Date: Sun Jan 17 08:46:01 1999
From: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca (Pauline Morrissette) 
Subject: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped? 
Tom Kennedy's wrote: 
"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... 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??
I'd like to know the answer that question too. 
John's best friend, Pauline.  
-------------------------------
Date: Mon Jan 18 05:22:36 1999
From: Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk ("Richard KAY")
Subject: Re: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped?
To: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca Cc: Paul Dillon
Pauline,
I suggest you read the econ-lets archives starting at around
1st December last year for my reasons. No-one is obliged to carry or
replicate someone else's mail except where there is a contractual
agreement. There is none between John and Mailbase. I suggest you
check your own ISP's acceptable use policy and you will probably find
that many of John's messages (and probably your message to which
I am responding) fall foul of this - if so you break the terms of
your contract with your own ISP (freeserve.carleton.ca) and lay
yourself open to complaints made directly to them. There have
been many complaints on econ-lets going back a long time and my 
action attracted much support from econ-lets members and 
surprisingly few questioned or challenged it.
I am willing to discuss this matter with you by telephone if you can 
give me your current number and a suitable day and time to phone 
preferably between 1900 and 2300 PM GMT which is likely to be about 
5 hours or so before yours or next weekend. I will allow 10 minutes 
phone time for this at my expense - rates from North America to 
Europe are cheaper than the other way round. Therefore if you wish to 
talk about this matter for more than 10 minutes this will have to be 
on your bill. My number in the UK evenings and weekends is 
+44 1203 450152. Best Wishes, Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk
-------------------------------
 
Date: Sun Jan 17 18:24:43 1999
From: yacinfo@mars.ark.com (ernie yacub)
Give us a break...brutal and ruthless censorship?
Furthermore, it did not just happen on Jan 1, 1999. This has been 
going on for quite some time. If you and others want Turmel's 
voluminour writings, sub to his group. ernie yacub
-------------------------------
 
Date: Mon Jan 18 11:46:56 1999
From: elise_benjamin@oxfordgreens.freeserve.co.uk ("Elise Benjamin")
Well said Ernie. Suddenly the Turmel fan club is out in force - where 
were you all during all the 'what do we do with Turmel's postings' 
debates?  
Frankly, I've had enough of this. I've read everyone's arguments, so 
I feel I know the issues, reasons, etc, behind the removal of Turmel 
from this list. It would appear from the Trumel support postings sent 
'after the event' that some vital bits of information have been 
missed by those in favour of Turmel's continuing membership of this 
list:
1) the personal, not totally relevant, attacks from Turmel (which to 
me displayed a element of paranoia)
2) the fact that to make any list accessible to people you have to be 
brief to allow all of us (including those with slow computers, little 
time to read long emails, etc) to contribute.
Long postings only serve to exclude people - short postings include 
us all! I still support Turmel's removal.
Now, can we actually get on with the real stuff please (remember. 
LETS etc)! Cheers, Elise Benjamin, Adminstrator, Oxford LETSystem
-------------------------------
 
Date: Mon Jan 18 14:29:48 1999
From: mmattos@pipcom.com (Mary Mattos)
Subject: econ-lets
it appears that this has become a John Turmel discussion group 
instead of LETS.  <G>
as it has in the past it's probably just going through a lull right 
now. there have been times when what seemed like months went by with 
no messages, and then zap, discussion happened for a while.
what goods/services are the most difficult to find on "your" LETS?   
since right now I'm not technically in 'any' LETS I probably 
shouldn't answer... but during the time that I was I felt it would 
have been convenient to be able to pay my telephone and utility bills 
via LETS, and perhaps a portion of my property tax, get my vehicle 
repaired, buy hay and feed. and of course I would love to use green 
to buy a new pickup truck! regards
-------------------------------
Date: Tue Jan 19 07:48:11 1999
From: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca (Pauline G. Morrissette)
Subject: Re: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped?
     On Jan 17 1999, Ernie Yacub wrote:
"Give us a break...brutal and ruthless censorship?
"Furthermore, it did not just happen on Jan 1, 1999. This has been
"going on for quite some time. If you and others want Turmel's
"voluminour writings, sub to his group. ernie yacub
     You seem to continue to miss the issue. Tom did not ask about any
offensive articles before John complied with the new censorship rules.
He pointed out there were no posts after John had complied and started
posting his unwanted topics elsewhere.
 
