Date: Thu Dec 31 07:31:59 1998 From: email@example.com (John Turmel) Subject: [lets] TURMEL: TURMEL postings >From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Elise Benjamin") >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! JCT: What gives anyone the right to try to stop my posts?
>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! JCT: Do you think it fair to ask people not to discuss things with me just because you don't want to read them?
>Sometimes it feels like the biggest exchanges are the ones addressing >Turmel's postings JCT: That's right. Why won't they just press delete quit wasting our bandwidth with such discussions. Hey, isn't this is another one of those posts that's wasting our bandwidth?
>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. JCT: I think you confuse brevity with quality. Are we supposed to keep our discussions brief just because you have little time?
>- otherwise we will just continue with further versions of the >current exchanges forever more and quite frankly I'm bored >with it! Best wishes for the season, Elise JCT: How do you get bored with articles you don't read? And I pointed out that starting in the new year, I'll keep my posts to this list on local problems and all the stuff about Global LETS, religious roots of LETS, social credit roots of LETS, Economics references to LETS, and intervention with the world's political, religious and financial leaders will be restricted to the email@example.com listserv. With this intention already stated, why keep harping about it?
>Date: Tue Dec 29 09:52:57 1998 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org (rk harper) >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! JCT: Actually, the purpose is to allow the people who don't want to read my posts the chance to skip them while allowing those who do not to miss them. When you see the TURMEL, you know what you can expect so why do people still keep complaining about their reading them?
>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. JCT: Call it ego if you must but I can't help being proud of LETS and my contribution to its development.
>Mere mortals may have trouble with that list, however, so he may be >back. Large egos do not enjoy conversing with themselves. JCT: Actually, there were about 40 subscriptions last week so it looks like there'll be enough interested feedback to generate some entertaining and enlightening discussions.
>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 JCT: And I was quick enough to have been promoting Global LETS three years before Michael invented the Local LETS and I'm sure the big picture can only become clearer and clearer.
>Date: Tue Dec 29 10:08:45 1998 >From: email@example.com (Mary Mattos) >I suspect that most folks are fed up. JCT: And I suspect that it's the same half dozen who keep complaining that are the only ones truly fed up. You can only take so much of the discussions about "What is a LETS."
>I don't think many people on this list actually respond to those >messages. JCT: Enough to let me know that someone's getting something out of it.
>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. JCT: Actually, I must admit that I enjoy showing off the one- upmanship possible when one knows how to use LETS in debates. It's a rush to know the LETS engineering inside out and use it win every economic debate, of knowing that I can never be stumped no matter how educated and eloquent the opponent. You should try it out. I've armed you with hundreds of arguments. All you have to do is find yourself and economist to debate you in public and you too can experience the rush of LETS one-upmanship. In the early years before before I learned about Michael Linton and his working model, I picketed the Bank of Canada for 5 years every Thursday when they set the interest rates and debated economists before large crowds. It was a real joy confounding them and tripping them up at every turn to the delight of the hundreds of spectators ten deep around us. I had a special name for economists who'd argue with me and get their brains beaten up over and over but who kept coming back for more: gnurds. And then I found all sorts of gnurds on the Internet, including LETSers who would argue that paper tokens were not feasible, that large LETS were not feasible, that governments and large corporations should not be allowed to join, etc., all eventually proven wrong or to be proven wrong.
>that's probably why it's so difficult to wade through it (for those >who actually even attempt it). JCT: I'm sure not everyone have such difficulty.
>I just delete them as soon as I see them. the concepts may be >interesting but the ego is offputting. JCT: Fortunately, not everyone shuns interesting content because they don't like the style.
>Date: Wed Dec 30 00:38:31 1998 >From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Paul Dillon") >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. JCT: I'm still waiting for someone to point out a few examples of the irrelevant, tangential and excessive ornamentation that could be deleted. I've asked what in particular people think did not merit being posted with the good stuff and the fact no one has ever actually cited any specific passages seems to indicate that though there's a lot, there's not much to be cut that isn't unique or relevant. I'm still curious what you found to be thus and hope you can provide a few examples of what you think I should have edited out to improve my output.
>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. JCT: Considering it's so massive, you should have no trouble mentioning some dross though the last person who thought only 90% was unworthy couldn't actually cite any passages from that 90% in particular.
>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. JCT: Is "What is a LETS" what you'd call high-grade discussion?
