideologies, competing bases, etc.

That's the complicated part.

Here's the simple part. Some people get it, some people don't, but effective community organizers almost always get it. It's simply this; We don't have to personally like other people in order to work with them towards a common goal.

One of the things I like about basic permaculture ethics as a litmus test of who I can work with is that it casts a net which is both broad and strong, and the end result is that I sometimes find myself working with people who are totally unexpected.

So the math that mitigates the fragility is this; Our willingness to work with people whom we personally don't like is proportional to our commitment to shared goals.

That's what I think, anyway.

FredWalter wrote:
The high divorce rate is an indicator how people are *not* able to commit and work-together, even when they have a major shared goal (for example, to raise happy healthy kids).

I think this is apples and oranges.  And, an over simplification of marriage/divorce and raising children.

bison range, maybe? 
hike up the rattlesnake?