     On Jan 18 1999, Richard KAY wrote me a message:
"Pauline, I suggest you read the econ-lets archives starting at around
"1st December last year for my reasons. No-one is obliged to carry or
"replicate someone else's mail except where there is a contractual
"agreement. There is none between John and Mailbase.
     Richard, you also seem to have missed the issue. Tom was not
asking about John's articles posted in December. He was asking about
articles posted in January.
     Tom noted you prohibited all the topics John liked to talk about
and everyone seems aware that John started up a new list to post those
topics in order to comply.
     Yet a week after complying with your new censorship rules and
after he had stopped posting articles to econ-lets, he was still
thronw off the list. So Tom asked what John had done since complying
to merit being still thrown out. And since people keep referring to
John's posts in December and keep ignoring his lack of posts in
January, it seems to indicate that he was thrown out whether he
complied or not.
 
"I suggest you check your own ISP's acceptable use policy and you
"will probably find that many of John's messages (and probably your
"message to which I am responding) fall foul of this - if so you break
"the terms of your contract with your own ISP (freeserve.carleton.ca)
"and lay yourself open to complaints made directly to them.
     I hope I don't get ejected for asking you to justify your actions
and I'm sure my question is not falling foul of my ISP.
 
"There have been many complaints on econ-lets going back a long time
     But Tom's question related to John's recent activities, not his
past activities. Do you not see how unjust it looks to eject John
after he had complied with our request and had stopped posting?
 
"and my action attracted much support from econ-lets members and
"surprisingly few questioned or challenged it.
     Are you saying that whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter
as long as the majority didn't complain? Minority rights certainly
can't last long given such a philosophy.
 
"I am willing to discuss this matter with you by telephone if you can
"give me your current number and a suitable day and time to phone
"preferably between 1900 and 2300 PM GMT which is likely to be about
"5 hours or so before yours or next weekend. I will allow 10 minutes
"phone time for this at my expense - rates from North America to
"Europe are cheaper than the other way round. Therefore if you wish to
"talk about this matter for more than 10 minutes this will have to be
"on your bill. My number in the UK evenings and weekends is
"+44 1203 450152. Best Wishes, Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk
     I think I understand why you'd prefer to keep this private but
Tom did ask the question and I think he deserves to hear your reply
too. Pauline Morrissette
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 19 22:46:41 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
Pauline, This idea that JT should be given a break because he began 
obeying the rules in January, as judged on or around the first week 
of January, somehow strikes me as darkly humorous. After at least 
three years of on-again/off-again repetition of the same pattern of 
voluminous, clipped posts, representing elsewhere ongoing dialogues, 
a pattern that had been criticized throughout the period, after such 
a long stretch, what do you think would be the appropriate length of 
time for judging that a new pattern had been established. For me it's 
a situation similar to the old story about the turtle who agreed to 
carry the scorpion across the river on the latter's assurance that it 
would never bite in mid-river since that would lead to its own death. 
As the turtle found out, to its own dismay, some patterns of behavior 
are just in the nature of the beast. Paul Dillon
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 19 10:56:13 1999
From: sue@cwn.org.uk ("Sue Webb")
I agree with Paul's comments. How long can this go on for? If you want
Turmel's stuff subscribe to his list. In the meantime it would be good 
to talk about LETS. Sue
-------------------------------
 
Date: Fri Jan 22 09:21:28 1999
From: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca (Pauline G. Morrissette)
Subject: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped?
To: econ-lets@mailbase.ac.uk
    On Jan 19 1999, Paul Dillon wrote:
"This idea that JT should be given a break because he began obeying
"the rules in January, as judged on or around the first week of
"January, somehow strikes me as darkly humorous.
     Firstly, it's been regularly pointed out that there were no
official rules that John had broken unless you would like to state
them now. And why would someone who was obeying the rules need a
break?
 
"what do you think would be the appropriate length of time for
"judging that a new pattern had been established.
     Once it was established that he had begun obeying the "new"
rules, why would any time for judging still be necessary?
 
"For me it's a situation similar to the old story about the turtle
"who agreed to carry the scorpion across the river on the latter's
"assurance that it would never bite in mid-river since that would
"lead to its own death. As the turtle found out, to its own dismay,
"some patterns of behavior are just in the nature of the beast.
"Paul Dillon
     Sue Webb wrote:
"I agree with Paul's comments. How long can this go on for? If you
"want Turmel's stuff subscribe to his list. In the meantime it would
"be good to talk about LETS. Sue
     Now I understand why judgment for obeying the rules would still
be necessary. So even though John was obeying the rules, your reason
for his ejection is you assumed that like the scorpion, John is lying
and you acted accordingly.
     Richard, was your reasoning that John is inherently not
trustworthy too?
-------------------------------
 
