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

["Rodney Shakespeare" <Rodney.Shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Keith,

    You are way out of touch with the situation. 

 

     In the last three weeks or so Ryan has deleted roughly 14 (fourteen) of my emails.  I have around eleven or so deletion messages.   What is more Ryan SAID he had deleted ten of my messages.  I thought he had deleted one message over and over again (his enraged finger stabbing ten times on the button).  But, no, it was ten separate deletions of ten separate messages, and Ryan said so.  Needless to say, these deletions are in practice deletions from the social credit archives.

 

    Moreover, I have made several statements to the effect that Ryan has deleted hundreds of emails and he has made no contradiction.  Why should he?  After all,  it is only a statement of the truth. I estimate around two hundred or more but, of course, we will all be pleased to hear from Ryan himself the exact figure. 

 

 

    You and COG and those Social Credit members of this elist whose reputation for reasonable behaviour is now very much on the line, really do have to face the fact that Ryan deletes hundreds of emails from his own elist yet demands the freedom to say what he likes on Ownership and have it remain in the archives. 

 

    The fact is your email, as it stands at the moment, seems to be a defence of Ryan's completely contradictory and hypocritical position and, faced with that contradiction and hypocrisy, you have nothing effective to propose.

 

    And COG  is getting itself into a frightful mess.  As this situation gets worse and worse, the chances are increasing that it  will suddenly feel impelled to act and find that the only viable option it has is something drastic like shutting down the whole list or something.  When situations get out of hand, they get out of hand -- and something has to be done.

 

Rodney Shakespeare

 

PS I don't propose a hair-splitting moderation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Keith Wilde" <keithwilde@sympatico.ca>

To: "Rodney Shakespeare" <Rodney.Shakespeare1@btopenworld.com>

Cc: <ownership@cog.kent.edu>

Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 3:36 PM

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

> 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
> >> 
>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> 
>