From Econ-LETS@mailbase.ac.uk (Econ-LETS) Part II
Date: Sat Dec 12 16:52:58 1998
From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
Subject: econ-lets posting guidelines
I have received a complaint about postings to econ-lets which have
little or nothing to do with its stated purpose, which is the
discussion and exchange of information concerning LETS and similar
community currencies. The extent to which "drift" from this purpose
is allowable is a matter where balance and self-control is needed.
If we keep to too strict a definition interesting conversations and
threads are impeded, however if we drift too far off topic this
ignores the basis on which members of econ-lets join, which is their
consent to receive information directly concerning the stated purpose
of the list.
There is also the consideration that econ-lets should also be a
useful source of information for people in countries without cheap or
fast telecommunications and having many lengthy and off topic
messages will prevent people who have to pay over the odds to receive
these messages from wanting to join econ-lets. In some cases I have
known people leave because the volume is too great.
I will therefore provide some guidelines which I hope will encourage
more focussed discussion.
I do not consider detailed Y2K speculations or preparations which do
not directly concern the field of community currencies to be
relevant. I appreciate that some community currency activists are
very interested in this topic, however as there are plenty of other
Y2K preparedness resources and lists available on the Net I think
detailed Y2K specific discussion should take place elsewhere.
I think also that there is a general consensus on this list (with one
possible exception) that community currencies are generally local,
certainly multiple and community specific and not single or global.
This list is therefore not the place to discuss reform of the
conventional monetary system except to the extent that community
currencies can play a role in this. Theological discussions about
Christ's teachings in connection with monetary justice and interest
are something I find interesting, but are not directly relevant to
community currencies and therefore have no place on econ-lets.
In order to make this list more useful to those who have only limited
and expensive bandwidth I would also ask those who write lengthy
articles to publish these on the web and post a URL reference here on
econ-lets if relevant. E.G. the specification for the networked
community currencies software I am currently writing is published on
http://www.driveout.demon.co.uk/mrs2.html
Please also don't quote or repost entire lengthy messages when you
only want to make a brief comment or reply to a sentence or paragraph
- please just quote the relevant sentence or paragraph. Quotes of
less than a full sentence however risk quoting the originator out of
context so I ask contributors not to do this.
I wish you all a very happy Christmas and best wishes for the new
year. Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk AKA Rich@driveout.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------
Date: Sun Dec 13 14:43:18 1998
From: di238@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Cottam)
Subject: Re: econ-lets posting guidelines
Biblical speculations are especially unwelcome because of the rampant
religious millennialism right now. I would discourage it also because
it helps justify extreme measures like fleeing, arming yourself etc.
In summary, if we very carefully broaden discussion to make local
currency discussion relevant to the whirlwind of change we can expect
in 1999, it might help advance all our LETS efforts. And yes, I'll
take a look at Richard's URL with interest. Best wishes, Terry
-------------------------------
Date: Mon Dec 14 00:38:26 1998
From: tom@cyberclass.net ("Tom J. Kennedy")
Subject: A complaint ???
NOTE: Hit the "delete" key if you don't want to read this message.
Richard Kay wrote:
>"I have received a complaint about postings to econ-lets which have
>little or nothing to do with its stated purpose, which is the
>discussion and exchange of information concerning LETS and similar
>community currencies. The extent to which "drift" from this purpose
>is allowable is a matter where balance and self-control is needed.
>If we keep to too strict a definition interesting conversations and
>threads are impeded, however if we drift too far off topic this
>ignores the basis on which members of econ-lets join, which is their
>consent to receive information directly concerning the stated purpose
>of the list."
Further tightening the reins and restricting the discussion of
subscribers to "econ-lets" because of one complaint is unnnecesssary
and unfair to those of us are "reading and learning" from the
interesting exchanges and threads. It has been my understanding that
discussion was welcome at the "econ-lets" mailing list. However, if
subscribers of the "econ-lets" mailing list do not want discussion
then they should say that directly and we can just post URL's with a
brief description and invite readers to go there and read the
content. Furthermore, my computer has a "delete" button which works
with the press of a finger (and I do use it) if I don't want to read
a lengthy message. I respect "freedom of speech" as a writer and a
reader so please allow me to determine what I should or should not
read without the threat of "heavy" policing of the "econ-lets"
mailing list. As of this date the "drift" from the stated purpose of
the "econ-lets" mailing list has been tolerable because I have
learned so much about LETS and related material that "I didn't know
I didn't know". I may not post that often but I skim every posting
on the "econ-lets" mailing list and I share relevant information
that I learn with others all around the globe.
>I do not consider detailed Y2K speculations or preparations which
>do not directly concern the field of community currencies to be
>relevant.
I do consider Y2K information directly relevant to the growing
interest in creating local or community currencies for those who wish
to build "economic lifeboats" and hopefully survive the upcoming
financial chaos to be triggered by the Y2K crisis".
I learned about a "relevant" local currency called the "Toronto
Dollars" on the "econ-lets" mailing list and I have shared the
information with numerous "cyberspace friends" who live in Toronto
as well as with others from all over the globe. No one has told me
that they did not want to learn about "Toronto Dollars". In fact,
many have responded by saying thank you for sharing the information
about "Toronto Dollars" and how the city of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
taking a leading role in the creation of a local currency. No doubt
many other towns, cities and communities will follow or adapt the
model as set up by the city of Toronto.
>I would also ask those who write lengthy articles to publish these
>on the web and post a URLreference here on econ-lets if relevant."
I can agree with this statement BUT give us a fair definition of a
"lengthy" article (how many pages or how many words?) and define
exactly what is "relevant". Who is going to police an article at a
particular URL to determine if it is "relevant" to the "econ-lets"
mailing list? I have NOT read a definite unrelated article at the
"econ-lets' mailing list since I joined. So much of our work as Lets
activists is very relevant to what is happening in the world all
around us. While one reader of a particular article may determine
that it is "not relevant" another reader may determine that it is
"relevant."
>This list is therefore not the place to discuss reform of the
>conventional monetary system except to the extent that community
>currencies can play a role in this."
Without a doubt the creation and establishment of "USURY-free" local
currencies will play a significant role in the reformation of the
conventional "USURY-bearing" money system in the 21st Century so
how can subscribers be commanded NOT to discuss this at the
"econ-lets" mailing list?
>Theological discussions about Christ's teachings in connection with
>monetary justice and interest are something I find interesting, but
>are not directly relevant to community currencies and therefore
>have no place on econ-lets."
"Interest" ought to be correctly referred to as "USURY" for that is
exactly what it is. For me any discussion about USURY - theological
or otherwise is directly relevant to "USURY-free" local currencies.
Again, how can any discussion about "USURY-free" local currencies be
banned from the "econ-lets" mailing list? Any participants in
LETSystems all over the world who are still proclaiming to be
"keepers" of USURY rather that "abolitionists" of USURY do NOT yet
understand that the LETS software has the potential to deliver the
whole world from the yoke of USURY which has been effectively
keeping the masses in financial bondage to the "financial elite" for
generation after generation.
In summary, in recent weeks I have learned and shared with others
much information about LETS, Y2K, and "local currencies" from
reading postings at the "econ-lets" mailing list and visiting the
suggested URL's by subscribers such as Richard Kay, Peter North,
Tom Greco, Michael Linton, John Turmel, Terry Cottam, Michael S.
