Re: OWNERSHIP: Open letter -- Wilde Report

[Dan Bell <dbell@kent.edu>]

Dear Rodney,

The purpose of this listserv is a discussion on the economics
of ownership. In my opinion, this listserv is not the appropriate
venue for you and me to discuss what is the appropriate
way to administer the COG Virtual Think Tank.

I would request that you send your future responses on this subject
to me at dbell@kent.edu and that you cc: them to whomever you feel
is interested in being witness to them. I will be happy to cc:
my future responses to anyone who requests that I do so. I won't
be sending any more messages on this topic to ownership@cog.kent.edu

Now, for my response to your last message.

Thanks for clarification that you did not say I was bizarre.

Keith's opinion that the proponents of binary economics are behaving
in a cult like manner is, just that, his opinion. I see no reason to
censor this. And I repeat, I do not agree with Keith's opinion.
Neither the OEOC nor KSU endorse Keith's opinion.

I take the ideas related to binary economics seriously and I respect
you and others who are making an effort to make them understandable
to others.

I do draw a distinction between permitting the expression of such
opinions and permitting the use of racist, homophobic and
genocidic language.

Let me directly answer your question, "Did you, or did you not, ask
for withdrawal (of Keith's paper)?".

When we were made aware that Keith's appendix on Golden Bible Science
was offensive to members of the Morman Church, we let Keith know
that we were removing the appendix from the web site and suggested
that he adapt the paper to its absence. As I recall, Keith was
already in the process of updating the paper, which had been
prepared for COG's April 2000 meeting, in anticipation of the May
2001 meeting.

I do recall the discussion of a new person taking on the role of
moderator for the Economics of Ownership discussion group. Keith
himself was one of the proponents of this idea. I do not recall
that the discussion came to a clear conclusion. No one ever asked
me directly to make any changes on the web site. The change would
be to substitute the new name where Keith's name is listed
on the page [http://cog.kent.edu/grpeog.html] which describes the group.

If you remind me of the name proposed and no one on the list objects,
and the new person being named confirms to me that they want to be
listed as such, I would be happy to make the change.

Moderators, at least to date, have not had any particular powers;
only responsibilities. For example, messages are not reviewed by
moderators for approval before being relayed to the list.

Since, with the growth of discussions, it is physically impossible
for the COG web site staff to follow in great detail every message
sent, we rely on the moderators of each group to read everything
sent to their list. This way they can make us aware of problems
which need correcting, such as advertisers spamming their list.

While not being paid to do so, Keith has been willing to write
up his summary from time to time of what has been going on in
the group. Where there is discussion and different opinions, it
is likely that any person's summary will not be supported by all,
and so we encourage additional comments from others to be appended
to the summary (we labeled these "rebuttal").

You ask that the OEOC take on a role of authority which, in my
opinion, does not belong to us. The OEOC is one, and only one,
member of a loose association of individuals and organizations
called the Capital Ownership Group who come together around
the shared mission to broaden ownership of productive capital.

Each member has his or her own reasons for supporting this mission.
This mission is where we all intersect, but our motivations for
supporting this mission, and our concrete actions taken to further
this mission are the responsibility of each one of us.

Through my association with other COG members, I discover additional
ideas which I may choose to incorporate into justifying my mission or
which I may reject. I discover new opportunities for actions to further
my mission, some which I choose to take part in, some which I choose
to reject.

Each COG member freely chooses to associate with the rest of us but
is not subject to a particular COG authority.

The OEOC has raised funding to create a space where COG members can
interact. This does not subject COG members to our authority. Those
involved in a particular discussion, like the Economics of Ownership
discussion, should govern themselves. As individuals, each one has
to judge whether the benefits of his or her participation outweigh the
costs.

Norm Kurland has proposed setting up an additional discussion group
and setting out ground rules for participation. I am happy to
provide the technical support for this. Those choosing to participate
in that group will subject themselves to its ground rules.

The existing discussion groups do not have many explicit rules,
moderators do not have the power to censor contributions, rules do
not apply to include or exclude specific participants.

However, any group that wants to set up rules of membership, conduct
and so forth, is free to do so and I will be happy to provide the
technical support.

So once again let me respond to your final 5 points:

1. The contributions to COG discussions and
   the reports written by non-OEOC staff are not published under
   our name. They are the sole responsibility of those submitting them.

2. I do not intend to usurp the authority of the members of any particular
   discussion group in asking that their moderator stand down. They can
   reach consensus on their own, or as individuals choose not to
   participate in that discussion group.

3. Binary proponents were invited to the May conference which was
   open to all. My explanation for the agenda of that meeting is
   explained in the following two messages so I will not restate
   them again here.

   http://cog.kent.edu/archives/ownership/msg01619.html
   http://cog.kent.edu/archives/ownership/msg01630.html

4. I do not see myself as allowing Keith to do anything. I have
   no authority over him or you. He is not on the OEOC payroll.

5. You and I simply disagree about how best to honor the university spirit
   of free enquiry.

While I do not expect you to agree with my position, I hope that I have
explained it sufficiently so that we can both use our time and energy for
other tasks.

Dan
--
Dan Bell
International Program Coordinator
Ohio Employee Ownership Center
Kent State University
Kent, OH 44242
(330) 672-0333 << New direct number!
(330) 672-4063 fax
dbell@kent.edu
http://www.kent.edu/oeoc/
http://cog.kent.edu