>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 JCT: But though you have said you've found much gravel, you actually haven't said it to us. I hope to find out so that I may be able to better judge my work. Nevertheless, there's going to a lot of mining going on in 1999 and for those willing sift through it all, there's going to be a ton of brand new stuff exclusive on email@example.com. The new year is now here and I hope those who are interested in these kind of discussions join us with a visit to: http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets I wish you all a happy new year and success in your LETS efforts. And I do like bananas but it doesn't mean... -------------------------------
Date: Thu Dec 31 09:38:27 1998 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (rk harper) Subject: Re: TURMEL: TURMEL postings John: I appreciate your response. I apologise for misspelling your name in my prior posting. You obviously have a good mind and abundant energy. As I stated before, I don't feel that your posts lack merit, but they also do not lack volume. What I feel they lack is a sensitivity to your audience, who are your natural allies. Could you perhaps write a book, and define your issues and leadership thru that mechanism? By placing YOUR NAME IN CAPS at the start of each SUBJECT LINE, you personally become the subject of each of your postings. Is the discussion about JOHN C TURMEL or is it about LETS? Can these two subjects be separated IN YOUR MIND? Suggestions: Place your name in caps (if you must) in the SENDER LINE. Most of us mortals can figure out from that information who the post is from. (You are an engineer: if you post to the HTML window, you can have your name in colors and even make it flash, if that pleases you.) For everyone: strive for a higher signal to noise ratio. No one has unlimited time, and efficient communication is valuable. Your audience appreciates it. Religious overtones sometimes (not always) smack of fanatacism, which rapidly limits the size of your audience. Remember that discussion groups are valuable free suggestions shared among equals, not orders SHOUTED at subordinates. Thanks for your information---you have had some great nuggets. Rich -------------------------------
Date: Thu Dec 31 23:28:31 1998 From: email@example.com ("Paul Dillon") Subject: Re: TURMEL: TURMEL postings In response to my post concerning; Shakespeare, monkeys and typewriters, John Turmel wrote the following: > JCT: I'm still waiting for someone to point out a few examples >of the irrelevant, tangential and excessive ornamentation that could >be deleted. OK. I accept the challenge. And will annotate to some degree. My approach is to ask: What is the point of the message. I move from the presupposition that posts to an email listserv are best when they treat one topic per message unless clearly otherwise stated. The following is taken from your post: "Turmel: The Ultimate Right. Is this Our future #2" What is the point of the message? The following are the passages that are clearly dedicated to a discussion of LETS: JCT: snip These passages make up about 15% of the total post. Even some of the above is included out of a benevolent spirit on my part. But what's the point? How would it look if distilled and presented succinctly? There are several: (1) LETS can cure a lot of social ills and (2) People who don't realize this are blinded by their own fortunate position in the prevailing economic/financial system. (3) Astle has written a good book on money that LETSers would probably enjoy. I find the point (3) useful and am glad John Turmel posted it to the list. Now points 1 and 2 are in themselves questionable and debatable, an invitation to a certain "pouring the empty into the void" kind of discussion and I don't see how they really could help anyone trying to construct a functioning LETS system or even to convince a sceptic of the virtues of LETS. With the exception of the reference to the Astle book, there is nothing original here and certainly what is being said has been said better elsewhere and I think most of us have heard it before, probably many times from JCT himself. Though it's good to repeat these sentiments, what percentage of econ-lets members really want to read the other 85% of the message just to find out that there is a LETS advocate in the group? SO. WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE AUTHOR OF THE POST, NEVER SENT TO ECON_LETS, OR MAYBE JUST NEVER WRITTEN? EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT WAS ALL TANGENTIAL, IRRELEVANT, OR MERE ORNAMENTATION--OFTEN REVEALING A DEEP PARANOID PSYCHOLOGY AT WORK, Some examples: The first 40 or so lines would be deleted because they discuss clearly tangential information, apparently about the actions of a Canadian official, they would be nothing but a footnote at best in a carefully thought out post. But passages such as the following are totally tangential and irrelevant to any discussion of LETS:
>"I can just imagine Harris's alibi when he faces his judgment day: >"I had to cut their life-support tickets because we had to >balance our books." >Though I've heard it said "forgive them for they know not what >they are doing," it's pretty tough when we consider the results of >policies written by their hands. It does validate the notion that >people who study finance and economics are driven insane in this >most obvious way. " If anyone can tell me what that passage has to do with LETS, please do! Another example of the tangential, irrelevant, and in this case, almost paranoid-defensive is the following:
>What's amazing is that in every town and state everywhere around >the world are politicians doing exactly the same thing on the same >grounds of financial expediency" I could go on throughout this example, and every other thing I've ever read by JT, but really don't consider this a good use of my time. But I've answered the challenge John Turmel made concerning the absence of anything showing how his posts are clearly not within the protocols of this listserv and should be severely trimmed or maybe just held inside until they condense into something truly worthwhile. Zen meditation is a great way to develop patience, maybe an hour a day would do John some good. That's all I have to say on the matter and will now simply return to the little delete button on my email browser while considering the big delete button in the cyberspace sky. Paul Dillon, co-owner econ-lets -------------------------------
Date: Thu Dec 31 13:33:16 1998 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Kay) Subject: Re: TURMEL postings John Turmel wrote: >JCT: What gives anyone the right to try to stop my posts? In what sense is anyone obliged to pay for diskspace, bandwidth and telephone bills to carry these posts? Does John believe in the concept of a free lunch? Richard Kay JCT: Doesn't this apply to every post. Why should mine be treated differently? -------------------------------
Date: Fri Jan 1 10:34:27 1999 From: email@example.com (josephine negro) Subject: Re: TURMEL postings Mary Mattos <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes >I suspect that most folks are fed up. I don't think many people on >this list actually respond to those messages Hear, Hear, Mary! josephine negro -------------------------------
Date: Fri Jan 1 13:14:25 1999 From: KRAZYAL@prodigy.net ("alypius m skinner") Subject: LETS To: email@example.com ("John Turmel") I find your posts on LETS very interesting. Have you considered writing a book on the subject--or have you already done that? ~Krazyal -------------------------------
Date: Thu Jan 7 11:06:09 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Removal from econ-lets list To: email@example.com As of 07/01/1999 16:06:09 the Mailbase administrators have removed you from the econ-lets list. This may have been because messages to you have been rejected for some reason, and error reports have been sent to the list owner. You can contact the list owner by sending a message to: firstname.lastname@example.org -------------------------------