Date: Fri Jan 22 12:25:47 1999
From: dburman@web.net (David Burman)
Subject: Re: [TURMEL] removal from list
As irritating as long winded, ranting messages may be, I think it's 
an important principle not to remove people from the list because one 
doesn't like what they have to say. On the other hand, we COULD 
propose a lenght limit. David Burman. LETS Toronto
-------------------------------
 
Date: Sat Jan 23 00:59:01 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
David, The length and the total number of lengthy messages per day was 
the basic motive for JT's removal. The fact that most of the material 
was extraneous made the bombastic bombardment ever more egregious 
and, in an opinion with which I concurred, an impediment to the 
participation of new subscribers and a force leading numerous other 
subscribers to leave the list. Paul H. Dillon. co-owner econ-lets
-------------------------------
 
Date: Fri Jan 22 14:11:00 1999
From: rich@driveout.demon.co.uk (Richard Kay)
Subject: Re: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped?
Pauline wrote:
>Richard, was your reasoning that John is inherently not 
>trustworthy too?
I agree completely with Paul's recent postings. I am also not 
accountable to you on econ-lets for a decision taken about econ-lets 
before you joined it. You will find my full reasoning for the decision 
I made in the archives. If you wish to discuss this with me further it 
will have to be through a private telephone conversation as I said 
some days ago. Rich@driveout.demon.co.uk 
-------------------------------
 
Date: Mon Jan 25 05:33:35 1999
From: northp@sbu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: [TURMEL] removal from list
I've been quiet on this issue, but as a past co-owner of econ-lets 
I'd like to associate myself with the action that Richard and Paul 
had - reluctantly - to take. IU think that if we can all may 
attention to the quality and length of our postings, knowledge and 
learning will be transfered far more effectively.
The length, frequency and extent that they were off topic meant that
Johns no doubt interesting ideas did not have any resonance. Action
needed to be taken in acordance with the protocols of econ-lets,
available in the archive for all to see. Pete North
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 10:04:30 1999
From: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca (Pauline G. Morrissette)
Subject: Re: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped?
To: econ-lets@mailbase.ac.uk, Cc: johnturmel@yahoo.com
    On Jan 22 1999, Richard Kay responded:
">was your reasoning that John is inherently not trustworthy too?
"I agree completely with Paul's recent postings.
     On Jan 22 1999, Paul Dillon had written:
">Pauline Morrissette wrote:
">Firstly, it's been regularly pointed out that there were no official
">rules that John had broken unless you would like to state them now.
"I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. It was
"repeatedly pointed out that JT was abusing the customary rules for
"participating on econ-lets.
     Your opinion that John was "abusing the customary rules" is not
enough. I'm interested in your proof that he was "breaking the
official rules." I did ask you to produce any "official rules" which
you have not which seems a lot like the same kind of justice John
received in some of his gambling cases where the Crown would not cite
any actual law John had broken and the judges still convicted him.
 
"You are playing a fast and loose word game by talking about "official
"rules/" First, the idea of "rules" is quite ambiguous isn't it?
     To you, prosecuting, they might be ambiguous rules but to John,
defending, is it any wonder he'd rather you be precise.
 
"The story has nothing at all to do with whether Turtle should have
"refused to carry Scorpion because Scorpion was a liar.
"Turtle should have known that, no matter what Scorpion said, it was
"in it's nature to sting.
     Telling us that people should have "known that John was not to be
believed no matter what he said, like the scorpion, is the same as
calling him a liar whether you realize it or not?
 
"Anyway, I doubt that the question of JT's honesty was ever an issue
"for Richard or any of the others who were consulted concerning the
"decision to revoke JT's privilege to participate on econ-lets.
     Those consultations to revoke John's privilege were not posted in
public, were they? Did he have any defenders like he had in public?
Who got to participate in those back-room discussions?
 
     On Jan 22 1999, you replied  to David Burman's suggestion:
">we could propose a length limit.
"The length and the total number of lengthy messages per day was the
"basic motive for JT's removal.
     It seems pretty clear there was no length rule since David
suggests one be adopted. Similarly, John is sure that there is no
frequency rule either.
 
