By Gery Deer

The Greene County FISH Pantry, now located at 774 Cincinnati Ave., began in 1976 at Christ Episcopal Church in Xenia in response to the community’s needs following the devastating F5 tornado two years earlier.
As the nonprofit celebrates its golden anniversary, it is beginning its next chapter under a new name and branding intended to clarify its purpose. The organization is retiring the longstanding FISH (Friends in Service of Humanity) name and will now operate as Greene County Food Pantry.
Although a new logo may be the most visible change, the transition goes beyond branding. The nonprofit has officially adopted Greene County Food Pantry as its legal corporate name in its Articles of Incorporation and other official 501(c)(3) records.
Rick Robertson is the pantry’s new executive director, having assumed leadership earlier this year after serving as vice chair of its Board of Directors. Robertson said the rebranding reflects what the organization has become and the community it serves.
“Our pantry serves all of Greene County, and we felt it was time to have our name and branding more closely reflect our mission,” he said.
Robertson brings nearly four decades of leadership experience spanning banking, global profitability consulting and entrepreneurship. His background in operations, compliance and financial management positions him to guide the pantry’s next phase while building on his experience as a member of the organization’s board.
The organization is also continuing equipment upgrades begun under the leadership of former Executive Director Gail Matson. The improvements are part of a broader effort to improve how food is received, stored, and distributed to people throughout Greene County.
These milestones also provide an opportunity to recognize the volunteers, donors, and community partners who sustained the pantry for five decades, and they offer a natural point to consider what will be required in the years ahead.
Today, the pantry serves more than 30,000 people annually. Handling food assistance on that scale requires receiving and inspecting products, maintaining proper storage conditions, tracking inventory, meeting food safety requirements and coordinating staff and volunteers. The goal is to create a smoother workflow from the moment a donation arrives until food is placed into the hands of someone who needs it.
Many improvements may not be immediately visible to the public, but they are essential to the pantry’s daily work. Better equipment and more consistent procedures can improve food safety, reduce unnecessary delays and help volunteers manage increasing demand more effectively. The updates are also intended to better prepare the pantry for the future as families continue to face rising grocery costs and other financial pressures.
Regardless of new branding and operational changes, the organization’s central purpose remains unchanged. It continues to provide food assistance to Greene County residents while relying heavily on community generosity. Every donation, volunteer shift and financial contribution helps the pantry serve thousands of local people each year. The organization recently received a four-star rating on “Charity Navigator,” and a Candid Platinum Seal of Transparency, the highest-rated level of credibility for a nonprofit on Candid (formerly GuideStar). The rating shows donors that an organization is outcome-driven and publicly shares its goals, strategies, and measurable, year-over-year impact metrics.
The organization’s anniversary is not only a celebration of longevity. It is a recognition of generations of Greene County residents who have helped keep the pantry stocked, staffed and available to their neighbors. With each change, the organization is working to secure its future while continuing to combat food insecurity for the next 50 years. For more information on how you can help the Greene County Food Pantry, contact Executive Director Rick Robertson by calling 937-372-8441 or emailing gcfp@gcfp.org.












Civil Discourse, communication, Conversation, Critical Thinking, debate, Deer In Headlines, Family Relationships, Gery Deer, Human Nature, opinion, Political Polarization, politics, Social Commentary, Understanding
Debate is not conversation
In Education, Opinion, Politics, psychology, Uncategorized on June 14, 2026 at 9:08 amDeer In Headlines
By Gery Deer
I have family members I can’t talk politics with. That’s not because they’re bad people, ignorant people, or people I don’t care about. They’re some of the smartest, hardest-working, most generous people I know. We’d help each other move furniture, fix a flat tire, or get through a family crisis without hesitation. But the moment politics enters the conversation, everything changes.
What makes it frustrating is that I’m usually not trying to change anyone’s mind. As a journalist, I’ve spent much of my career talking with people whose backgrounds, values, and beliefs differ from my own. I’ve interviewed politicians, activists, business owners, lobbyists, farmers, teachers, veterans, and everyday citizens from every imaginable perspective. My job was never to win an argument. It was to understand why people believed what they believed.
Unfortunately, that’s not always what happens around the dinner table anymore. Some people have become so hard-wired into their political identities that every discussion feels like a loyalty test. Questioning a policy suddenly becomes an attack on the tribe – or cult, depending on how you see it. Asking for clarification becomes immediate proof that you’re uninformed. Offering a different perspective becomes evidence that you’ve been misled. The conversation stops being about ideas and starts becoming about defending a team.
That’s the difference between a conversation and a debate. A conversation is an exploration. The goal is understanding. A debate is a competition. The goal is victory. Both have value in the right setting, but problems arise when people think they’re having one while participating in the other.
I’ve watched it happen countless times. Someone mentions a news story. Another person responds with an opinion. A third person offers a different interpretation. At first, everyone is simply exchanging thoughts. Then someone decides that understanding isn’t enough. Someone begins trying to prove another person wrong. The shift is subtle but unmistakable.
Questions disappear. Statements become sharper. Opinions are tossed in as facts, lobbed like verbal hand grenades. Listening becomes, well, nonexistent. Instead of learning something, people prepare rebuttals. Rather than consider another perspective, they look for weaknesses to exploit. The discussion has transformed from a conversation into a debate.
If no one recognizes what’s happening, the debate quickly deteriorates into an argument. That’s when voices rise, and interruptions begin. People assign motives rather than address ideas. You’ve probably heard the phrases before. “You only think that because…” or “You’re just saying that because…” Once those words enter the discussion, the original topic has pretty much vanished. The focus becomes defending pride, identity, and ego.
The irony is that arguments rarely – more like never – change minds but usually accomplish the opposite. The harder people push, the more firmly others cling to their existing beliefs. Nobody wants to feel cornered, embarrassed, or dismissed. Even when valid points are being made, they’re lost beneath the emotional weight of the conflict.
Some of the best conversations I’ve ever had ended with complete disagreement. Nobody switched sides. Nobody waved a white flag. Nobody declared victory. Yet both people walked away with a better understanding of how the other saw the world. That’s not failure. That’s success.
Understanding doesn’t require agreement. It doesn’t require compromise on deeply held principles. It simply requires that we recognize that intelligent people can reach different conclusions based on their experience. When we approach disagreement with curiosity instead of combativeness, we create opportunities to learn something new.
Communities depend on that ability. Families depend on it even more. If every disagreement becomes a contest, relationships eventually become casualties. People stop talking. Gatherings become tense. Entire subjects become off-limits because nobody trusts anyone else to listen.
The older I get, the less interested I am in winning debates. Winning is temporary. The satisfaction lasts about as long as the next disagreement. Understanding, however, has lasting value. It strengthens relationships, broadens perspectives, and creates opportunities for cooperation even when agreement remains impossible.
Disagreement is healthy. But what we need are fewer debates disguised as conversations. One builds bridges while the other draws battle lines. In the end, conversations create the possibility of resolution because people are working toward understanding. Debates create division because people are working toward victory. That’s a difference worth remembering.