``....I'm not sure at all what the subject of that talking to each other "must be." So I'll let it go here...'' Carrol
--------------
The subject doesn't really matter (IMO). One technique is to have say five or more speakers or stage types present, then break to smaller groups for discussion where audience becomes participant (workshop style), with a quick list of responses or position or concerns coming from the smaller groups and later published somewhere---at least mailed back to the people who showed up.
I had almost the same reaction to the Afghan film showing that Doug came to in SF Presideo about six months ago. And of course no more than a quick chance to say hello.
Nice audience and small enough to have broken up into groups for a short discussion (Q&A, position statements, etc) of various parts of the war and reactions to 9/11 which pretty much divided along neoliberal to left spectrum. Of course such a breakdown to smaller groups didn't happen.
The other positive is speakers and organizers get a much more accurate reading of a local audience when they can be engaged one to one. It doesn't take long to figure out what level of awareness and grasp of the issues local participants have after you see them close up. And then too, just because everybody comes from the same area doesn't mean they know each other or know about other activities---and smaller lead groups open this possibility.
So small groups after a limited main event alone sets up the answer to where to go from here for organizers or more pro-active types. General sympathy toward a cause or position isn't enough---it needs to be built up from the people.
Chuck Grimes