Let’s talk about it

I agree with Ms. Kuypers analysis posted recently (Western News, Sept. 9, letters to the editor – Voice of reason).

She presents some valid points centered around dialogue. In theory it sounds good. In practice, it hasn’t happened up to now.

Dialogue is a strong word. Let’s look at the derivation of the word and the meaning of the word to better understand.

Our word dialogue is derived from the ancient Greek dialogos, which in turn derives from the roots dia-, meaning through, and logos, meaning word or reason. A dialogue seeks truth by and through words. Further to that the prefix “di” means two.

My question: Is that based on the true meaning of dialogue? “If one side decides not to be involved in any dialogue, how can (dialogue) talk take place?”

In order for there to be dialogue, parties (two or more) concerned must enter with open minds that might generate ideas and solutions to problems. Up to now, the city pundits have really not initiated or attempted to initiate a dialogue situation. Until this happens, there will be no peace or harmony in Penticton regarding the parkland issues.

The idea of common sense prevailing is, in my opinion, wishful thinking. Until or unless that changes, hostility, discontent, innuendo, call it what you want, will prevail.

However, having said that, I agree with Ms. Kuyper’s thoughts on the issue of dialogue. Now, if only she could motivate city pundits to think as she does, harmony might possibly be restored within the city regarding the contentious parkland issue. Until that happens status quo will prevail.

Ron Barillaro