Hi All,

On 17/05/2007, at 10:43 AM, Cameron Tonkinwise wrote:
> I thought that it
> might be helpful if you could elaborate on your closing remark
> in your initial post, which I suspect people from other cultures
> might consider rather obscure and unclear - though I might
> just be being too Heideggerian or Derridean in taking it to be
> more than just a pleasantry.
>
> "Warm wishes from Melbourne,
> where we had 7 mm of rain last night."
>
> Was this a veiled reference to the failures of Melbourne urban
> planning and fragmented (non)architectural practices to
> adequately conserve water for the present, let alone the future?

And you go on to say
> Your reference to the fact that it is now raining in your backyard
> could be read in the context of the debate that you have prompted
> as an indication that you believe that such rain signals that 'urban
> water crises' are a beat up and not a design challenge currently
> facing humanity around the globe. Is this the case?

I had to laugh! I'm not used to people treating my closing
pleasantries and signature so seriously. Is this a new trend in
textual exegesis? If so, it open up a whole new field of scholarship.
Perhaps we need a new Journal.

But seriously, Cameron, you are free to make any interpretation or
reading you like. So long as you don't attribute me with motives or
intentions that I do not have.

For those of you (the majority) who do not live in Australia, and who
may have missed some of the nuances in my closing pleasantries, my
apologies. Let me explain. The fact of the matter is that in
Australia, particularly in the South East, which is where most of us
live clinging on to the coastal fringe, we are going through the
worst drought on record, and it has been going on for a few years.
Melbourne, where I live, has been on water restrictions now for a
long time, and the dams that provide us with drinking water are at
30% capacity or less. Away from the coast the situation is far worse,
with some towns having no water left at all. Many farmers are facing
ruin and our few rivers are drying up. This is grim stuff. When I
wrote my post that led to the elaborate exegesis by Cameron we had
just had our first rain in ages: 7 mm by the gauge in my little
courtyard. Like Chris Rust (who is much better at it than I am) I
thought I would add a little pleasantry telling you what simple
delights us Melbournians get from a mere smattering of rain. As I
write this, it's actually raining heavily and the comforting sound of
rain falling is wonderful! Is this the end of our water problems? Of
Course not! We need months of this type of rain just to dampen the
soil. But it is welcome and makes me smile, a little.

For the record, I don't know of anyone, with the possible exception
of our current prime minister, who is a climate change sceptic. The
fact that Cameron thinks that my remarks were addressed in any way
towards climate change scepticism may tell you something about
Cameron's construction of social reality, but it tells you nothing
about mine.

But to matters of substance!!!

Cameron suggest that:
> Overall, I think it would help make the discussion more productive
> if your made 100 percent clear whether your post is a criticism of
> Anne-Marie's grammar or a statement motivated by a wider climate
> change scepticism…

The answer is neither (btw I love these attempts at either/or forms
of argument, so clean). My remarks above should, I hope, dispel any
idea that I am a lackey of the capitalist system intent on
suppressing debate about an important issue. My criticism of Anne-
Marie has nothing to do with her grammar, which as far as I can tell
is impeccable. No, my criticism is, and I don't want to repeat it in
detail, is that the use of unstated assumptions, poor arguments,
empty words and clichés is inappropriate to the seriousness of the
substance. Important issues should be debated with all the clarity we
can muster. Of course we are talking about complex matters, sometimes
difficult to articulate, but let's try, at least. It might help.

And to second, Anne-Marie's post, just in, I too recommend empathy.

If what you meant to say Maria was, to quote Eduardo:
> What are the new questions for an old
> philosophical problem: the nature of dwelling?

Perhaps, a little more empathy towards your readers would have helped
them empathise with your writing. It is, as always, a working out
together, being and becoming in the world in which we live, die and
try to survive in.

(dare I say it?, yes go on!)

It's still raining!

David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au

Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •

Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640

60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068