"But then again, not being a gambling man, I wouldn't bet on it.
"Paul H. Dillon co-owner econ-lets
     Whenever someone smears John with false accusations, his usual
tactic is to challenge them to put their money where their mouth is so
everyone finds out who the scorpion really is when the real liar backs
down. John has authorized me to say:
     "John Turmel offers #100 British pounds if Paul Dillon or Richard
Kay or anyone else who participated in the back-room discussions to
remove him from the list can cite an "official" rule, not an opinion,
on the length or frequency of his articles which was violated.
     I personally commit to paying anyone who can cite either of
these two "official rules" John is alleged to have violated. And
please keep in kind who brought up the question of lying first.
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 22:59:28 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
Please provide an "official" rule defining and "official" rule. 
Otherwise, please send the #100 to P.O. Box 512 Eureka, CA 95501.
Paul H. Dillon
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 23:13:10 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
Subject: Official guidelines
OK, I'm going to let the econ-lets membership decide whether this 
counts: The following are drawn from the guidelines for participation 
in listservs which is to be found on the Mailbase website.
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/docs/guidelines.html. I am simply copying 
the most relevant portions of these guidelines.
Since the challenge was to produce "official" rules, not absolute 
rules, I believe the following qualify to meet the challenge.
The following are drawn directly:
2.2 Write relevant messages
Please make sure that your messages are relevant to the list. They 
should also be brief and to the point.
If you send a reply to the list, your reply should contribute 
something to the discussion. Don't send messages saying "I agree" or 
"right on" to the whole list. You should also restrain yourself from 
sending messages purely to point out other people's errors in typing 
or spelling.  
If you ask a question on the list, or send a questionnaire, you 
should send a summary of the responses to the list. This should be a 
true summary, not a concatenation of all the messages.
*************  THERE IT IS: RELEVANT AND BRIEF.
2.6 Don't quote an entire message when replying
When replying to a message, it is a good idea to quote part of the 
original message, so people reading your reply know the context. 
However, quoting the entire message is unnecessary, as everyone on 
the list will have received a copy of the original message. If your 
own contribution is smaller than what you're quoting, you're probably 
quoting too much.  
Most email programs allow you to include the original message and 
then edit it, so you can delete all the irrelevant text.
Note: UK Copyright law allows quoting of short excerpts with proper
reference to the author, and this also applies to messages sent to 
Mailbase lists.
******  Clearly JT quoted directly, not only from posts on econ-lets, 
but THOSE DRAWN FROM ELSEWHERE WHICH IS MOST LIKELY A VIOLATION OF 
COPYRIGHT LAW  
3.1 Keep your lines short
If the line-lengths in your messages are too wide, then they will be
truncated or wrapped round to the next line and some people might have
problems reading your message.
Try setting your window to less than 80 characters (72 is a common 
number), and use a fixed-width font like Courier. This will ensure 
that your messages can be read by everyone.
3.2 Don't send large messages
Keep your messages short. Anything over 100 lines counts as long and 
is unlikely to be read onscreen. Some people get email through 
commercial companies and are charged by the byte or by the second for 
connect time and bandwidth, so brevity can be important to them.
If you have a large text file it can be stored at Mailbase and 
interested list members can access it there
OK, there it is.  Please send the checks to Paul H. Dillon, PO 
Box 512, Eureka, CA 95501
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 23:14:12 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
p.s. As to whether JT's a liar, I guess I'll know when I see the 
check. Paul
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 23:20:15 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
And just to emphasize the relevant point:
"Anything over 100 lines counts as long and is unlikely to be read 
onscreen. Some people get email through commercial companies and are 
charged by the byte or by the second for connect time and bandwidth, 
so brevity can be important to them." That is about as clear and 
official as you can get. Paul H. Dillon co-owner econ-lets
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 11:34:49 1999
From: sue@cwn.org.uk ("Sue Webb")
Well it seems to me that the official rules have been broken.
Perhaps copying mailing list messages to people outside of the list -
without permission - is another breach of the rules.
If Paul is going to have 100UKP I can offer him a favourable exchange 
rate for a fee. Please send the cheque to me for processing?
In the meantime, has anyone had involvement with community gardening 
under their lets scheme.  I know some near Bristol where involved in 
growing and trading within the scheme.  What have been other peoples 
experiences?  How did you get the land? Thanks. Sue
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 13:01:20 1999
From: Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk ("Richard KAY")
Subject: Re: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped?
Pauline wrote:
>I personally commit to paying anyone who can cite either of these two
>"official rules" John is alleged to have violated.
http://www.ja.net/documents/use.html includes:
Unacceptable Use
9. JANET may not be used for any of the following:
9.2. the creation or transmission of material which is designed or 
likely to cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety;
9.3. the creation or transmission of defamatory material;
9.4. the transmission of material such that this infringes the 
copyright of another person;
Annoyance and inconvenience were certainly likely to be caused by the 
length and frequency about which there were many complaints which John 
chose to ignore. People do not complain without a degree of annoyance 
and inconvenience. Accusing people of lying and "brutal censorship" 
might also be seen as defamatory. I might also point out that your 
publication of my private mail without my permission is a breach of 
copyright. While John has clearly broken the JANET AUP official rules, 
these have been interpreted in the econ-lets introduction sent out to 
all new members which John has also clearly ignored:
from: http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/econ-lets/files/introduction
>Posting guidelines and netiquette
>Please be polite and keep to the subject area for which
>econ-lets was set up, based on which its members have
>consented to join it and Mailbase has consented to support it.
John has constantly been impolite, particularly in the contents, 
length and frequency of his postings, ignoring as he did the many 
complaints.
The fact that there are many more minor infringements of these rules 
does not justify in any way persistent serious infringements of them 
ignoring all of the complaints about these infringements. This is 
where the the JANET AUP "likely to annoy" published provision 
expressed to all econ-lets members through the politeness clause was 
clearly broken.
You can therefore split your offer of 100 UK Pounds between me and 
Paul. As JANET is not for commercial purposes my 50 will be donated 
to a charity of my choice.
 