Date: Thu Jan 7 13:08:14 1999 From: Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk ("Richard KAY") Subject: [TURMEL] removal from list On econ-lets we have had many complaints about the activities of one of our ex-members, John Turmel, in connection with the excessive posting length, frequency and disorganised contents of his postings, most of which were outside the topic area for which econ-lets was set up and the rest of which were only, at best, marginally connected to the topic. I feel that efforts to get him to moderate his behaviour went as far as could reasonably be considered possible, but have proved ultimately ineffective. This is part of a pattern of behaviour on his part which goes back some years and has resulted in his removal from many other forums. The effect of his continued presence here has been to reduce the general usefulness of econ-lets to its members such that a number have recently left and the average quality and usefulness of materials which are to be found in the message archives has been downgraded. Efforts to get him to moderate his behaviour in the past were successful to an extent for a while, but something more conclusive was needed this time around. I have therefore decided, following some consideration over the holiday period and consultation with others on econ-lets who either have or have had listownership responsibilities, to ask Mailbase to disable relaying of his mail through the Mailbase system. He claims to have a "right" of access, despite the JANET acceptable use policy which requires that users do not engage in activities which annoy other users. (JANET is the UK academic part of the Internet.) However, neither JANET nor Mailbase nor econ-lets are public spaces intended for whatever use anyone might choose. As listowner and founder of econ-lets I have always preferred to adopt as open an approach as possible, however the uses to which John has put econ-lets have always been marginal to its intended purpose and he has succeeded in testing my "as open as possible" approach beyond its limits. I would be willing to allow him back on if he apologises for his offensive content (including accusing other members of untruthfulness) as part of a public message demonstrating sufficient understanding of the reasons which have resulted in it having been neccessary to take this action (of banning his access) and promising to behave in a more responsible manner in future. John has recently started a list of his own, having given details in at least one of his recent postings. Because it is now possible for anyone on the Net to do this he does not need access to Mailbase to make his views known to those who have time for these. I would therefore encourage those members of econ-lets who are interested in reading John's views to join the list he recently set up in addition to econ-lets. The stand I have taken is not personal. But I must draw a distinction between the purposes of John's campaign - with much of which I am entirely in agreement - and the methods by which his campaign is conducted which are unacceptable and with which I am unwilling to be associated. It is consequently with some sadness and without anger on my part that this decision has been taken. I do not currently consider the issues raised above resulting in my taking this decision to be negotiable. I am however willing to clarify any points made above by private email if clarification is needed, but while I continue as list-owner the line I have taken will not be changed. Richard Kay, econ-lets founder and list-coowner -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 02:31:06 1999 From: email@example.com ("Tom J. Kennedy") Subject: Censorship against John C. Turmel !!! John C. Turmel, the Banking Systems Engineer from Canada and one of the most informative and colourful members of econ-lets has had his "econ-lets" account canceled by Richard Kay for "excessive posting length", "frequency", "disorganized contents" and for being "outside the topic area". Frankly, I have never been aware of any "formal limits" to postings, nor any "frequency limits", nor any "organizational guidelines" by which we are being policed. As for being "outside the topic area" I have always found many details in John C. Turmel's postings relevant to the expansion and global develpoment of LETS. Whatever might have been targeted as "being outside the topic area" I enjoyed reading anyways. He often presented and "enlightened" and "unique" Turmel angle to economic, social, government and telematics issues in relation to LETS. And every posting I read I learn how little I know. So I am asking Richard Kay to please explain what "rules" John C. Turmel has violated. I want to know so I won't violate them and likewise risk being "removed from "econ-lets". I rather enjoyed reading John C. Turmel's postings and rebuttals because his wisdom and knowledge of the potential of LETS is way beyond the average LETSer who is satisfied with playing small and does not see the big picture. Every time I read a John C. Turmel posting I marvel at his brilliance and mastery about the design flaw of the "usury-bearing" conventional money system and how it keeps us in financial bondage for our entire lives and his vision of implementing the ultimate "usury-free" solution which is a "Global LETS" to usher in an new age of "abundance and prosperity" for all. Bravo to John C. Turmel - the world needs more visionaries like him. Too bad for "econ-lets" - so sad for the loss of John C. Turmel. Econ-lets has accepted to shrink and play small and thereby not serve the world optimally. "Econ-lets" just won't be as interesting without John C. Turmel's brilliant input. If ever I didn't have the time or desire to read any particular posting by John C. Turmel I either saved it to a folder or deleted it. So what's the problem? Couldn't any other subscriber to "econ-lets" do likewise. I am disappointed and shocked that Richard Kay has isolated John C. Turmel and closed his "econ-lets" account. We, the subscribers of "econ-lets" are all lesser because of this action. John C. Turmel, the prominent Banking Systems Engineer who reviewed the initial LETS software created by Michael Linton way back in the early 1980's and found it worthy of financial support has a magnificant and enlightened vision for a Global LETS. As we dim our LETS lights, we unconsciously cause other people to do the same and as we limit "econ-lets" with fear our actions likewise limits LETS. I remember a famous John C. Turmel quote when he was contemplating supporting the initial development of the LETS software. At the time John C. Turmel was working with a programmer on the development of an "interest-free" bartering software. He said: "If you watch ants as they build anthills in the sand they will desert their smaller anthills and go to work with the larger anthill. I am as smart as the ants. I will not pursue the development of my "interest-free" bartering system since I have learned of Michael Linton's creation of the LETS software which is more advanced than my similar project. Instead, I will throw my support behind the local and global development and expansion of the LETS software." Without this initial financial support perhaps LETS would never have gained the worldwide popularity that is has today. Bravo to John C. Turmel for having the vision for a Global LETS way back in 1983. Besides, John C. Turmel has now started a new listserv (http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/lets) to send out articles about topics which Richard Kay prohibits on econ-lets - re: Global LETS, LETS Economics, and LETS Christian roots. In fact, John C. Turmel had been respecting Richard Kay's new censorship rules since the beginning of 1999 so I do not understand the motivation to cancel John C. Turmel's account at this time. Please explain to me what John C. Turmel has continued to do since January 1st, 1999 to warrant such radical and ruthless action. John C. Turmel's "behavior and activities" actually consisted only of posting words and sentences which myself and I daresay and several other