DeVries, Roy Davies, Ernie Yacub and Jan Wyllie. (I apologize for
others I may not have listed).
I invite other subscribers to comment on Richard Kay's originial
posting re: posting guidelines. I am curious how many other other
subscribers see the problem as outlined by the "one complainer".
-------------------------------
Date: Mon Dec 14 02:54:45 1998
From: duxb@xtra.co.nz (Bryan Duxfield)
Subject: Re: econ-lets posting guidelines Y2K information
To: econ-lets@mailbase.ac.uk
Richard Kay wrote:
>I have received a complaint about postings
I acknowledge Richard's right to have guidlines for econ-lets.
BUT I found and have found the postings on Y2K expecially that one
very informative. So I must say keep up the good work. In my view it
is relevent to LETS global initiatives. Very much so.
I am a quiet reader and get much of my global information from econ
lets. I do not have the time or the money to go sweeping all those
other URLS and most of the ones I have glanced at are too academic
for me to understand. Just give me the facts mate.
Blessings from the South Pacific this Christmas. Bryan Duxfield.
New Zealand. Green Dollars.
-------------------------------
Date: Thu Dec 10 17:07:55 1998
From: tom.holloway@u3a.org.uk ("Tom Holloway")
Subject: Re: A complaint ???/a discussion
Tom Kennedy said....
>NOTE: Hit the "delete" key if you don't want to read this message.
Ha! I read it (of course) to find out if I wanted to read it or not.
Like many - I tend to reach for the D key if I see lengthy items from
<name withheld out of politeness> since experience tells me they are
worthy, but dull, speeches; whereas I am on this list for more
practical day-to-day help with running and developing LETS.
Neither am I interested in what a group of greek translators thought
a certain aramaic-speaking carpenter meant when he said such-and-such
2,000 years ago. For me, the real significance of Tom Kennedy's
posting is that we have been allowed to see a polite, reasoned
discussion take place. This is cyberspace at its best. Well done!
I propose that we apply Occam's Razor and allow these threads to
unravel themselves.
-------------------------------
Date: Mon Dec 14 08:37:52 1998
From: mmattos@pipcom.com (Mary Mattos)
Subject: Re: A complaint ???
Re Tom Kennedy's message:
not being the list owner I can't say at all for sure, but I bet it
was a lot more than one complaint! you asked for comments so:
you made some comments about discussion. Have you noticed that no
one ever responds to all those lengthy postings? If someone did
comment, and respond, and if the poster of the original lengthy
messages then actually acknowledged the responses, THAT would be
discussion. Otherwise it's just bombardment.
there is a netiquette rule, sometimes understood, sometimes posted,
regarding the evolutionary stages of mail lists: asking people to
take sides is considered "bad"
however, I fully agree with Richard's request, and do not believe it
will in any way lessen the value of econ-lets. I also feel that this
is an off topic message and I shouldn't be posting it, as multiple
responses to your post, and your post itself will only contribute to
the spam that was originally cause for concern,
so on the topic of LETS: we keep stressing the value of these systems
in keeping wealth in communities by somewhat limiting it to smallish
geographic areas. With a smart card idea that permits trade between
one LETS and another, or allows membership in several LETS, are we
not re-creating the "leaks" of the national systems?
-------------------------------
Date: Mon Dec 14 10:51:20 1998
From: elise_benjamin@oxfordgreens.freeserve.co.uk ("Elise Benjamin")
Subject: Re: A complaint ???
I won't repeat Tom's posting. I'd just like to thank him for saying
pretty much what I was thinking about the issue of suitable postings
on econ-lets. I find the Y2K postings especially useful (although I
confess to being a little behind in reading the emails) - I suggest
that those who don't believe that Y2K is at all relevant to LETS
should read (or at least scan) Shortcircuit by Richard Douthwaite -
a extremely inspiring book!
I also agree with Bryan Duxfield when he says:
>I do not have the time or the money to go sweeping all those other
>URLS and most of the ones I have glanced at are too academic for
>me to understand. Just give me the facts mate.
Precisely! Cheers. Elise Benjamin. Oxford LETSystem
41 Magdalen Road, Oxford OX4 1RB, England,Tel: (+44 1865) 202257
-------------------------------
Date: Mon Dec 14 12:54:11 1998
From: Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk (Richard KAY)
Subject: Re: econ-lets posting guidelines
Tom J Kennedy wrote:
>Further tightening the reins and restricting the discussion of
>subscribers to "econ-lets" because of one complaint is unnnecesssary
>and unfair to those of us are "reading and learning" from the
>interesting exchanges and threads.
I had been noticing over recent months aspects of more than one
thread becoming less focussed on LETS and community currencies, but
was willing to allow some drift for the reasons I stated - until
complaints are received when I will act as I think appropriate,
taking into account other considered views.
>Furthermore, my computer has a "delete" button which works with the
>press of a finger (and I do use it) if I don't want to read a
>lengthy message.
Most mailers have these, but this does not resolve the issue for
those on the ends of slow expensive lines who have to pay for
messages they don't want. For them the choice is more stark: either
be on econ-lets and get everything posted to it or leave. I would
like econ-lets to be more useful in countries where phone calls are
more expensive than they are in North America or Western Europe.
>please allow me to determine what I should or should not read
Asking for politeness and consideration has nothing to do with
censorship or "heavy policing". It does have much to do with consent
of the forum provider to provide mail hub services and professional
support (I might also mention listowners' willingness to continue
providing unpaid support here) and consent of list members to receive
messages sent to this list based on its stated purpose. There is no
conflict between "freedom of speech" and the need to respect these
issues of consent.
Consider the Internet as a virtual building with an almost infinite
number of conference rooms and libraries, where inhabitants can
maintain a virtual presence in many rooms simultaneously. None of
these rooms or libraries ever come free, though the costs are
generally met by those who provide space for the rooms and libraries,
partly to support various organisational or personal agendas, partly
from a spirit of sharing information, and in a growing number of
cases because the activities within the room or library is supported
by advertising materials found within.
For this structure to be useful there needs to be some correspondence
between the discussion considered appropriate in particular rooms
and the invitations of the room hosts based on which people choose to
enter. Without this correspondence particular rooms will soon be
closed down. The availability and expansion of this structure has
resulted in an unprecedented explosion of free speech in recent years
- but the value of this continues to be as dependent on respect for
the invitations outside the rooms (stated purposes) and the walls
(boundaries on discussions within particular rooms) as it was when
the virtual building (Internet) started being built. This structure
places no constraint on those who wish to pursue discussion outside
the purposes and boundaries associated with a particular room as
there is nothing to prevent such discussion proceeding in the
coridoors (by private email) or a more suitable room which already
exists or in a new room setup specifically for this purpose.
>I do consider Y2K information directly relevant
Clearly some Y2K information is and some isn't relvant to community
currency development. For reasons stated above I have a right and even
an obligation to ask and expect econ-lets contributors to consider
what is and what isn't and edit out for themselves what isn't relevant
>I can agree with this statement BUT give us a fair definition of a
>"lengthy" article (how many pages or how many words?)
The list introduction file sent to all new members states:
"Shorter messages are often more effective, but there is no formal
limit. If you want to contribute more than say, 10 screenfuls of text,
it may be better to make the information available as a file which
users can request and to post a short description to the list."
