OWNERSHIP: Rodney's offer

["William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>]

Since nobody took up my offer, I no longer feel under
any obligation to inform, and discuss with, Ownership.
----------------------------------------------------

Before you depart the forum perhaps you will address a
lingering question:

In your flaunted "Binary Economics" book, Ashford is
identified as a lawyer, and you are identified as a
"barrister."

Will you please tell us how identifying yourself as a
"barrister" in the context of Ashford who is genuinely
a lawyer is not a deceptive trade practice?



--- Rodney Shakespeare
<Rodney.Shakespeare1@btopenworld.com> wrote:

> 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: OWNERSHIP: 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 
=== message truncated ===

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
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