OWNERSHIP: Re: Proposal to Enlist a Moderator for the Ownership Group

["Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>]

Dear Dan,

I have not been following recent activity closely, dipping in mainly when I 
see postings that I expect to have cogent substance (e.g. Ed Dodson), but I 
have been generally aware of the tone and some of the consequences.  When I 
saw that Alan had volunteered to moderate I could only shudder at what he 
would be up against as a referee.  The amount of work entailed in your 
suggested procedure when the fur is flying would be a real headache and a 
major time consumer, speaking from some more than trivial experience with 
these extreme partisans.

Without  having checked the archive to verify, I conjecture that most of the 
complaints and demands for imposition of a moderator have come from Norm 
Kurland and his allies, supported by Rodney.  I very much doubt that any 
neutral moderator could satisfy Norm, for I have myself been bitterly 
accused of ad hominem  attacks for simply pointing out that his reasoning is 
faulty.  An acceptable moderator would therefore have to blot out anything 
that got under Norm's skin. In the earliest days of  the Ownership wrangle 
the moderator had no powers to reject messages and operated only by making 
comment about the standards and departures therefrom of intellectual rigor, 
on the presumption that truth-seeking was what we were on about.  That 
prompted howls of outrage and calls for my removal.  There was a pause in 
the action when a partisan from Norm's side volunteered to explore with me 
the meaning of intellectual rigor in social science via readings in the 
subject.  Richard Stutsman made that honest effort, and when he saw where it 
led he realized that the case for Norm's side was indeed vulnerable to some 
truth tests and announced that he would therefore not be able to be their 
intellectual champion.  Silence.  A few days later, however, he came back to 
say that in spite of reason having destroyed his faith, he still wanted to 
gather with the faithful and so was welcomed back into the fold.

By that time the demonstration was iron clad that the Binary Economics 
"discussion" is a partisan cause and that Norm and Rodney expected to use 
the COG facility to propagate the faith rather than to critically examine it 
in comparison to near alternatives like that of Shann Turnbull, for example. 
To my regret, Shann could hardly get his voice heard over the din raised by 
getting to that point.  I suspect that if persons on the list other than the 
extreme partisans are calling for a moderator, it is because they would like 
to have some reasoned discussion of less inflammatory ideas.  And maybe it 
happens from time to time. John Medaille seems to have made a bit of 
progress in getting comment on his education initiative. In general, 
however, it is the energy of the provocateers and their outraged targets who 
dominate discussion, and I don't see how that can be changed so long as the 
partisans find any subject under discussion to tickle their own fancy.  The 
partisans have their own camp followers and they (Norm in particular in the 
old days) use the COG forum to grandstand, showing their virtue and courage 
in the face of the specious and devious sophists (economists and other 
intellectuals) whose mission is prevent truth and light from breaking 
through. In Rodney's view, anyone who questions his reasoning is opposed to 
the idea of more broadly spread ownership of capital.

As you have pointed out, the "Economics of Empowerment" window with Richard 
Stutsman as moderator was initiated so that those persons discomfitted by 
the demonstration that Binary Economics is non-rigorous could gather to lick 
their wounds, reaffirm their faith and build a productive campaign in 
support of the general COG goal of spreading capital ownership. The last 
time I looked, it was still silent as a tomb.  Participants in this current 
flurry of activity on Ownership could go there if they want to have a quiet 
discussion, but I'll bet few elect to do so.  If Rodney's offer to moderate 
is accepted, the autocratic powers he demands will certainly make the 
discussion more sedate, because it is quite clear that what he wants to do 
is banish the gadfly, as he has already done in setting up the COG Money 
Reform window.  I suggest that if several participants here want to have 
Rodney as moderator, the facility is already set up and they can go there. 
The COG facility is a very good one, and I am sure that is why people like 
to use it as opposed to more ephemeral and less reliable services like 
elistas.  I strenuously oppose Rodney's proposal to cleanse the archive of 
content he doesn't like.

While as noted I have not looked at a lot of the recent dialogue, I do know 
that Bill Ryan can be extremely rude, sometimes wrong but never admits it, 
applies standards to others that he doesn't always keep himself, and is 
obsessed by his own version of juvenile hero worship (e.g Kelso is a 
plagiarist but Douglas is an honest scholar who didn't happen to mention 
Mitchell Innes).  Nevertheless, he does work hard and does dig up the 
information that bears on his accusations.  And he doesn't seem to come up 
utterly wrong very often, when I have been looking.  The admissions he has 
jarred out about the commercial interests of the CESJ, for example, do 
provide some understanding of Norm's extreme attachment to someof his 
"ideas".  That's no scandal, in my opinion--a far cry from the Richard 
Scrushy standard of our times, but why am I not surprised at the faint aura 
of hypocrisy in the noble cause?