I should interpret "10 screenfuls" as at the time written most of the
screens in use displayed between 20 and 24 lines at 80 characters per
line. This suggests about 220 lines of text, allowing for suitable
layout with up to say 2000 words. I also feel that it might now be
helpful if this limit were stated in the guidelines more explicity.
In order to encourage contributors to make their points more
effectively if an article is longer than this I feel the contributor
should consider whether it can be reduced and if so it is likely to
make whatever point is intended more elegantly. As econ-lets is
intended for discussion rather than the replication of lengthy
articles and self-publishing I feel that anything significantly over
this limit should be published elsewhere and a reference posted on
econ-lets if it is relevant to community currencies.
>and define exactly what is "relevant".
The list introduction file written a few years ago and sent to all
new members states:
"Purpose of econ-lets
This list is intended for the open and informal discussion of
economic, social and telematics issues surrounding the development
of LETS and similar community currencies. Mailbase, which supports
this list, is intended for discussion of matters of interest to the
UK academic and research community. Participation by others within
this list is welcome."
The list introduction also states:
"Please be polite and keep to the subject area for which econ-lets
was set up, based on which its members have consented to join it
and Mailbase has consented to support it."
>Who is going to police an article at a particular URL to
>determine if it is "relevant" to the "econ-lets" mailing list?
As an open unmoderated list it is up to contributors to keep their
postings relevant based on the guidelines and stated purpose.
Listowners could, in exceptional circumstances, ask the list provider
(Mailbase) to prevent access from particular addresses, but I would
always prefer to resolve complaints through reasoned discussion with
those concerned if possible, except in the case of blatant
large-scale commercial spams to which I respond directly by
requesting denial of access as and when such incidents occur.
Econ-lets members are also welcome to take issue with those going
outside these purposes and guidelines themselves, and the best
regulation is almost invariably self regulation - however as with
LETSystem stewards listowners are also available to respond to
complaints. Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk, econ-lets co-owner
-------------------------------
Date: Wed Dec 23 00:04:32 1998
From: johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel)
Subject: TURMEL: econ-lets posting guidelines
JCT: This is the second time this year that Richard has tried to
prevent my submissions to the econ-lets list. Earlier, he wrote:
>Date: Sat Apr 18 18:20:29 1998
>From: Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk (Richard KAY)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: Unacceptable LETS post?/opinion
>There is in principle no problem with longer pieces of an erudite
>nature or polemics of sufficient quality being uploaded to the
>mailbase ftp/web site. The qualifying criteria for mailbase to
>support this cost are:
>a. relevance to the purpose of the list.
>b. the quality of the material proposed for publication
JCT: Criterion b was newly made up. One never had to propose
material pre-publication before and the quality of anyone's polemics
or erudition was never at issue either. This is the first time that
quality control has been suggested which is clearly censorship.
>There is also a practical consideration, which is that either the
>contributor must be able to take responsibility for the publication
>process, requiring that they be considered responsible enough
>temporarily for this purpose to be made a list co-owner or some other
>person willing and able to take on this responsibility and do the
>necessary preparation work has to be found.
JCT: Being willing to take on the responsibility for the list was
another brand new criterion. Being considered responsible enough to be
made a list co-owner was never a pre-condition for anyone but me. And
who is going to do the considering anyway?
>I do not consider John's postings to be erudite, while as polemics
>they are not, in my view, of sufficient quality
JCT: Everyone's a critic but no one elected Richard to be the
judge of my work. Besides, it had to have had some quality for him to
use my original interpretation of the Parable of the Talents in his
Biblical tract. As a guy who used my stuff to bolster his own
writings, I find it hard to understand how he can allege a lack of
quality.
>and it seems unlikely that John would be able to take on the
>responsibilities even of temporary list co-ownership.
JCT: How many other readers knew they were supposed to be ready
to operate the list before they would be allowed to post?
>I therefore think mailbase not to be an appropriate sponsor to
>provide web and ftp space for John Turmel's postings except to the
>very limited and questionable extent that these qualify for posting
>and automated archiving given the "open forum" nature of econ-lets,
>and the extent to which mailbase guidelines for discussion promote
>informality. It would, I feel, be better for the general discussion
>if the bulk of John's contributions were to go to a dedicated
>web/ftp space, but this should not, for the reasons stated above, be
>on Mailbase.
JCT: Even though Richard would have preferred that my
contributions were posted elsewhere, I would have still have offered
to submit my articles for quality grading in case they qualified.
Unfortunately, Richard didn't mention to whom I was supposed to send
my articles for quality control prior to posting.
>Clearly there are circumstances in which any "open forum" can be
>misused, as John Turmel well knows.
JCT: Until rule changes are official, it's unfair to infer my
postings are breaking those rules. If a limit of 20K were set, I'd
abide by it. Until then, any charge as to length is a cheap shot since
he himself pointed out "There is in principle no problem with longer
pieces."
>When the extent of this misuse reduces its usefulness to those
>intending appropriate use, this kind of activity becomes parasitical.
>Consequently all providers of fora intended to be as open as
>possible, (including Mailbase) have made provision for the possible
>exclusion of misusers.
JCT: He might have wished to call my posting "misuse" but until
the rules have been changed, I have abided by all the rules and have
not "misused" no matter is alleged.
>The question therefore is to what extent do John's activities reduce
>the usefulness of econ-lets to others?
JCT: My activities were speech. To what extent did what I write
reduce the usefulness of econ-lets to others?
>I have read a number of complaints over the years and am sympathetic
>to the feelings of those who have complained, but given that those
>who aren't interested in reading John Turmel's postings can delete
>them unread
JCT: Therein lies the whole silliness that Brian Zisk has been
trying to explain all these years. Since some readers want even more,
why don't those who want less just not read them?
>I have not seen enough hard evidence that people have left because of
>the proportion of marginally relevant material.
JCT: That's true. There has been virtually no non-relevant
material and no one has left because any posts were too
long. The only people I'm aware have left were some whose posts were
criticized as being too long.
>If there were sufficient hard evidence that John's activities made
>econ-lets less useful to its members.
JCT: My so-called illicit "activities" were always writing.
>Then I would support John's address being blocked by Mailbase.
>Regards, Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk
JCT: Even if Richard could gather sufficient evidence of the
misuse by writing, this is another totally new censorship criterion.
Whether or not someone's posts make the correspondence less useful to
its members would need another censorship committee for this decision
though I'm sure Richard could find others ready to serve with him.
Once it is accepted that quality-control condition b does not
exist because articles have always been directly posted, not proposed,
so far, Richard's suggestion to have me censored from the list had no
legal basis until the rules are changed.
And if the rules are changed from the official rules I now abide
by to the ones Richard proposes, I will still submit articles to
Richard's censorship board though I'd expect, in order to be fair,
that everyone else's posts also go through Richard's quality control
board too.
And though I don't think Richard has really considered the
ramifications of what he suggested, I have never heard anyone state
the pro-censorship argument so clearly before. I think he will someday
regret publishing his pro-censorship arguments. But so far, they're
only arguments, not the rules. The last time the slow-readers popped
up complaining, I told him to change the rules. He did not. So stick
by the current "open forum" rules or put the pro-censorship rules up
for adoption and then I would decide whether I want to remain in such
an "open forum."
Fortunately, Brian Zisk's post put an end to that attempt.
The moderator should quit wasting our time on a censorship
crusade to help the slow-reading non-contributors and learn to ignore
them like I and others do. We've got better things to be talking about
and I had hoped it was the last I'd hear of quality control from our
moderators.