readers enjoyed and learned much in our self-imposed courses of study on the internet. Doesn't this really boil down to brutal and ruthless censorship after John C. Turmel had been honouring Richard Kay's limiting rules since Januaury 1,1999? Why?? As for those forums that John C. Turmel has been ejected from - what are they? I am sure that we - the subscribers of "econ-lets" would have read about his protests if he had been banned from other forums. John C. Turmel liked to share every detail of his self-imposed mission of installing a Global LETS. I will now risk having my econ-lets account terminated by "being outside the topic area". I am posting the following words of wisdom that say so much in so few words. While I was thinking of one popular LETS supporter from England, Richard Kay wielding his power to ban another popular LETS supporter from Canada, John C. Turmel from a popular LETS forum "econ-lets" this famous quotation by Marianne Williamson and spoken by Nelson Mandella at his inagural address at the United Nations in 1995 came to mind. I will share it with "econ-lets" subscribers even though it might make this posting "excessive" and "disorganized" and thereby cause me to be removed from "econ-lets". " Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate; our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkeness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us... it is in everyone. And, as we let our light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others." And I marvel how John C. Turmel so efffectively demonstrates "The Power of One" Can one LETS visionary make it "Global"???? THE POWER OF ONE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ One song can spark a moment, One flower can wake a dream. One tree can start a forest, One bird can herald Spring. One smile begins a friendship, One handclasp lifts a soul. One star can guide a ship at sea, One word can frame the goal. One vote can change a nation, One sunbeam lights a room. One candle wipes out darkness, One laugh will conquer gloom. One step must start each journey, One word must start each prayer. One hope will raise our spirits, One touch will show you care. One voice can speak with wisdom, One heart can know what's true. One life can make the difference, Author Unknown.... Working with you for "peace and plenty" by 2020, I AM Tom J. Kennedy, www.cyberclass.net -------------------------------
From Econ-LETS@mailbase.ac.uk (Econ-LETS) Part III
Date: Sat Jan 9 10:52:57 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Fraser How) Subject: Re: LETS and Religions... Tom Kennedy wrote >We can learn much from each other by communicating concepts and >ideas. We learn nothing from each other when we "bicker" and >"complain" about our differences and scream for "censorship". With this and also with what Tom says on the Turmel subject I agree very much. On this list people relate LETS to all kinds of ideologies and "isms" - which is fine, the list is here for us to discuss these things. Econ-lets is not just a "hands-on LETS do it" list - it does have an academic/theoretical aspect too. If someone wishes to talk about how LETS relates to the religion or spirituality that is in their heart then I am interested - I welcome it. I may not agree, or feel the same way, but I respect that as someone's own "angle" in the same way as I am interested in how people relate LETS to other concepts such as "economics" or "socialism" or "politics" - as happens often on this list. What's the difference?
>LET'S advocate and promote LETS and LET's not be opposed to open >dialogue of any kind. Hear here! -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 11:09:13 1999 From: email@example.com (Mary Mattos) Subject: Re: LETS and Religions... ever play the game "telephone" where everyone sits in a circle and passes a message around and by the time it gets to the end it is unrecognizable? I have a notion that the contents of "the bible" etc., have similarly been modified. over 2000 years or so, translated umpteen times, surely the translators incorporated their own self-serving vested interests as they proceeded, assuming that they understood what they were reading CORRECTLY in the first place. so... now people use the bible as justification for hitting their kids, gay bashing etc. I do not want to keep reading Jesus and God stuff on this list. If you want to discuss religion and LETS do it on a religious study list. when I read the stuff that is riddled with religion I can't help feeling I am being bombarded by cult like evangelical brainwashing. because those posting the messages don't truly seem to be posting their own thoughts and ideas, they just seem to be spouting the Christian party line. I haven't noticed and please someone correct me if I am wrong. other religions posting their stuff here, because they haven't been conditioned to recruit the way Christians do, and even the Hare Krishna's stick to airports and street corners. It isn't censorship, it's separating religion from other matters and it SHOULD be separated. It's just plain annoying. regards JCT: And she doesn't want anyone else reading it either. -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 10:27:19 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Fraser How) Subject: Re: [TURMEL] removal from list Richard Kay wrote on the censorship of J. Turmel - >...(snip) ... his postings, most of which were >outside the topic area for which econ-lets was set up I disagree - could you give me some examples of how you consider his postings to be outside topic? Privately if you don't want to "annoy" people on econ-LETS who don't like this subject.
>and the rest of which were only, at best, marginally >connected to the topic. From my perspective that seems a bit upside down. Often Turmel posts would go off at what appeared to be a tangent but in my experience they always tied in with LETS and it is just his way of communicating. At worst, I would say his posts were marginally un-connected to the topic.
>The effect of his continued presence here has been to reduce the >general usefulness of econ-lets to its members such that a number >have recently left and the average quality and usefulness of >materials which are to be found in the message archives has been >downgraded. How could these postings reduce the usefulness of econ-LETS? Just delete his posts if you're not interested! What's the big deal - I've only got a 28k modem and they hardly take any time to download for me. As for the "quality" and "usefulness" of his posts - surely you recognise that that is subjective - 100%. The question is quality and usefulness - for whom, exactly?
>I have always preferred to adopt as open an approach as possible, >however the uses to which John has put econ-lets have always been >marginal to its intended purpose and he has succeeded in testing >my "as open as possible" approach beyond its limits. This is the bit I really don't get Richard - how you are arguing that John Turmel's input was "marginal" to the purpose of the list. Outspoken - yes! Unwelcome - yes! Irritating to some - no doubt (I have had the experience of people finding my position as a LETSystem Trust beneficiary irritating too). But imo always relevant to the bigger picture of LETS - we are interested in the bigger picture, aren't we?
>I would be willing to allow him back on if he apologises for his >offensive content (including accusing other members of >untruthfulness) as part of a public message demonstrating sufficient >understanding of the reasons which have resulted in it having been >neccessary to take this action (of banning his access) and promising >to behave in a more responsible manner in future. Offensiveness I understand you having a problem with (bearing in mind it is easy sometimes to read attitude into email that may not have been there) - politeness and courtesy are imho a basic requirement on a list like this. As for the other reasons, what do you want him to say? "I promise to not contribute as much in future and if anything I say pushes peoples buttons I'll change my opinions"?