>And please keep in kind who brought up the question of lying first.
John did. in:
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/econ-lets/1998-12/0061.html
John wrote:
>And don't bother telling us you don't read my posts. The fact you 
>have responded makes it obvious that you're both lying and simply 
>taking low blows at insulting me.
I therefore suggest you also check your and John's own ISP's official 
rules before making such easily refutable, inappropriate and 
provocative statements. 
As far as I am concerned Pauline, you can choose to discuss this 
privately with those who wish to continue and let econ-lets get on 
with its stated purpose or I will ask those who might otherwise 
complain here on econ-lets to make their complaints to the board of 
your ISP to see whether or not they find that their official rules 
have been broken as well as JANET's and act accordingly.
From: http://www.ncf.carleton.ca:12345/freeport/freenet/board
/policy/menu-members
The FreeNet Membership Agreement
This user agreement is current as of March 24, 1994. Check the on-line 
registration (go register) for the most recent forms. National Capital 
FreeNet Membership Agreement February 1995
1. That the use of the System is a privilege which may be revoked by 
the Board of Directors of the System at any time for abusive conduct 
or fraudulent use. Such conduct would include, but not be limited to,
the placing of unlawful information on the system, the use of 
obscene, abusive or otherwise objectionable language in either public 
or private messages, or violation of this Agreement. The Board of the
National Capital FreeNet will be the sole arbiter of what constitutes 
obscene, abusive, or objectionable language. Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 10:05:14 1999
From: tom.holloway@u3a.org.uk ("Tom Holloway")
This whole ghastly business is beginning to take on a new dimension. 
CAN Turmel and Associates survive the DOUBLE-WHAMMY from Dillon and 
Kay? WILL Pauline M keep this thread going long enough to drive 
EVERYONE BATTY? DOES Turmel intend to cough up the hundred quid he 
obviously owes our gallant duo? WHERE can we order the t-shirt from?
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 18:23:06 1999
From: admin@LETS.Solutions.lets.org.uk ("Nigel")
Subject: Re: Official guidelines
My vote goes to Paul and Richard. Pauls case is clearly and succinctly
stated. Please let us all know when the cash is recieved. Nigel Leach
Director - LETS Solutions
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 13:08:18 1999
From: steve@nomad.tor.lets.net (Steve Shorter)
Subject: Re: Why punish Turmel/how to stop....
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Tom Holloway wrote:
>DOES Turmel intend to cough up the hundred quid he obviously owes 
>our gallant duo?
Sounds like a great movie. I'll play J.T.
Oh! and are the t-shirts abvailable for $GR? -steve
-------------------------------
 
Date: Tue Jan 26 21:25:05 1999
From: yacinfo@mars.ark.com (ernie yacub)
Subject: Re: Official guidelines
>I'm going to let the econ-lets membership decide whether this counts:
It counts. ernie yacub
-------------------------------
 
Date: Thu Feb  4 15:57:59 1999
From: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca (Pauline G. Morrissette)
Subject: TURMEL: Why punish Turmel once he had stopped?
>John Turmel offers #100 British pounds if Paul Dillon or Richard Kay
>or anyone else who participated in the back-room discussions to
>remove him from the list can cite an "official" rule, not an opinion,
>on the length or frequency of his articles which was violated.
     On Jan 26 1999, Paul Dillon wrote:
>The following are drawn from the guidelines for participation in
>listservs which is to be found on the Mailbase website.
>http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/docs/guidelines.html
>I am simply copying the most relevant portions of these guidelines.
>Since the challenge was to produce "official" rules, not absolute
>rules,
     It doesn't make sense for a "non-absolute" rule to be "official,"
does it so it makes sense that an "official" rule does mean an
"absolute" rule.
 