I still remember with fondness our stay with Richard and his
family on our first UK visit and I thought I had his friendship and
respect as an engineer on the LETS project. so I was quite stunned at
his censorship attempt was prepared to brace him on the subject at the
local currency panel at TOES98 in Birmingham but when he came up to me
and gave me a big hug, I thought he'd changed his mind about it and I
didn't want to ruin our evening out on the town by bringing it up.
Now, once again, he raises censorship of my posts:
>Date: Sat Dec 12 16:52:58 1998
>From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
>Subject: econ-lets posting guidelines
>I have received a complaint about postings to econ-lets
JCT: All it took was one complaint to whet the censor's appetite.
>I think also that there is a general consensus on this list (with one
>possible exception) that community currencies are generally local,
>certainly multiple and community specific and not single or global.
>This list is therefore not the place to discuss reform of the
>conventional monetary system except to the extent that community
>currencies can play a role in this. Theological discussions about
>Christ's teachings in connection with monetary justice and interest
>are something I find interesting, but are not directly relevant to
>community currencies and therefore have no place on econ-lets.
JCT: Of course, I am the one who writes about Global LETS being
better than local LETS and what better way for the advocates of
keeping LETS small than to ban argument about getting LETS big.
And I'm the one who argues LETS as being the anti-thesis of the
banking systems used by orthodox economists.
And I'm the one who raises the theological discussions of the
Christian roots behind the LETS system.
So he has attempted to censor virtually every topic that I like
to write about. All he has to do now is ban any discussion of LETS's
social credit roots of LETS and every topic I am interested in will
have been censored.
And yet, I've heard some people who want to hear about the flaws
of orthodox banking. The economics tracts are posted to give LETSers
an idea of the kind of thinking they are going to have to face. And
some who want to hear about the philosophical roots behind LETS.
Richard's supposed to be an engineer and a Christian and one would
think he'd be delighted to know that LETS is based on Christ's
differential equation.
>In order to make this list more useful to those who have only limited
>and expensive bandwidth I would also ask those who write lengthy
>articles to publish these on the web and post a URL reference here on
>econ-lets if relevant.
JCT: The censorship argument is always raised in the name of
people who have expensive bandwidth though he has never actually cited
what a large fraction of a minute it might take to download one of my
30K posts. You'd think an engineer would have realized what tiny
bandwidth text files actually take.
And of course, why should we have to cater to the wishes of the
slow readers? If it's too much for them and the leave the list doesn't
the fact that the others stay not indicate that the majority don't
find it to be to much.
And as for posting URLs and making people go search out the
information themselves, I'd point out that someone did post the URL
for the Toronto Dollars but few people followed it up and might
have missed it had I not found the information interesting and posted
it. And it paid off. People did appreciate the article rather than
having to find the URL.themselves. I think it's a waste of time to
post URLs and make people go searching when we joined this list to
have such information sent to us.
>E.G. the specification for the networked
>community currencies software I am currently writing is published on
>http://www.driveout.demon.co.uk/mrs2.html
>Please also don't quote or repost entire lengthy messages when you
>only want to make a brief comment or reply to a sentence or paragraph
>- please just quote the relevant sentence or paragraph.
JCT: Actually, many people do re-post the entire previous article
which takes up more bandwidth than I ever use.
So what it boils down to is another attempt to get my posts off
the air, and after only one complaint. I must conclude that his big
bear hug and smiles were those of a two-faced hypocrite. The next time
we meet, he'd better forget about trying to hug me.
It seems that Richard is most interested in elementary topics
such as "What is a LETS?" and "LETS definitions." So I've decided it's
time to move the discussions of advanced LETS theory which offend some
people to new forum in 1999.
In order to discuss the implementation of a Global interest-free
LETS (Local Employment-Trading System) currency system with emphasis
on tracts from:
1) The Bible and Koran
2) "Tragedy and Hope" by Dr. Carroll Quigley
3) "The Babylonian Woe" by David Astle
4) "Social Credit" by Major C.H. Douglas
5) other monetary reform texts
I would invite readers interested in these banned topics to join
me in a new listserv: lets@onelist.com by visiting:
http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
-------------------------------
Date: Wed Dec 23 07:03:03 1998
From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
Subject: Re: TURMEL: econ-lets posting guidelines
John Turmel wrote:
>JCT: Criterion b was newly made up. One never had to propose
>material pre-publication before and the quality of anyone's polemics
>or erudition was never at issue either. This is the first time that
>quality control has been suggested which is clearly censorship.
This earlier post specifically concerned the econ-lets file archive
as opposed to the message archive. All messages posted in the normal
way are held in the message archive. The file archive however
is intended for relevant material of publishable quality which
may be longer than the acceptable length for postings.
Mailbase removes monthly message archives after 2 years, but the
file archives provide indefinite storage. As you do not appear
to understand this distinction your arguments about "censorship"
based on my earlier statements in connection with the _file_
archive are moot. You have frequently posted to the message archive
but have never specifically requested to have material published
through the _file_ archive. As econ-lets co-owner I would not
want just anything published on the file archive - there needs to
be a proofreading, quality control and editing process for materials
to qualify which requires involvement of more than one person.
At least one of these needs to take on the listowner responsibility
of publisher and have the time needed to do this.
The responsibility for publishing to the message archive is
that of everyone who sends messages to the list in the ordinary
manner. While (short) messages of a more informal and transitory
nature are also encouraged here there still needs to be a degree
of self-control by writers to ensure relevance and politeness,
reduce redundancy and improve effectiveness.
>JCT: Everyone's a critic but no one elected Richard to be the judge
>of my work. Besides, it had to have had some quality for him to use
>my original interpretation of the Parable of the Talents in his
>Biblical tract. As a guy who used my stuff to bolster his own
>writings, I find it hard to understand how he can allege a lack of
>quality.
There are beautiful pearls in there John, but it is hard work for a
reader finding them amongst all the straw of often repeated and
poorly organised themes. The econ-lets guidelines state that "shorter
posts are often more effective". I would very much like your efforts
at communication to be more effective. I also feel that for this to
happen you will need to consider at greater length and edit and edit
again to throw out all of the chaff and get to the kernel of what
you want to say. For pieces intended to be more durable you will need
also to find someone with a willingness to understand what you are
trying to get across, time and proofreading skills in order to give
an external quality control to what you are doing, as I have done
with the 2 or 3 longer articles I have written in an attempt to have
a wider influence. Written communication is an interactive process
which does not work at all well when the writer places all the
obligation of sorting, organising and understanding upon the reader.
I hope that I make it abundantly clear that what I am about here is
internal control excercised by writers being responsive to the
needs of their audience, not external control imposed by censorship.
>I still remember with fondness our stay with Richard and his family
>and I didn't want to ruin our evening out on the town by bringing
>it up.
John for all the care and energy you are putting into the project of
monetary reform and interest-free money you have my friendship,
respect and love and don't need to question this fact. And given that
this is true I can still want and ask you to be 10 times as effective
as you are being. I want you to win elections and get legal cases
against the common law crime of usury (theft) accepted and taken much
further in the courts than you have previously taken these. For your
effort in these matters you are a hero in my eyes and I don't want you
to be a perpetual loser in these things. I am not asking you to put
more energy or resources in than you are currently putting in - but I
feel strongly that if you put more of your total effort into
considering the needs of your audiences, who may be interested in the
heart of what you have to say but are slower in understanding the
surrounding complexities than you or I, you could be much more
effective in what you are doing.