>I do not currently consider the issues raised above resulting >in my taking this decision to be negotiable. That's a shame Richard, being stuck in an inflexible position is generally not a good place to be for anyone, imo. But like you say - we are free to use his list, or set up our own - just like LETS. I hope you are not shooting econ-LETS in the foot my friend, because for me at least and probably some others, it is your censorship that has resulted in a downgrading of the quality and usefulness of this list, not John Turmel's postings. Best wishes, Fraser -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 23:49:55 1999 From: email@example.com ("Paul Dillon") Subject: Re: Censorship against John C. Turmel !!! Tom, We knew that some people would object to the actions taken against John Turmel. You appear to be one of them. I would simply like to point out to you that (1) JT was repeatedly told the reasons that his posts were becoming extraneous and I personally took on the challenge of demonstrating the case, a demonstration to which he never replied; (2) JT did not begin to respect the repeated admonitions to limit his posts and stop quasi-spamming econ-lets with the dialogue snippets he pulls from the numerous lists on which he is allowed to participate; (3) I'm personally very happy that JT has started his own list since that will allow all of those who wish to follow his voluminous outpouring of words to continue to do so. Quite simply, Richard Kay consulted many long time participants of econ-lets and after taking into many pros and cons took the only reasonable action to bring the econ-lets house into some kind of order although I suppose it will be a while before we recover from the trauma of this surgery. I'm sure everyone looks forward to more posts dealing with the practical and methodological issues of implementing community currencies in general and LETS in particular. Paul H. Dillon -------------------------------
Date: Sun Jan 10 00:08:13 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Paul Dillon") Subject: Re: [TURMEL] removal from list Fraser, I posted an extensive analysis of one of Turmel's voluminous ego-centered posts and demonstrated conclusively that the content dealt only marginally with LETS and primarily with John Turmel. It has been my understanding that econ-lets is not a bandstand for anyone who supports LETS to stand up and blow off about themselves and their particular theories which is what JT did repeatedly. For the last two years he has been warned about this. In December he seemed to simply grow defiant and disregard this. Richard acted well within his rights and had my support as well as that of many other subscribers. Now that JT has his own list, everyone who wants to follow the developments of Turmel thought can certainly go there and hopefully allow econ-lets to focus its discussion on the practical and methodological issues of LETS development. This will allow new subscribers to not misinterpret the intentions and purposes for which this listserv was established in the first place. Paul H. Dillon -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 07:54:36 1999 From: email@example.com (Steve Shorter) I have found most of JT's posting to be of value. I do have a problem with the length at times as it does tie up resources that could best be allocated elswhere (at least on my system). Is there not a possibility of configuring the listerver to reject postings that exceed a certain length? This is possible with Majordomo but I don't know about Listserv. Persoanlly I would rather have JT on this list than have him expelled but I would like to see the length of all postings restricted. This is a normal and reasonable mailing list restriction -steve -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 14:55:46 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (ernie yacub) I support the removal of JT from econ-lets. Let's get on with the urgent work at hand. As Paul and others have said, he now has his own list that people can sub to. ernie yacub -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 16:51:28 1999 From: email@example.com (David/Maureen) I agree with Ernie, Maureen Mallinson -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 17:32:21 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Richard Kay) Hi Fraser, Fraser How <email@example.com> wrote: >I disagree - could you give me some examples of how you consider >his postings to be outside topic? Privately of you don't want to >"annoy" people on econ-LETS who don't like this subject. Please see Paul Dillon's very recent analysis of one of John's postings for an example. This was one of several of John's arriving close together which, if any were connected to the topic, was more so than any of the others and Paul's detailed breakdown of it found virtually none of it to have anything relevant to say. I have also come to the conclusion, after much consideration, and spending too much of my time in responding to many complaints, that John Turmel's postings have very little to do with LETS or community currencies. He is interested in monetary reform certainly and the globalisation of his imaginary concept of a "perfect" (his word) global currency based on his comparison between a pair of simple Laplace transform equations describing linear and exponential behaviour. He is clearly not writing about the practicalities of _community_ currencies - small and plural - which need to be so in an imperfectly managed world within which his theoretical analysis has limited relevance. The fact that he _calls_ his conception "LETS" should not be allowed to confuse the issue. Anyone can call anything they like "LETS". There is a female hygeine product marketed in the UK under this term, but this does not make discussion of such products relevant on econ-lets. The terms of reference of econ-lets include "LETS and similar community currencies" note the plural sense as opposed to the singular of "currency". The terms of reference for econ-lets also state that it is intended "for discussion". (Short and relevant informative announcements, e.g. about job opportunities and conferences etc. are also of course welcome.) Clearly someone has to post something "out of the blue" for a new thread to start within an online discussion, perhaps a question or something short and to the point to provoke considered response and analysis etc. But for a useful thread of this kind to start there is a need for interaction. There was never any interaction of this kind between John and anyone else on econ-lets. He may have succeeded occasionally in getting someone to attempt to enter into a dialogue with him but this happened rarely on econ-lets and simply cross posting these attempts and his voluminous and irrelevant responses here does not classify in my understanding as a form of discussion. For any genuine dialogue to occur both parties have to be willing to consider the points made by the other. There is little evidence that John has ever been willing to do this.