>I believe the following qualify to meet the challenge. I'm going to
>let the econ-lets membership decide whether this counts:
>>3.2 Don't send large messages
>>Keep your messages short. Anything over 100 lines counts as long and
>>is unlikely to be read onscreen.
     Ernie yacub said "It counts."
     Sue Webb said "the official rules have been broken."
     Tom Holloway said "DOES Turmel intend to cough up the hundred?"
     Nigel Leach said: "Paul's case is clearly and succinctly stated."
     Paul's selection of "relevant portions" of the "official rule" is
similar to John's gambling house case where the Crown, Andre Marin,
went to a judge ex parte (without informing John) with only selected
portions of the transcript. The judge didn't bother to check the whole
transcript and the selected half-truths were all he relied on.
     John says that Paul has used a half-truth to bias his attempt to
collect the bet and the readers were in such a rush to see him lose
that they didn't seek out the whole truth either.
     Since John claims that Paul's excerpts did not contain the whole
truth, he wants to convert his challenge into a bet for those other
people who voted that it was:
     "John Turmel bets #100 British pounds that Paul's "selected
portion" is half the truth with respect to length of articles."
     No one has to bet the whole amount but if you think Paul was
"selected portion" was the whole truth, you need only write "I bet #10
pounds (or more) that Paul's "selected portion" is the official rule
on length."
     I notice that no one has cited any official rule with respect to
frequency even though Richard Kay repeated again:
>John has constantly been impolite, particularly in the contents,
>length and frequency of his postings,
     This accusation of frequency violation is also a lot like what
happened to John in his gambling trial when Mr. Marin padded the
indictment with charges that he not only was keeping a gambling house
but that he was also keeping a bookmaking house, a totally
unsubstantiated charge which was eventually withdrawn. It made the
Crown's case seem so much stronger even though there had been no
bookmaking at Blackjack at all. Similarly, the repetition of
allegations of frequency violations though there are no frequency
rules makes the censorship of John's posts seem justified. The only
difference here is that there is now little likelihood of having this
"too great a frequency" charge withdrawn when John wasn't given a
chance to defend himself in the backroom hearing that took place.
     So, "John Turmel bets #100 British pounds that no one can produce
an official rule with respect to frequency of articles."
-------------------------------
 
Date: Fri Feb  5 06:15:03 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
So now, besides being an absolute boor, such a cad as to bring gentle 
folk to unkind action, besides being the single individual whose posts 
accounted for 42% of the storage space on the econ-lets archives with 
its several hundred subscribers (proving everything ever said about 
the frequency and size his posts), now, beside it all, now, even if 
unsurprisingly, now it turns out that John Turmel whines through 
another's mouth while welching on his public bets. What a chur!! PD
-------------------------------
Date: Wed Feb  3 16:53:04 1999
From: tom.holloway@u3a.org.uk (Tom Holloway)
>Tom Holloway said "DOES Turmel intend to cough up the hundred?"
and it seems he doesn't. Even worse, when I asked...
 
>WILL Pauline M keep this thread going long enough to drive 
>EVERYONE BATTY?
the answer appears  to be that she will.
I'm beginning to suspect an element of 'obsessive stalking behavior'.
Will some brave Alexander please cut this gordian knot?
-------------------------------
 
Date: Fri Feb  5 11:21:56 1999
From: Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk ("Richard KAY")
Subject: dealing with spam
Tom and all, Tom wrote:
>I'm beginning to suspect an element of 'obsessive stalking 
>behavior'. Will some brave Alexander please cut this gordian knot?
OK so we've exhausted our first and second level responses by 
attempting to deal with this problem firstly through reasoned 
discussion and then when this proved ineffective by removing John's 
address from econ-lets and placing a block through Mailbase.
The approach the Net community has found to be most effective against
persistent unwanted mail is to stop this at source. Nowadays virtually 
all ISP's have an acceptable use policy (AUP) which disallows unwanted 
mail, and will remove accounts if complaints are received and abusive 
behaviour confirmed. Those which don't have such policies are 
generally, through increasingly coordinated levels of blocking, either 
made to adopt one or eventually driven off the Net altogether - as has 
happened to one or 2 spam friendly sites. 
In other words the Internet is developing an immune response to 
unwanted bulk email and the resources which already exist to deal with 
this problem should be used. The relevant address to escalate 
complaints to in this case (third level) is no longer to post these to 
econ-lets but to send them to netabuse@freenet.carleton.ca who deal 
with unwanted mail originating from John's service provider. 
It appears from their website that this site, as with most ISP's these 
days, treats this kind of problem very seriously, but if for any 
reason this problem persists and they are not able to help then Paul 
Vixie's (fourth level) solution comes into play. I am keeping a log of 
all complaints now - so if taking this to the next level is required, 
I think and hope this to be very unlikely, please do send me a copy 
personally of all complaints sent to netabuse@freenet.carleton.ca so I 
can provide backing evidence enabling the problem to be taken through 
further stages should this be needed without undue delay.
If John Turmel/Pauline Morrissette now want to get themselves thrown 
off the Net altogether they will presumably try to persist with this 
thread on econ-lets. I no longer consider further discussion of this 
matter appropriate to the purpose of econ-lets. Consequently I see 
continuation of this thread on econ-lets as unsolicited spam 
(unsolicited bulk email) which should, if it originates from John 
Turmel speaking through whatever name, person or address, be 
complained to at the netabuse address at whichever service provider he 
sends it from. Futher information about preventing mail abuse can be 
obtained at http://maps.vix.com/ Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk
-------------------------------
 
Date: Sat Feb  6 11:44:13 1999
From: wolfway@altavista.net
Subject: Re: LETS + econ-LETS + abuses
Hi :-) I've just joined econ-LETS - but, unfortunately, am already 
considering leaving - because I am wondering if the discussion on 
any particular person and their views is not "off-topic". Wouldn't 
such a discussion perhaps be more relevent in some other list?
Forgive me but I thought econ-LETS might have been about the higher 
(that is, beyond personal egos) issues of LETSystems and how to make 
them really 'cook' and be of service to ourselves (the pensionless 
ones) and our future generations.
PS any chance of having a "Killfile" for use to protect ourselves and 
provide each of us with our own personal "immune system"?
-------------------------------
 
Date: Sun Feb  7 02:20:46 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
Subject: Re: LETS + econ-LETS + abuses
Wolf, There's a lot of history behind the exchanges that you have 
observed and you come in on the tail end of a rather disagreeable (and 
to the best of my knowledge, unique) process involving the removal of 
someone from econ-lets. Normally the list goes through cycles of 
activity, sometimes quite busy with a lot of discussion about 
substantive issues, and other times totally quiet with just occasional 
requests for information or announcements that are usually of interest 
to members. 
Please see the guidelines for usage on the mailbase website. I'm sure
you'll find econ-lets an invaluable resource if you are interested in
community currencies and LETS systems and schemes in particular.
As far as KillFile, most people just use a delete button since it's 
often hard to tell what's in a message until you scan it. 
Occasionally you'll recognize the author and from repeated experience 
know that you can delete before reading. But that's much more the 
exception than the rule. Hope you find econ-lets useful! Paul Dillon
-------------------------------
 
Date: Sun Feb  7 03:13:57 1999
From: salets@olis.net.au (Annie Lowe)
Subject: Re: LETS + econ-LETS + abuses
At last, a breath of fresh air, I'm sure that there are many of us who 
would wish to get on with some practical discussions, considering the 
year is quietly moving on to the new century and all that it will 
bring forth. The points that Wolf suggests for consideration are 
relevant and worthy. LETS move on. Annie
-------------------------------
 
Date: Mon Feb  8 05:05:13 1999
From: northp@sbu.ac.uk
Subject: Re: dealing with spam
Richard, I agree with your proposed actions. Turmel needs to begin to 
treat other net users with respect. His actions do the community 
currency cause no good whatsoever, at a time when their need is 
getting to be more and more acceptable. Shouldn't we de discussing 
what works and what doesn't - not having to deal with people who seem 
to refuse to act like adults with respect for their colleagues? Pete
-------------------------------
 
Date: Wed Feb 10 19:50:24 1999
From: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca (Pauline G. Morrissette)
Subject: Why punish Turmel once he had obeyed?
Richard:
     I'm too am tired of this discussion and I hope this should be my
last defence of John Turmel. Though Paul Dillon claimed to have won a 
bet by finding an official rule restricting the length of posts to 100 
lines, he omitted the introductory statement:
 
>"These are practical guidelines, rather than absolute rules."
>"you may set your limit to 5000 lines."
     Since Paul later tried to argue that official rules aren't
"absolute," it seems he knew that the 100 line guideline was not an
absolute rule all along. Yet he continues to call John a "boor," a
"cad," a "whiner," a "chur," and "welcher on his bet."
     Tom Holloway chose to qualify my defence as:
 