>You'd think an engineer would have realized what tiny bandwidth
>text files actually take.
This morning I found 102K - over 15 thousand words of your posts all
sent through econ-lets. To read this much material with any care would
take me a few hours. I am glad to have found the gems I have in the
less than 5 percent of your output I have felt able to read carefully
and the perhaps 10 percent I have skipped through very quickly.
In this connection I consider it sad and impolite that you accused one
contributor to econ-lets of lying who tried to find time to read and
respond to some of your postings because he could not find time to
read all of them.
Downloading 102K may (depending on factors such as, compression,
server and router availability) take between 20-60 seconds for the
average modem in North America or Western Europe where 98% are served
by nearby modern digital exchanges and where phone lines consequently
support on average 28KBits/sec. However in the rest of the world
where phone calls can cost 10-20 times as much as in the UK (which
itself has much more expensive telephone costs than North America),
line quality is such that you might be lucky to get 2.4KBits/sec or
one twelfth of the line speed. In such remote parts there are likely
to be no Internet service providers accessible other than by using
national rate calls or, even worse, wireless telephony. At this speed
and cost, downloading a daily posting volume of 150K (allowing
some other people to get a word in edgeways) is very likely to make
the difference between people subscribing and not. I have known
some people to leave stating this reason, and I find it
difficult to recommend econ-lets to some people I meet whom I know
to be on the end of such expensive and low-bandwidth lines.
>JCT: Actually, many people do re-post the entire previous article
>which takes up more bandwidth than I ever use.
It does waste bandwidth and for this reason I ask people to quote
selectively, but it wastes less than your posting many articles daily
which are larger than the recommended limit, appear to have very
similar content to what you have posted many times before and which
few people on the receiving end will be able to read very much of.
I am sure that we both want the fields of community currencies,
interest free money and monetary reform to continue to expand. This
requires more places for more people to discuss these issues, but for
this expansion on the Internet to be useful, the discussion criteria
for these new places will need to be sufficiently well considered to
meet the needs of people who want to participate in these
discussions, in order to limit the degree of unneccessary overlap. In
this connection I welcome your initiative to widen and deepen this
discussion and make it available to more people by opening your new
forum. This will not be very useful however if there are too high a
proportion of lengthy or irrelevant cross posts.
>I would invite readers interested in these banned topics to join
>me in a new listserv: lets@onelist.com by visiting:
>http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
Best wishes to you and Pauline for Christmas and the New Year.
Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk AKA Rich@driveout.demon.co.uk
-------------------------------
Date: Wed Dec 23 08:59:03 1998
From: fraz@letsgo.u-net.com (Fraser How)
Subject: Re: TURMEL: econ-lets posting guidelines
Interesting stuff (to me) - some thoughts - (anyone not interested in
Fraser How's thoughts about anything hit your trash button NOW!)
>>b. the quality of the material proposed for publication
>JCT: Criterion b was newly made up.
Am I right in my understanding that what Richard is talking about here
is not the mail-list econ-LETS but a service of providing web/ftp
space for material - an "optional extra" if you like? Obviously there
would be some kind of "censorship" for this kind of service or do we
expect mailbase to freely provide ftp/web space to econ-lets
subscribers who want to publish porn - bomb-making instructions,
slanderous material, copywrited-and-no-permission-to republish stuf
etc etc etc. (criteria a - relevance to the purpose).
Criterion b (great name for a b movie ;-)) - I agree its a tricky
issue - I do not approve of censorship, and I also don't expect
someone else to sponsor what they consider to be nonsense at their own
cost. Obviously the person who is paying for the space must reserve
the right to decide what goes on it. (John - I'm not implying in this
that what you write is nonsense, though that appears to be a popular
opinion. I like and read most of your posts and find them mostly
interesting, informed and relevant, personally.)
Imagine a situation in which someone, somewhere wanted to publish a
lengthy article that was just totally off the wall in relation to
LETS - maybe completely misunderstanding the basics or mispresenting
it as something wierd/interest-bearing or whatever. Criterion a would
be met, but do we really think mailbase would be serving our
interests by sponsoring such stuff?
>>I do not consider John's postings to be erudite, while as polemics
>>they are not, in my view, of sufficient quality
>I find it hard to understand how he can allege a lack of quality.
Surely mailbase has "elected" him to make these decisions? If he
were saying "your work is not good enough for the mailing-list" - I
would join you immediately in complaining about it.
You may make excellent points and when you do it is good that other's
refer to them, is it not? We all want LETS to succeed, yes? Just
because you have good ideas or make some points well does not imply
that your work - as seen to date - necessarily would be suited to
mailbase-sponsored web publication, does it? Writing for email and
writing for the web is significantly different.
>>and it seems unlikely that John would be able to take on the
>>responsibilities even of temporary list co-ownership.
>JCT: How many other readers knew they were supposed to be ready
>to operate the list before they would be allowed to post?
We are free to post without this responsibility (except in the
self-regulation sense) - again - it seems to me that Richard is
refering to publishing on web/ftp space, not simply posting to the
list. Please correct me if I am wrong Richard!
>>Clearly there are circumstances in which any "open forum" can be
>>misused, as John Turmel well knows.
>JCT: Until rule changes are official, it's unfair to infer my
>postings are breaking those rules.
I was curious about this so I just went to the mailbase web site and
here's what I found:
>Shorter messages are often more effective, but there is no formal
>limit. If you want to contribute more than say, 10 screenfuls of
>text, it may be better to make the information available as a file
>which users can request and to post a short description to the list.
So, it's not "official" - agreed - more an issue of "netiquette" for
the list. Disregarding netiquette for a private list could reasonably
be considered "misuse", imho.
>>Then I would support John's address being blocked by Mailbase.
>>Regards, Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk
I personally find this hard to imagine - the obvious and much quoted
solution is the Trash button or a filtering system. I have another
suggestion for you all - photoreading. "That'll never work" - I know
- just like LETS and aroplanes ;-)
Regarding the email-list (not the web/ftp space which is a different
kettle of fish) I'd like to say that I find John's postings more
useful than a lot of other stuff i get from econ-lets and, aside from
possibly the argument about length-considerations for those with slow
connections (about which i am as yet unconvinced) I can see no
problem with his "activities" (ie writing).
>>I think also that there is a general consensus on this list (with
>>one possible exception) that community currencies are generally
>>local, certainly multiple and community specific and not single or
>>global.
Yeah, but there is a global community made up of "all humans on
planet earth" and with multiple currencies I can see no reason why we
can't discuss a global LETS. Seems as relevant as much of what is
posted here - or more so than much. After all - people want to
discuss mono-small-LETS - so why shouldn't we discuss mono-big-LETS
if we want? Wherever there's a "general consensus" there's probably
something useful that's not being seen yet, generally.
>>This list is therefore not the place to discuss reform of the
>>conventional monetary system except to the extent that community
>>currencies can play a role in this.
(econ-lets guidelines)
>This list is intended for the open and informal discussion of
>economic, social and telematics issues surrounding the development
>of LETS and similar community currencies.
The conventional currency system certainly "surrounds" the
development of LETS in my reality tunnel - any changes to that may
well have a significant impact on LETS. Seems very relevant to me -
it's not just cc playing a role in changing con money, - any changing
of con money will have implications for developing cc too, surely?