>How could these postings reduce the usefulness of econ-LETS? Just >delete his posts if you're not interested! What's the big deal - >I've only got a 28k modem and they hardly take any time to >download for me. Unwanted email is a very serious problem on the Net. The problem is that the cost of it is paid for by the receiver - particularly if the sender can get other parties to replicate it for them. If you only get 1 or 2 unwanted messages a day the effort of getting rid of them and the cost of receiving these might seem small. Get 10-20 a day and it becomes a significant nuisance. But if you add up the cost of just a few unwanted emails a day for all who receive such you total a very high economic cost which represents a drag on the community and a massive free ride to the very tiny minority who do this. If you got 100-200 unwanted messages a day the costs of filtering and reception would outweigh the usefulness of getting the messages you want. If nothing was done about it the Net would become uneconomic much sooner than you realise ! If you don't believe me find out for yourself how easy or difficult it is to find an ISP that _welcomes_ and encourages business from junk mailers! You will find they know all about these economics much too well as they know well how much it costs to keep this problem down to the level where the drag on most users is tolerable. In the US they have now made the sending of unsolicited junk faxes illegal because of these economics. While most politicians may have it in them to understand the cost of having a fax machine, they currently expect the Net to be self regulating. This means that those running mail relays and other mail replication services (e.g. ISPs, Mailbase and econ-lets) are becoming increasingly pro-active in filtering out mail users do not want, in most cases by having offending accounts removed and blocking traffic from ISPs known to be sympathetic or neutral to spam. Whether you like this or not it is a fact of life on the Net and an aspect of how the Net works through cooperative activity between those with technical responsibility for such services. The number of complaints against John and the many messages supporting his removal in comparison with the few messages supporting his continued presence on econ-lets together with Paul's analysis and my own of the contents of John's posts in comparison with the stated purpose of econ-lets leads me to conclude that John's mailings are unwanted on econ-lets. Having arrived at this conclusion I intend treating any further unwanted messages from him (should any arrive) in a similar way as I deal with commercial spam. As John's motives are non-commercial I explain to him first that certain kinds of message are unacceptable and if this does not have the desired response I request facilities previously provided to him be removed. In the case of blatantly commercial spam I simply don't waste time with the first step but that is the only difference. Incidently, in the last resort it is not I that removes his access but Mailbase or his own ISP. Why so? Because what I have done in removing his access is to make a request to Mailbase. That is simply as a listowner using my rights to express myself. Mailbase are not obliged to carry out my wishes - but they understand the economics of unwanted mail well enough. John might or might not know enough of computers and the Internet to get around whatever blocks Mailbase might impose - but should he be so technically capable and socially foolish as to try this then I would have to ask his ISP to do the same as I have asked Mailbase, i.e. to deny his access - by your's truly excercising his rights of free expression again and using whatever his limited influence as a listowner might give him in the matter.
>This is the bit I really don't get Richard - how you are arguing >that John Turmels input was "marginal" to the purpose of the list. >Outspoken - yes! Unwelcome - yes! Irritating to some - no doubt (I >have had the experience of people finding my position as a LETSystem >Trust beneficiary irritating too). But imo always relevant to the >bigger picture of LETS - we are interested in the bigger picture, >aren't we? Not one of us realistically has time for _everything_ as too much is said. As you are clearly interested in what John has to say I expect you will join his list. The Net is big enough for many lists and I have always argued in favour of diversity. This differentiation is not useful if _everything_ posted to _any_ list that has _anything_ to do with LETS or community currencies is automatically posted to _all_ lists which are to do with community currencies. Then instead of us being able to choose which aspects of LETS we are interested in we would all have to join one big list and receive _everything_. Are you not in favour of _choice_ i.e. us having the ability to be selective on the Net as we are with LETS? There are at least 5 lists already on the Net which might have something to do with LETS. Does that mean John has any "right" to post everything he wants to _all_ of these ?
>That's a shame Rchard, being stuck in an inflexible position is >generally not a good place to be for anyone, imo. But like you say - >we are free to use his list, or set up our own - just like LETS. Hence use of the word "currently", but I have not arrived at this position at all lightly. However the fact that the spate of complaints received last time this became a significant issue (about 2 years ago) and the way I weighed these same factors then led me to feel marginally in favour of keeping him on econ-lets then, particularly when the requests to get him to post references to his long articles instead of the full articles met with a more positive response. It was also more expensive and technically more difficult to get lists set up 2 years ago than it is now, (this may have made the "censorship" question weigh slightly more in my thoughts on this matter then than it now does.) I now don't see that taking this action will make it significantly more difficult for those interested in John Turmel's views to read these than it was before I made this decision. It might make John Turmel's marketing of his views to those who have not as yet encountered these slightly more difficult for him. But marketing John Turmel's stream of consciousness is not the purpose of econ-lets. If you feel his views should be more widely known there is nothing to prevent you personally helping his campaign in some way, perhaps by attempting to digest, analyse, organise, promote and publicise his ideas. Do you consider this an appropriate use of your time? You can let me know privately if you don't wish to answer this question in public. Best regards, Richard -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 21:54:35 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Fraser How) Subject: Re: [TURMEL] removal from list A bit more on the Turmel saga before we drop it. Delete now if bored/uninterested/too busy - and sincere apologies if you are annoyed by having had to download another "off topic rant". I'll make this as brief as I can.
>rk: Please see Paul Dillon's very recent analysis of one of John's >postings for an example. This was one of several of John's arriving >close together which, if any were connected to the topic, was more >so than any of the others and Paul's detailed breakdown of it found >virtually none of it to have anything relevant to say. I suspect that a similar critical analysis of other posts to this list would possibly yield similar results.
>John Turmel's postings have very little to do with LETS or community >currencies. Are you saying that what JT is calling Global LETS is not LETS according to your definition? How so?
>He is interested in monetary reform certainly and the globalisation >of his imaginary concept of a "perfect" (his word) global currency >based on his comparison between a pair of simple Laplace transform >equations describing linear and exponential behaviour. (Ah, Laplace - remember I'm a "drop-out" from physics and you lost me, for now. I have much to learn!) Discussion of "monetary reform" using a system running on LETS software seems to have something to do with what I am doing, to me. What exactly I don't know - I've got lots of jigsaw pieces and every time I think I'm seeing the whole pattern I find a new one that changes everything - so if it turns out in the end that what JT is doing really does have nothing to do with LETS then all I can say is apologies for being slow to see the picture!
