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

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

Dear Rodney,

I have seen several explanations by Ryan about frustrations with the service 
underwhich his Social Credit lists have been set up.  I haven't been 
checking it, but he has announced from time to time that messages were being 
bounced, not appearing in formats as sent, and other technical frustrations. 
You may have been victim to those glitches to to an abnormal degree, but I 
would be extremly surprised if Ryan were deliberately dumping messages from 
you that he found simply too devastatingly clever and definitive that he 
could not rubbish them publicly in some way.  And why would he then want to 
cover the tracks of his triumphant sneers?

It is possible that he preferred to deal with some of your messages in this 
Ownership forum because of complaints from some on his Social Credit list 
who wish it to be narrowly confined to that subject.  I take Ryan's response 
to your complaints (about being muzzled) at face value because it would be 
so out of character for him to avoid a confrontation.  If it is true 
nonetheless, you can always use this forum to make the complaint and then 
invite interested readers to follow you over to the Money Reform window 
where you can pound away at Ryan with no worry of response from him since he 
has been banished from that site from the beginning.  In that way you can 
rebut him to your heart's content--and it will remain in the archive due to 
the much superior technical quality of the COG facility.  The same general 
idea applies to the Econ of Empowerment site, and much of the Ownership 
subject matter would be very appropriately discussed under the HOMESTEAD 
label, where there still may be an unsuspecting moderator assigned.

My point is that there are ways deal with Ryan's distasteful interventions 
in a more protected environment and hence more sedately and deliberately, 
and to preserve the answers and counter-charges to his accusations and other 
provocations.   In these circumstances, the demand for a referee on 
Ownership can only mean an urge to prevent him from making his provocations 
in the first place, a denial of freedom to speak.  Provocateurs can be 
irresponsible, as was Joseph McCarthy, in spite of the latter's accusations 
being carefully researched so that they could not be dismissed as complete 
falsehood. It can take a lot of time and energy to rebut the innuendo and 
red herrings that that behavior imposes, and I do find Ryan to be 
occasionally irresponsible in that way.  So, condemn it roundly, in public 
and in places where he cannot come.  But don't expect a willing candidate to 
moderate in the way that Dan has suggested--the hair-splitting would drive 
him nuts unless he had the autocratic powers you propose.  It's too bad that 
Ryan can't take lessons in Parliamentary rhetoric from George Galloway, but 
we're in the wild west here.

Keith Wilde


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rodney Shakespeare" <Rodney.Shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>
To: "Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>; <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>; <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>; "Dan Bell" <dbell@kent.edu>; <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
Cc: <jlogue@kent.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal to Enlist a Moderator for the Ownership Group


> Dear Keith,
>    Ryan demands the right to say what he likes and to have everything
> remain in the archive, yet denies to others the same right in respect of 
> his
> own social credit elist where he deletes hundreds of emails (only Ryan
> himself knows the exact number)  You do not appear to be willing to do
> anything about that.
>
>    Your email is long on comment and very short on addressing the key 
> issue
> and its possible solution.
>
> Rodney.
>
> PS    Only last Wednesday I had a most pleasant lunch with Shann Turnbull.
> We discussed endogenous loans (as defined) and their implications.    I
> offered to discuss this matter on Ownership if people showed that they had
> read the relevant background material and the group obviously wanted the
> matter discussed.
>
>    Nobody indicated a desire to have the subject discussed yet it is 
> making
> very considerable progress in the world (and Shann and I met to discuss 
> how
> to further that progress).
>
>    Since nobody took up my offer, I no longer feel under any obligation to
> inform, and discuss with,  Ownership.
>
> ---------------
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>
> 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>; <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>; "Dan Bell" <dbell@kent.edu>; <ownership@cog.kent.edu>
> Cc: <jlogue@kent.edu>
> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:37 AM
> Subject: Re: Proposal to Enlist a Moderator for the Ownership Group
>
>
>> 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