>>Theological discussions about
>>Christ's teachings in connection with monetary justice and interest
>>are something I find interesting, but are not directly relevant to
>>community currencies and therefore have no place on econ-lets.
Personally I would not have come across these ideas except through
econ-lets and I feel they are interesting and relevant - in a
traditionally "Christian" culture I feel that these issues certainly
fall into the category of "social issues surrounding the development
of LETS and similar community currencies".
>JCT: The censorship argument is always raised in the name of people
>who have expensive bandwidth though he has never actually cited what
>a large fraction of a minute it might take to download one of my
>30K posts. You'd think an engineer would have realized what tiny
>bandwidth text files actually take.
I'm curious - to someone with slow bandwidth what difference does it
actualy make? What would be the differece in time/cost between 1 and
10 pages of text, for example. How significant is this issue really,
in practice, now, and for how many people?
>JCT: And of course, why should we have to cater to the wishes of the
>slow readers? If it's too much for them and they leave the list
>doesn't the fact that the others stay not indicate that the majority
>don't find it to be to much.
I agree. Slow readers are rapidly going to be entering the low end of
the human gene pool (no disrespect, just evolution) - I don't think
we should wait for them to heal the planet - it'll be too slow.
>JCT: I think it's a waste of time to post URLs and make people go
>searching when we joined this list to have information sent to us.
There again, if you can't be asked to check out a website to find
something you're interested in then are you really interested?
Posting a bit more than just the URL makes sense though - something
so people have enough info to decide if the are interested or not is
always helpful.
>JCT: So what it boils down to is another attempt to get my posts off
>the air, and after only one complaint. I must conclude that his big
>bear hug and smiles were those of a two-faced hypocrite. The next
>time we meet, he'd better forget about trying to hug me.
You seem to sorely misjudge the man, from my point of view, John.
Without aggressive and tenuously justifiable personal attacks like
this on your fellow LETSoids I believe you would have more success -
which would be great for all of us. Being nasty isn't going to build
us a new and happy world - ever, whatever the circumstances.
>JCT: It seems that Richard is most interested in elementary topics
>such as "What is a LETS?" and "LETS definitions." So I've decided
>it's time to move the discussions of advanced LETS theory which
>offend some people to new forum in 1999.
I don't consider Richard's excellent work on MRS to be "elementary" -
do you? Perhaps you don't think it is valuable or useful - fair
enough opinion - but open your eyes to the fact that Richard - like
you - is doing LETS development in the way that he considers will be
most useful/effective. We don't have to agree about this - diversity
is strength - unless we fight over it.
>I would invite readers interested in these banned topics to join
>me in a new listserv: lets@onelist.com by visiting:
>http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
Fascinating - I'll certainly check it out. And as far as i am
concerned - these topics have not been "banned" by anyone - take it
easy!! LETS discuss these things on econ-lets too if we want - so
long as we make the lets/cc connection clear.
Best wishes and Merry Christmas anyone who has read this far (and
anyone else who has just sneaked to the bottom!) Fraser
-------------------------------
Date: Wed Dec 23 14:56:18 1998
From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
Subject: Re: TURMEL: econ-lets posting guidelines
To: fraz@letsgo.u-net.com Cc: econ-lets@mailbase.ac.uk
Fraser wrote:
>Am I right in my understanding that what Richard is talking about
>here is not the mail-list econ-LETS but a service of providing
>web/ftp space for material - an "optional extra" if you like?
Yes.
>Imgine a situation in which someone, somewhere wanted to publish a
>lengthy article that was just totally off the wall in relation to
>LETS - maybe completely misunderstanding the basics or mispresenting
>it as something wierd/interest-bearing or whatever. Criterion a
>would be met, but do we really think mailbase would be serving our
>interests by sponsoring such stuff?
Thanks for this Fraser. In practice as a listowner needs to be
involved at the very least in the technical act of uploading the file
and the amount of time listowners have is a very real constraint. I
would support temporary listowners being enabled to do this job so
long as they firstly had the confidence of other contributing members
of econ-lets and secondly were willing to take this role sufficiently
seriously in relation to ensuring adequate publishing quality control
procedures were met to suit the purpose of Mailbase in building a
quality source of information for the UK Academic community (also in
relation to Mailbase's information sharing objectives with other
communities).
>Surely mailbase has "elected" him to make these decisions? If he
>were saying "your work is not good enough for the mailing-list" - I
>would join you immediately in complaining about it.
Mailbase originally set up econ-lets in response to my request for
them to do this through their normal process for starting new lists
at that time.
>>JCT: How many other readers knew they were supposed to be ready
>>to operate the list before they would be allowed to post?
>We are free to post without this responsibility (except in the
>self-regulation sense) - again - it seems to me that Richard is
>refering to publishing on web/ftp space, not simply posting to the
>list. Please correct me if I am wrong Richard!
Correct interpretation Fraser.
>Posting a bit more than just the URL makes sense though - something
>so people have enough info to decide if the are interested or not
>is always helpful.
I agree.
>Fascinating - I'll certainly check it out. And as far as i am
>concerned - these topics have not been "banned" by anyone - take it
>easy!! LETS discuss these things on econ-lets too if we want - so
>long as we make the lets/cc connection clear.
Thanks for this Fraser. There is an obligation on the part of the
person posting to econ-lets to make the connection clear. If it isn't
really about LETS as most of us would understand this term or
community currencies then it should be discussed somewhere else. It
is easier for someone who wants to support a discussion with a
different focus to get this hosted now than it was a few years ago. I
welcome a broad discussion on econ-lets but for it to continue to be
worth providing listowner support and wanting to be associated with
it in this context it needs to retain a focus on its stated purpose.
-------------------------------
Date: Thu Dec 24 16:41:50 1998
From: johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel)
Subject: TURMEL: econ-lets posting guidelines #2
>From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
>You have frequently posted to the message archive but have never
>specifically requested to have material published through the
>_file_ archive.
JCT: That's right. I have never sent anything for publication for
posting to the any archive. So why did you write:
>>>Then I would support John's address being blocked by Mailbase.
JCT: Why block postings which aren't going to the file archives
anyway unless it's to block them from where I was sending them, the
message list?
>As econ-lets co-owner I would not want just anything published on the
>file archive - there needs to be a proofreading, quality control and
>editing process for materials to qualify
JCT: Again, I have only sent information to the message archive
so why talk about blocking my posts?
>there still needs to be a degree of self-control by writers to ensure
>relevance and politeness, reduce redundancy and improve effectiveness
JCT: I think most people have agreed that my posts are always
related to LETS, are usually polite unless I'm giving it as good as
I'm getting it, have little redundancy since I'm usually dealing with
new information or previous discussion. As for improving their
effectiveness, that's my problem, no one else's. You can bet I try to
make them as informative and entertaining as I can and I don't see how
anyone can help me in that effort.
>There are beautiful pearls in there John, but it is hard work for a
>reader finding them amongst all the straw of often repeated and
>poorly organised themes.
JCT: In answer to complaints about the length of my posts, I've
often pointed out that what some people find gems, others find are
dross. Christina once asked that I cut back on the things she's not
interested in while leaving in the information she did want to know
about. How am I supposed to know beforehand what some people will like
and what others won't? And whose taste am I to try to satisfy?