>He is clearly not writing about the practicalities of _community_ >currencies - small and plural - which need to be so in an >imperfectly managed world within which his theoretical analysis has >limited relevance. Much of the discussion on this list has little to do with practicalities, as noted by many, often. And also, people's ideas of what is "practical" are not all the same! It depends to such a large extent upon your presuppositions.
>The terms of reference of econ-lets include "LETS and similar >community currencies" note the plural sense as opposed to the >singular of "currency". And is JT's Global LETS not one_of those currencies? Is it similar enough to be called similar? It is one design among many. If his system were in place, would the Registry network offer access to it?
>The terms of reference for econ-lets also state that it is intended >"for discussion"...(snip) .. for a useful thread of this kind to >start there is a need for interaction. There was never any >interaction of this kind between John and anyone else on econ-lets. Fair point in general, yet again my personal angle is a bit different. I have found that very often when I have attempted to engage people in discussion on this list I have had no response to what I am saying at-all. I have no problem with that - if people aren't interested in responding to what I've said for whatever reason then that's clearly up to them. Everyone is rightly selective about the conversations they choose to participate in. However the (very) few times I have posted in response to J.Turmel stuff he has replied/commented one way or another. Or take the recent "Problems veiled in LETS ideology" thread for instance - he responded to many of my points (to disagree!) - but practically no-one else did, including the people to whom I was addressing questions.
>For any genuine dialogue to occur both parties have to be willing to >consider the points made by the other. There is little evidence that >John has ever been willing to do this. If that is a criteria for econ-lets participation then I would invite you to look back over the archives and see the many other examples of people not considering/responding to points made by "the other" - (eg me). I think that's OK - but I don't like one person being singled out for doing something that in my experience many people do. Reminds me of school.
>The number of complaints against John and the many messages >supporting his removal in comparison with the few messages >supporting his continued presence on econ-lets together with Paul's >analysis and my own of the contents of John's posts in comparison >with the stated purpose of econ-lets leads me to conclude that John's >mailings are unwanted on econ-lets. All I am really saying is that I disagree with your analysis of JT in relation to the stated purpose of econ-LETS. If the econ-LETS community don't want JT in their community fair enough, I'm not arguing with that at all - and it does seem apparant that more people want him "out" than "in" - so be it. I appreciate many of the issues that people have with him - I just have a different perspective and wish to share it, in an "open and informal" way. I wonder if I will be the subject of complaints for going on about this?
>Are you not in favour of _choice_ i.e. us having the ability to be >selective on the Net as we are with LETS? There are at least 5 lists >already on the Net which might have something to do with LETS. >Does that mean John has any "right" to post everything he wants to >_all_ of these ? No, that's not what I think - and I am in favour of this kind of choice. What makes this choice possible is clarity over the purpose and guidelines for each list. In this regard I am arguing that JTs postings DO, imho, fall within the parameters set by you as I understand them. Perhaps I have got the wrong end of the stick regarding the purpose of econ-LETS. Perhaps the guidelines could be clearer and more specific - I don't know. "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." JT was doing that, imo.
>But marketing John Turmel's stream of consciousness is not the >purpose of econ-lets. If you feel his views should be more widely >known there is nothing to prevent you personally helping his >campaign in some way, perhaps by attempting to digest, analyse, >organise, promote and publicise his ideas. That's not really my point. "If you're not with us, you're against us"? - or "if you're not against JT, you're for JT"?? True/false up/down win/loose - LETS get fuzzy!!! (and warm!) Your reasons for JT expulsion don't add up to me, and I'm exploring the issues - 'tis all. It's the principles that I'm interested in here, and clarity over what exactly is going on. If JT is not welcome because the community feels hostile towards him, I'd like to be up front about that, not explain it away. LETS be visible. Surely you wish it to be clear what is appropriate for this list and what is not? That is what I'm getting at, in my perhaps rambling way. You say he did "this" - and I can see others doing it too - you say he did "that" - and I have experienced others doing "that" too - so naturally I am confused and I seek to understand more fully what is really going on. I want to be absolutely clear in myself that what has happened is fair - because if at the end of the day it seems otherwise to me then I feel it is important to say so - or who can I expect to look out for me? In the same way, I thought JT calling you a hypocrite was nasty and unfair, and I said so.