So, you have some people promoting a cause and Bill Ryan attacking it.  That 
is the essence of what the forum was about, but the pit bull tactics are 
offensive, to onlookers as well as victims.  A moderator would have a very 
difficult time when both sides want to scream.  What's he to do? Tell both 
sides to go to their respective corners and write an essay of invective that 
could be published in Harper's Magazine?  I think that the onlookers who are 
offended by the fireworks should just enter the fray if it evokes that much 
interest, pour out some contempt on either or both of the offenders, and 
push into the debate with their own choice of subject matter.

Something that you might do, Dan, that would help clarify things to some 
people, me in particular perhaps, is to "come clean" about the relationship 
of COG to Norm Kurland.  I know that he is a veteran in the cause, and 
therefore doubtless had a lot to do with getting COG established, but is he 
a financial sponsor?  I ask this because he has always talked as if it were 
his right to prevail, and runs whining to John Logue whenever discussion 
isn't going his way and he doesn't have quite enough grounds or powers to 
make good on his threats of a libel suit.

Keith Wilde

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dan Bell" <dbell@kent.edu>
To: <rodney.shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>; <stevenieman@mac.com>; 
<thirdway@cesj.org>; <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>; <ejdodson@comcast.net>; 
<john@medaille.com>; <iowaequity@yahoo.com>; <Adavans@aol.com>; 
<dspitzle@davidaspitzley.org>; <wmklinck@shaw.ca>; 
<sturnbull@mba1963.hbs.edu>; <hermann@picknowl.com.au>; 
<keithwilde@sympatico.ca>; <Matvox@aol.com>; <chickhurst@shaw.ca>; 
<jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>; <marketnr@iafrica.com>; 
<LArthur@uwic.ac.uk>; <radudelona@yahoo.com>; <joseph@thepowerpoint.com>; 
<rneece@esopadvisors.com>; <greg27241@yahoo.com>; <Davewetzel@tfl.gov.uk>; 
<ros@globalnet.co.uk>; <m.gaffney@pe.net>; <ahartheimer@yahoo.com>; 
<cgbetit@vermontel.net>; <lewisma9@msu.edu>
Cc: <jlogue@kent.edu>
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2005 9:54 AM
Subject: Proposal to Enlist a Moderator for the Ownership Group


> Dear Ownership Group Participant,
>
> Following a loose interpretation of the old adage that "possession is 90% 
> of the law,"
> I would like to consult those present and past subscribers who have sent 
> at least one
> message to ownership@cog.kent.edu within the past 12 months.
>
> From time to time over the years, some participants on this list have 
> expressed their
> concern that there are no limits on how abusive or offensive a message can 
> be. A few
> have directly complained, others have "voted with their feet" by simply 
> unsubscribing.
>
> Alan Avans has expressed a willingness to serve as a moderator for this 
> group,
> taking on the role of previewing messages before allowing them to be 
> relayed to
> the list. The intention is not to censor ideas, but rather to eliminate 
> unnecessary
> personal attacks. My recommendation would be that when Alan does not feel 
> that
> a message should be approved he contact the sender and explain the reason 
> for
> not approving the message.
>
> This allows the sender the opportunity to edit his or her own message, 
> removing
> the portion that might be interpreted by some as a personal attack or 
> offensive, and
> still being able to get his or her discussion-related ideas expressed.
>
> Please respond to me at dbell@kent.edu to express your opinion about 
> implementing
> this proposal. You can send it only to me if you prefer to have your 
> comments remain
> confidential, or you can copy it to the others, as you like.
>
> I am sending this to 28 participants. I would hope to get responses from 
> at least 14
> of you and will take action based on the majority of the responses.
>
> Thank you for your patience with this process.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> --
> Dan Bell
> Senior Program Coordinator
> Ohio Employee Ownership Center
> Kent State University
> Kent, OH 44242
> (330) 672-0333 << Direct number!
> (330) 672-3028 general office number
> (330) 672-4063 fax
> dbell@kent.edu
> http://www.kent.edu/oeoc/
> http://cog.kent.edu
> 

To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
with a single line in the body of the message that says:
unsubscribe ownership