>ad make it available to more people by opening your new
>forum. This will not be very useful however if there are too high a
>proportion of lengthy or irrelevant cross posts.
JCT: If anyone finds your criticisms to be valid, they just won't
subscribe. But since most of my material is either LETS news or
advanced LETS engineering theory they can't get anywhere else, I'm not
too worried about reserving these posts for lets@onelist.com. Though I
may occasionally participate in the elementary debates on econ-lets,
those who are interested in topics I find interesting will know where
to come and find it.
>>I would invite readers interested in these banned topics to join
>>me in a new listserv: lets@onelist.com by visiting:
>>http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
JCT: Actually, it makes sense to have debates on large and global
LETS on a separate list and leave econ-lets for discussions of the
problems that would not occur in large and global LETS. I can
appreciate how people who have nothing more to discuss than the
problems they're having with small LETS not appreciating discussions
about LETS that don't exhibit the problems the are discussing.
>Best wishes to you and Pauline for Christmas and the New Year.
JCT: Best wishes to you and your family too.
>Date: Wed Dec 23 14:56:18 1998
>From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
>Subject: Re: TURMEL: econ-lets posting guidelines
>Fraser wrote:
>>Am I right in my understanding that what Richard is talking about
>>here is not the mail-list econ-LETS but a service of providing
>>web/ftp space for material - an "optional extra" if you like?
>Yes.
JCT: But why try to block my posts when I've never used nor asked
for this optional extra?
>>Surely mailbase has "elected" him to make these decisions? If he
>>were saying "your work is not good enough for the mailing-list" - I
>>would join you immediately in complaining about it.
JCT: Since I only ever posted to the message list and never
posted to a file list, never even knew about a file list, what else
can I have thought of a request to block my posts?
>>>JCT: How many other readers knew they were supposed to be ready
>>>to operate the list before they would be allowed to post?
>>We are free to post without this responsibility (except in the
>>self-regulation sense) - again - it seems to me that Richard is
>>refering to publishing on web/ftp space, not simply posting to the
>>list. Please correct me if I am wrong Richard!
>Correct interpretation Fraser.
JCT: But it wasn't a question of blocking my posts to the web/ftp
space because I never posted there.
>>Posting a bit more than just the URL makes sense though - something
>>so people have enough info to decide if the are interested or not
>>is always helpful.
>I agree.
JCT: Yet others have stated they don't want to have to chase
elsewhere for the information and prefer to get all the information
from the listserv. Are their wishes to be ignored?
>There is an obligation on the part of the person posting to econ-lets
>to make the connection clear. If it isn't really about LETS as most
>of us would understand this term or community currencies then it
>should be discussed somewhere else.
JCT: The issue is not topics not relevant to LETS such as
historical roots and global implementation. The relevance to LETS of
my posts on these topics is not at issue.
>It is easier for someone who wants to support a discussion with a
>different focus to get this hosted now than it was a few years ago. I
>welcome a broad discussion on econ-lets but for it to continue to be
>worth providing listowner support and wanting to be associated with
>it in this context it needs to retain a focus on its stated purpose.
JCT: How broad can it be if its historical roots and global
implications are frowned upon?
Fraser also mentioned:
>>Shorter messages are often more effective, but there is no formal
>>limit.
>So, it's not "official" - agreed - more an issue of "netiquette" for
>the list. Disregarding netiquette for a private list could reasonably
>be considered "misuse", imho.
JCT: 10 screenfuls is 200 lines, about 4 pages. I doubt my
average daily output is very much more than that.
>>Then I would support John's address being blocked by Mailbase.
>I personally find this hard to imagine - the obvious and much quoted
>solution is the Trash button or a filtering system.
JCT: Like the man who started the alt.fan.john-turmel newsgroup
said:
>From: mcr@amaterasu.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (Michael Richardson)
>Newsgroups: alt.config,ott.general,ncf.general
>Subject: PROPOSAL: alt.fan.john-turmel
>Date: Wed Jan 22 11:49:40 1997
>Many of you have enjoyed the posts of Ottawa's John Turmel.
>Many of you shudder when your newsreader comes up with a subject
>line "TURMEL". In any case, you know it will be an interesting day.
>Those of you with kill files probably don't know what you are
>missing.
JCT: So I realize that even those who hate my posts just can't
resist reading them. That's what they're complaining about. They're
really mad at themselves for not being to resist the temptation.
>Regarding the email-list (not the web/ftp space which is a different
>kettle of fish) I'd like to say that I find John's postings more
>useful than a lot of other stuff i get from econ-lets and, aside from
>possibly the argument about length-considerations for those with slow
>connections (about which i am as yet unconvinced) I can see no
>problem with his "activities" (ie writing).
JCT: Thanks but you'll have to agree that it will be better to
end all these complaints by moving the majority of my discussions to
lets@onelist.com.
>I can see no reason why we can't discuss a global LETS. Seems as
>relevant as much of what is posted here - or more so than much. After
>all - people want to discuss mono-small-LETS - so why shouldn't we
>discuss mono-big-LETS if we want?
JCT: But the regular complaints do take away from the time for
serious discussions so again, moving these discussion to
lets@onelist.com should be an improvement everyone can be happy with.
Except for those complainers who still want to know what's being said
but would look foolish registering at the new list.
>The econ-lets guidelines state that "shorter posts are often more
>effective".
JCT: Not if you've got lots to cover. And being repetitive would
certainly not be very entertaining.
>I would very much like your efforts at communication to be more
>effective.
JCT: And the only suggestion so far has been to cut back on what
I have to guess people don't want to know about.
>I also feel that for this to happen you will need to consider at
>greater length and edit and edit again to throw out all of the chaff
>and get to the kernel of what you want to say.
JCT: Back to the old problem. Who is to know what to cut out?
Why don't you provide a few examples of what I've written that should
have been cut out.
>For pieces intended to be more durable you will need also to find
>someone with a willingness to understand what you are trying to get
>across, time and proofreading skills in order to give an external
>quality control to what you are doing, as I have done with the 2 or
>3 longer articles I have written in an attempt to have a wider
>influence.
JCT: Supreme Court of Canada Justice Estey once complimented me
on my "eloquent and articulate presentation" and I've had to may
speakers following me say "tough act to follow" so I'm not too worried
about finding a proofreader to improve quality control.
>Written communication is an interactive process which does not work
>at all well when the writer places all the obligation of sorting,
>organising and understanding upon the reader.
JCT: Maybe for you but as the top banking systems engineer in
what I consider a quite elementary subject, I don't need the
interactive process for quality control.
>I hope that I make it abundantly clear that what I am about here is
>internal control excercised by writers being responsive to the
>needs of their audience, not external control imposed by censorship.
JCT: I'd prefer to rate my work by the applause rather than by
the boos I get.
>John for all the care and energy you are putting into the project
>of monetary reform and interest-free money you have my friendship,
>respect and love and don't need to question this fact.
JCT: It's pretty hard when you've found ALL the topics I'm
interested in objectionable.
>I feel strongly that if you put more of your total effort into
>considering the needs of your audiences, who may be interested in the
>heart of what you have to say but are slower in understanding the
>surrounding complexities than you or I, you could be much more
>effective in what you are doing.
JCT: Again, I can't know beforehand what people are going to like
and what they won't.
>If it isn't really about LETS as most of us would understand this
>term or community currencies, it should be discussed elsesomewhere.
JCT: The issue is not topics not relevant to LETS such as
historical roots and global implementation. The relevance to LETS of
my posts on these topics is not at issue.
>>I think also that there is a general consensus on this list (with
>>one possible exception) that community currencies are generally
>>local, certainly multiple and community specific and not single or
>>global.
>Yeah, but there is a global community made up of "all humans on
>planet earth" and with multiple currencies I can see no reason why we
>can't discuss a global LETS. Seems as relevant as much of what is
>posted here - or more so than much. After all - people want to
>discuss mono-small-LETS - so why shouldn't we discuss mono-big-LETS
>if we want? Wherever there's a "general consensus" there's probably
>something useful that's not being seen yet, generally.
JCT: But the regular complaints do take away from the time for
serious discussions so again, moving these discussion to
lets@onelist.com should be an improvement everyone can be happy with.
Except for those complainers who still want to know what's being said
but would look foolish registering at the new list.
>>>This list is therefore not the place to discuss reform of the
>>>conventional monetary system except to the extent that community
>>>currencies can play a role in this.
>Seems very relevant to me - it's not just cc playing a role in
>changing con money, - any changing of con money will have
>implications for developing cc too, surely?
JCT: Quite true that understanding the flaws in the orthodox
money system can only help LETSers explain LETS to people misinformed
about banking by orthodox economics. And it's a chore we will have to
face as you'll find that most people in power have been infected with
double-thoughts of Economics.
>>Theological discussions about
>>Christ's teachings in connection with monetary justice and interest
>>are something I find interesting, but are not directly relevant to
>>community currencies and therefore have no place on econ-lets.
>Personally I would not have come across these ideas except through
>econ-lets and I feel they are interesting and relevant - in a
>traditionally "Christian" culture I feel that these issues certainly
>fall into the category of "social issues surrounding the development
>of LETS and similar community currencies".
JCT: Actually, when all these topics are no longer sent to econ-
lets, there won't be much left of interest for those who already
understand the basics. "What is a LETS" and "LETS definitions" can
only sustain interest so long.
>I'm curious - to someone with slow bandwidth what difference does it
>actualy make? What would be the differece in time/cost between 1 and
>10 pages of text, for example. How significant is this issue really,
>in practice, now, and for how many people?
JCT: No one has ever actually mentioned the actual cost of my 30
second to 2 minute daily downloads. I'd be interested in knowing how
many pennies it actually costs too.
>I agree. Slow readers are rapidly going to be entering the low end of
>the human gene pool (no disrespect, just evolution) - I don't think
>we should wait for them to heal the planet - it'll be too slow.
JCT: But just as many schools have advanced classes for the
quicker students, it shouldn't hurt to have another LETS listserv for
the same reason.
>>http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets
>Fascinating - I'll certainly check it out. And as far as i am
>concerned - these topics have not been "banned" by anyone - take it
>easy!! LETS discuss these things on econ-lets too if we want - so
>long as we make the lets/cc connection clear.
JCT: Okay, so they haven't actually been banned, they've only
been complained about and frowned upon. So it still does seem best to
move them to where they won't cause any more displeasure.
I hope you join us on lets@onelist.com for some interesting and
entertaining LETS developments in the new year. As I expect 1999 to be
the final year in the Abolish Interest Rates with Global LETS project,
there should be some momentous events as we attempt to reach religious
and world leaders.
-------------------------------
Date: Fri Dec 25 02:32:27 1998
From: di238@freenet.carleton.ca (Terry Cottam)
Subject: Re: TURMEL: econ-lets posting guidelines
Well, I'm off skiiing for the holidays so regrettably I'll unsubscribe
from econ-lets. This will spare me the Turmel email barrage I would
otherwise be in for when I get back :-) If I get back. I'm going to do
some hard thinking about LETS. Best wishes and happy holidays, Terry
-------------------------------
Date: Tue Dec 29 08:31:23 1998
From: elise_benjamin@oxfordgreens.freeserve.co.uk ("Elise Benjamin")
Subject: TURMEL postings
Here we go again!
I have returned from a 6 day break to find more emails than I care to
count from Turmel - not to mention those replying to him. That's fine
- I read the subject and glance if it looks interesting, but
generally I just delete them. Anyone who's been on econ-lets for some
time must have realised that nothing anyone says will stop Turmel's
postings (he appears to be someone who, no matter how many people say
otherwise, is always right!) so why try!
I am sending this email reluctantly (I would rather not spend my time
responding) in the hope that others will consider my suggestion -
that is to only reply to Turmel if you really, really, really feel
you must!
Sometimes it feels like the biggest exchanges are the ones addressing
Turmel's postings and I don't think replying to him is helping, so
why not leave replies to the times when he actually posts something
that is brief enough for those of us with very little time to spare
to respond to - otherwise we will just continue with futher versions
of the current exchanges forever more and quite frankly I'm bored
with it! Best wishes for the season, Elise
-------------------------------
Date: Tue Dec 29 09:52:57 1998
From: harpers@ix.netcom.com (rk harper)
Subject: Re: TURMEL postings
Comment from a California lurker: The quality of information on this
list is quite good. Mr. TURMOIL provides a subtle clue to an apparent
ego problem when he starts each of his posts with his NAME IN CAPS!
While his posts are not without value, an ego THAT LARGE and a volume
of posting THAT LONG deserves its own list, which appears to be in
the works. Mere mortals may have trouble with that list, however, so
he may be back. Large egos do not enjoy conversing with themselves.
In the meantime the DELETE key or a filter are better solutions than
censorship. Thanks for the great information. My part of the world
has been slow to see the value of LETS. Rich Harper
-------------------------------
Date: Tue Dec 29 10:08:45 1998
From: mmattos@pipcom.com (Mary Mattos)
Subject: Re: TURMEL postings
I suspect that most folks are fed up. I don't think many people on
this list actually respond to those messages. the length of the
messages appears to come from debates (and what boils down to one
upmanship) on a myriad of other lists, quoted and fwded to econ-lets.
that's probably why it's so difficult to wade through it (for those
who actually even attempt it). I just delete them as soon as I see
them. the concepts may be interesting but the ego is offputting.
-------------------------------
Date: Wed Dec 30 00:38:31 1998
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
Subject: Re: TURMEL postings
I should know better than to send out the following but, what the
h#*!. Turmel's postings have been quite voluminous in the last month
or so after a prolonged period of relative absence (which probably
helped the heart grow fonder). And recently, in addition to the JT
barrage, we have seen the resurgence of the posts dedicated almost
exclusively to the relative merits and possibility of censoring the
prodigious outpourings. Most everyone complains but also agrees that
there is some merit to be found if one spends the time to go through
the irrelevant, the tangential, and the excessive ornamentation of
these posts.
I have gotten so I occasionally take a glance but usually just
delete. As to the "relevant" stuff, I have never found anything so
startlingly original that it made me feel (as I do with some
philosophers) that it's worthwhile to undertake the work of going
through the massive accompanying verbiage. I know that gold ore is
considered high grade if it contains 10 ounces of gold per ton of ore.
JT's stuff is far from high grade and I don't have anything resembling
a lixivation, cyanidization, or amalgamation mill on my email browser.
But it's true that there are some nuggets in all that rock and gravel.
But then this morning I remembered a rather fashionable example made
long ago about Shakespeare, monkeys, and typewriters. There I've
said it!!! Paul H. Dillon
-------------------------------
Send a comment to John Turmel
Home