>Do you consider this an appropriate use of your time? You can let me >know privately if you don't wish to answer this question in public. Not right now, no. Though in my mind it's a fuzzy line between "his campaign" and my work/play. John clearly speaks for himself quite enough! I wouldn't be interested in taking on that task for anyone, though I am often interested in what they have to say for themselves. Butterflies flap their wings... and the world changes. all the best -------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 21:54:37 1999 From: email@example.com (Fraser How) Subject: econ-lets purpose Paul, you wrote >Now that JT has his own list, everyone who wants to follow the >developments of Turmel thought can certainly go there and hopefully >allow econ-lets to focus its discussion on the practical and >methodological issues of LETS development. This will allow new >subscribers to not misinterpret the intentions and purposes for >which this listserv was established in the first place. Can I make a practical suggestion? If you wish it to be clear that econ-LETS is meant to be focused on "practical and methodological issues of LETS development" then maybe you could say so in the introduction to the list? At risk of over repeating myself, the stated purpose of the list is currently: "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." Where the words "practical" and "methodological" are not only not present, but not implied either, as I read it. It reads so broadly - "surrounding the development of LETS" - that could be anything! Everyone will have their own opinions about what this means! If I am a Buddhist, then the Dharma will certainly be a "social issue surrounding the development of LETS". If I am an academic, perhaps "social exclusion" will be a relevant issue. If I am an engineer, then perhaps the design of the world's money systems will be a "social and economic issue surrounding the development of LETS"... do you see what I mean? There again - I like it as it is, personally. It seems to me that many many of the posts to this list (non-JT-posts) fit well with the current broad scope but would perhaps not fit so well in a "practical and methodological LETS development" list. What do you think? best wishes, Fraser -------------------------------
Date: Sun Jan 10 13:03:55 1999 From: firstname.lastname@example.org ("Paul Dillon") Subject: Re: econ-lets purpose Fraser and all, It is true that practical and methodological are not expressly stated in the statement of purpose; they really represent my feelings about what has been most fruitful on the list for as long as I have participated. The decision on JT was based on a range of issues of which content was only one. Probably the bottom line was failure to respect the existence of the listserv as a public forum not as a personal podium and to do so with message length and volume that far exceeded netiquette and repeated requests over many years to moderate his contributions and to limit them. As to the relevancy analysis of his post, I personally don't believe there is any example at any time that compares to his terms of in self-centered irrelevancy, but if you can provide a counter-example email it to me personally because I would like to see this entire issue fade away, like an old soldier as it were. Paul H. Dillon -------------------------------
Date: Sun Jan 10 08:46:01 1999 From: email@example.com (Richard Kay) Subject: Re: [TURMEL] removal from list Fraser, Thanks for your willingness to analyse and try to get to the crux of the issues behind this decision. There were a number of factors involved and my decision was only made when I was able to clarify my thoughts about how they added up. While this has been a difficult choice I don't feel the context allowed this to be made in a manner which is above accountability. This fact alone makes this discussion unfortunately necessary however unpleasant and expensive of my personal time exposing these wounds has proved.
>I suspect that a similar critical analysis of other posts >to this list would possibly yield similar results. Some are clearly more relevant than others, but only John Turmel persisted in his irrelevance to the extent he did when efforts were made to encourage greater relevance.
>The terms of reference of econ-lets include "LETS and similar >community currencies" note the plural sense as opposed to the >singular of "currency". And is JT's Global LETS not one_of those >currencies? Not IMO. (in my opinion)
>Is it similar enough to be called similar? Also not IMO.
>It is one design among many. If his system were in place, >would the Registry network offer access to it? I can see no possible connection between my limited understanding of his system and it ever being in place - unless I am totally crazy.
>>rk: need for interaction. There was never any interaction >>of this kind between John and anyone else on econ-lets. >Fair point in general, yet again my personal angle is a bit >different. (cut). My decision was not based this single issue but on the combination of issues - these are less straightforward choices to make - where it is difficult to see things in clear black and white terms but where someone has to arrive at a decision (one option may be deciding to do nothing) and where you know that not everyone will be able to agree with the choice that has been made whatever that choice might be. Examination of any factor in isolation might show aspects which are not completely black or white. The clear choice only emerged to me when I tried to stand back from all of the detailed analyses and try to look at all of the factors taken together.
>All I am really saying is that I disagree with your analysis of JT >in relation to the stated purpose of econ-LETS... I wonder if I will >be the subject of complaints for going on about this? No. What I said above about the need for accountability on this one applies. You are welcome to disagree with my and Paul's analysis and to say that you disagree.
>In this regard I am arguing that JTs postings DO, imho, fall within >the parameters set by you as I understand them... >"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." I think it possible that these could be made clearer and more specific, particularly with the recent expansion of LETS related discussion spaces which make more choice possible. Rewriting these has crossed my mind as an option. While I think it might still be useful to clarify this statement and improve the guidelines based on this experience I did not feel that the crisis which John's recent misuse left us in made it a good time or provided a good basis to try to update these guidelines. To meet Steve Shorter's point as well about tightening up the handling of acceptable message length I agree with this to an extent as well. However hard cases make for bad rules. Someone intent on abusing these can easily find ways around them - for example on content by interspersing an irrelevant post with a bit of jargon here and there to make it look relevant and on posting length by splitting one excessively long post into a number of shorter ones as John was in any case prone to do. I feel that it would be useful to update the guidelines to clarify these points but I think these should best reflect the character of discussion wanted without having too many detailed rules, restrictions and impediments - for the same reasons that many of us don't want overly legalistic members' agreements, incorporations and written constitutions for our LETS because this kind of thing wastes time, puts people off and creates inflexibility.
>Your reasons for JT expulsion don't add up to me.. >then I feel it is important to say so - or who can I expect to look >out for me? In the same way, I thought JT calling you a hypocrite >was nasty and unfair, and I said so. I don't think I allowed personal feelings about this to get in the way of trying to reach a balanced view of the many issues. Perhaps I might be seen as a hypocrite by some to an extent on some points; if so I don't claim to be perfect yet and would prefer to know about the plank in my own eye. I certainly did consider his unfair accusation of untruthfullness of another contributor whom I consider very honest as one of a number of points under the general heading of "politeness". But I did not make my decision on this point alone either. It would also be fairly easy for someone with technical knowledge to create a complaint campaign against someone they didn't like by creating a number of assumed identities for this purpose so the unpopularity issue on its own was also not the single deciding factor. My choice was based on a combination of many factors: irrelevance, lack of interaction, posting size and volume, complaints, rudeness to others, members leaving and threatening to leave, the need to act while the issue was alive, new members getting a distorted view of econ-lets' purpose and relevance, the question of unwanted mail and the existence of alternative spaces for those interested in his views, his unwillingness to respond constructively to complaints and the fact of his long historical persistence in this pattern of behaviour indicating that this problem was unlikely to go away. I hope I have succeeded in clarifying this matter such that it can now be laid to rest. Some rewriting of the list guidelines is called for but this could usefully be preceded by a discussion about what our members would like to see in econ-lets as distinct from what should best take place in some of the other LETS related lists which are now springing up. Best wishes, Richard -------------------------------
Send a comment to John Turmel