lovely email groups

Skip to first unread message

Ray Taylor

Nov 22, 2009, 4:15:22 PM11/22/09
Hi Conal, Hi all,

Conal I really appreciate your willingness to try to create ease in the googlegroup.
(Though in this case I couldn't quite follow your suggestion - but what I take home is that clear simple subject lines make e-groups more of a joy for you - right?)

In two other groups NVC groups I have been part of, the emails have sometimes been awful, though so far this nvc-evoloves group has been nothing but a pleasure.

I am interested if people have ideas about what makes an NVC2.0 e-group a pleasure to part of, and how this can be sustained, especially if a new person starts posting frequent emails with a lot of pain/satisfaction and responds to other peoples posts with argument/analysis rather than silence or empathy.

In fact I'd love to know if there are lovely ways of taking care in an e-group. Any thoughts?

(I have seen something that worked for me among young Quakers in non-cyberspace: choosing a group of 5 people to clarify the quaker style and support those who are not clear and/or need help to adopt the house style of communication - it was very beautifu, involved a range of public+private strategies, and was supportive rather than oppressive. It also didn't create conformism, but ensured that group communication flowed in and out of silence with a wide range of confident and less confident voices being heard.)


2009/11/20 Conal Elliott <>
Hi Suzanne,

An invitation from me to you: If you repost your comment using the topic subject (rather than the subject "Digest for ..."), it'll be easier for people to track the conversation.  I'd then delete the "Digest for ..." version.

   - Conal

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Suzanne Jones <> wrote:
Hi Angela,
Yes, invitations seem more comfortable to me. Have you heard of Sonja Foss' work on Invitaional Rhetoric?
Suzanne Jones

--- On Wed, 11/18/09, <> wrote:

From: <>
Subject: Digest for - 1 Message in 1 Topic
To: "Digest Recipients" <>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009, 3:14 PM

  Today's Topic Summary
    Angela Harms <> Nov 18 11:16AM -0800
    Last year, I wrote "I've decided I want to try only making invitations
    for a while," and got some replies I enjoyed a lot. I'd been talking
    about how "requests" didn't seem to me to be in line with what we're
    wanting when we "do" NVC.
    I've spend the last year working with this idea, subjecting it to
    criticism, holding it up to the light. And I've concluded that I
    really don't have much use for requests. I'm done with them. They
    don't lead to connection in my life. More often, they lead to
    stuckness, and reactions of compliance or rebellion, neither of which
    appeals to me..
    I'm wondering if anybody else has worked with this idea over the past
    year, and what results you've come up with? Is there any reason to
    hang on to requests as part of our understanding of nvc (or nvc2.0)?
    By the way, I'm moving to Central Ohio, and would love to connect with
    people there. Drop me a line if you're nearby!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NVC Evolves" group.
To post to this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NVC Evolves" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "NVC Evolves" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Conal Elliott

Nov 23, 2009, 7:51:15 PM11/23/09
Wow -- I love this invitation, Ray.

Here are some of my thoughts on how to nurture our NVC 2.0 e-group:
  • Keep threads on topic.  Restrain your impulses to piggyback on someone else's ideas & questions as an opportunity to launch into your own.  Instead, start a different thread.  That way, each thread has clear intent and we can make progress on each, without dropping topics out of chaos & confusion.
  • Keep posts short.  If, like me, you come to clarity in the process of expressing yourself, then you may have a challenge with this suggestion.  My personal solution to this challenge is to make more than one pass, and often several.  I've heard this recipe called "blather, condense, repeat".  Or as Holly says to me "Okay, now with fewer words" (and then she says it again).  If you don't have someone to hear your your early drafts, you can write them in your journal.  Then distill before sharing with the group.  Think of the essential ideas, insights & questions as the value, and the words as the baggage that weighs them down.
  • Complement this group with other means of giving you community and intimacy.  In the context of nvc-evolves, I've seen a tension between (a) chatty & free-flowing, which can foster community, and (b) terse/focused & on-topic, which can foster progress & precision.  I want both sets of needs to get met in abundance and without compromise, so I've suggested starting a different forum for (a), keeping nvc-evolves for (b).
  • Focus through moderating: it was a tough decision for me to switch the group to moderated last year, and it was a huge relief for me to have done so, even with the backlash that followed.  I let the group drift far from my intentions, to the point that I stopped reading it.  I greatly preferred the post-moderation quiet period.  Since anyone can make e-groups that suit them just as I did, I'm happy to dedicate this group to the sort of discussion that appeals to me and not compromise that dedication for others.
  • No ads -- including in signature lines.
  • No titles.  I like discussions to stand on their own merits, uncluttered by externally applied badges of approval (degrees & certificates).
  - Conal


Nov 23, 2009, 8:22:51 PM11/23/09
to NVC Evolves
>    I've heard this recipe called "blather, condense, repeat".  

:-)))) I love that!

I enjoy all your suggestions and support the idea that what you like
about this group need not be sacrificed to get needs met that could be
sufficiently met elsewhere.
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages