Date: Thu Dec 31 07:31:59 1998
From: johnturmel@yahoo.com (John Turmel)
Subject: [lets] TURMEL: TURMEL postings
>From: elise_benjamin@oxfordgreens.freeserve.co.uk ("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 lets@onelist.com listserv.
With this intention already stated, why keep harping about it?
>Date: Tue Dec 29 09:52:57 1998
>From: harpers@ix.netcom.com (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: mmattos@pipcom.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: dillonph@northcoast.com ("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 lets@onelist.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: harpers@ix.netcom.com (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: dillonph@northcoast.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: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (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: jonegro@neargarden.demon.co.uk (josephine negro)
Subject: Re: TURMEL postings
Mary Mattos <mmattos@pipcom.com> 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: johnturmel@yahoo.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: mailbase-admin@mailbase.ac.uk
Subject: Removal from econ-lets list
To: johnturmel@yahoo.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:
econ-lets-request@mailbase.ac.uk
-------------------------------
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: tom@cyberclass.net ("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: fraz@letsgo.u-net.com (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: mmattos@pipcom.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: fraz@letsgo.u-net.com (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: dillonph@northcoast.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: dillonph@northcoast.com ("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: steve@nomad.tor.lets.net (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: yacinfo@mars.ark.com (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: plumbing@ihug.co.nz (David/Maureen)
I agree with Ernie, Maureen Mallinson
-------------------------------
Date: Sat Jan 9 17:32:21 1999
From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
Hi Fraser, Fraser How <fraz@letsgo.u-net.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: fraz@letsgo.u-net.com (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: fraz@letsgo.u-net.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: dillonph@northcoast.com ("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: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (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
Home