Clarifying My Point

When I wrote "Pre-Post" About An Important Topic , I should have realized that because it's not done, most people wouldn't understand what I was saying.

After years of teaching, especially the last eleven as a remedial teacher, I should be able to express myself better.

Teachers are taught how to construct a lesson. Students can't do one thing for too long. Especially today, people's attention spans are very short.

Now, the same goes for a "political meeting." I've been to a few recently, and they all have the same thing in common--

bad planning

Last week, I was at a meeting at a neighbors which lasted about three hours. One of my friends was there for two hours. She's a busy lady and came in late on purpose, knowing that the first half hour would be a waste. Then two hours later, she left. The next morning, at the pool, she asked me:

"What was the point? What did they want from us?"

The meeting could have been done in an hour and a quarter and should have been constructed totally differently. Instead, even those of us who wanted to help had a feeling that we'd just be wasting our time. "Good intentions" aren't enough.

The little movie they showed to give an example was so repetitive and amateurish, we stopped listening long before the middle. The main speaker answered in speeches--lecturing, rather than short, to the point, concise answers.

A couple of months ago, when I was at a parlour meeting for another group, we were also lectured and lectured, not inspired to be active members.

Most people get bored after a couple of minutes, so talking for fifteen loses your audience completely. A rousing political meeting needs a tight schedule.

• Use a stopwatch/timer if necessary.
• Early on, state your main goal.
• Keep up the excitement.
• Finish while people are still interested-- leave them begging for more!

That's just one small lesson. None of these techniques are revolutionary. It's not like the patented Coca Cola recipe.