>'obsessive stalking behavior'.
     This prompted you to qualify any further defence of John as spam
and threaten my Internet account if I continued to defend him.
     The only reason I had to defend John was that even if you had
cited some official rules, you did not answer Tom Kennedy's question
stated regularly in the topic line: "Why punish Turmel once he had
stopped?" After you had prohibited all of John's favorite topics, he
obeyed you by finding somewhere else to post them. Yet a week later,
you still cancelled his account. So the question remains, "Why did you
punish John once he had obeyed you?"
     Had you answered Tom's question, you would not now be threatening
my Internet account for seeking the same answer, would you? And people
wouldn't be complaining that they're tired of hearing the victim's
complaints.
     If John's role as a Great Canadian Character, a Guinness Record
holder and one of the original LETS engineers is as important in the
LETS chapter of monetary reform history as I think it will be once
LETS is installed world-wide, John says he's saddened to think of you
going from one of history's LETS heroes to a LETS villain and suggests
you reread his bankmath to prepare your explanation for the K-slab of
souls you have earned for impeding the Global Abolish Interest Rates
project to get LETS accounts to the needy of the whole world.
     Since you don't seem able to answer Tom question and I don't
expect Paul to continue his demands for payment of the bet now that
his omission has been exposed, this should be my final message on this
issue unless you choose to answer Tom's question and I hope you do not
overreact. Pauline Morrissette
-------------------------------
 
Date: Thu Feb 11 07:56:21 1999
From: dillonph@northcoast.com ("Paul Dillon")
I certainly haven't relinquished my claim for payment since all you 
have cited is one of the rules that is length of message. The intent 
there is clearly that one should limit the message length in spite 
how you want to interpret it. One of the other rule/guidelines 
repeatedly violated was the injunction to not include cites from 
other messages, as well as not posting monologues, not expressed that 
way but in intent. So tell JT to pop out his check book and start 
writing. Paul H. Dillon
-------------------------------
 
Date: Thu Feb 11 06:53:00 1999
From: mblackmore@gn.apc.org (M.Blackmore)
Oh for FUCKS SAKE can we stop this Turmel stuff NOW. End of thread. 
Drop it. Quit. Desist. Terminate. Or I'm going to collect email 
addresses of offenders and pass them onto the most offensive spammers 
I know in punishment. Malcolm Using language quite rare for him and 
only a very very little in jest.
-------------------------------
 
Date: Thu Feb 11 13:40:55 1999
From: lets.el@lrc.ruralwales.org (lrc-el)
Subject: Re: LETS + econ-LETS + abuses
Wolf
>I've just joined econ-LETS - but, unfortunately, am already 
>considering leaving - because I am wondering if the discussion on 
>any particular person and their views is not "off-topic". Wouldn't 
>such a discussion perhaps be more relevent in some other list?
I'm sure most econ-lets subscribers would agree.
 
>Forgive me but I thought econ-LETS might have been about the higher 
>(that is, beyond personal egos) issues of LETSystems and how to make 
>them really 'cook' and be of service to ourselves (the pensionless 
>ones) and our future generations.
I'd hope so, too. Don't be put off by all the noise; there are *very* 
useful signals buried in it. And the noise level may be dramatically 
reduced soon when the current ripples in this pond have dissipated.;-)  
>IMHO that might, in the first instance, require some PRO-ACTIVE 
>RESEARCH among the various LETS-users as to the Plus Points, Minus 
>Points and Interesting Points of their own LETSystems. At least as 
>a starting point.
That sounds like a useful exercise; PMI (for example) may illuminate 
a number qualitative/structural issues. Much of the discussion at 
present (not just on econ-lets of course) is frustratingly 
confrontational, and that which isn't is often too diffuse to be 
easily followed or assimilated. I believe that tools which can help 
in mapping out issues in their greater setting (if not in their 
entirety) need to be adopted as widely as possible if we're not going 
to be trampled by headless chickens.  
-------------------------------
 
Date: Thu Feb 11 13:43:58 1999
From: Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk ("Richard KAY")
Subject: John's responsibility for his own actions
To: ax989@freenet.carleton.ca, Cc: Paul, Pete.
Pauline, I am replying to this in private as this thread really does 
not belong on econ-lets any more as I and others have pointed out.
>"These are practical guidelines, rather than absolute rules."
>"you may set your limit to 5000 lines."
The rules and guidelines governing what is intended to be an 
intelligent and responsible discussion which have been referred to at 
length and posted in detail do not deal with a precise, fully known, 
mechanistic, black and white world such as is assumed in the rules of 
poker. The basis of the problem is John's and your inappropriate 
response to complaints about John's over-frequent and over-long 
unwanted and non-interactive postings, into what to others is a 
subtle, complex and multifaceted conversation.  
This fact alone makes his and your pedantic and hair-splitting, 
semantic distinctions and excuses for not paying up entirely 
irrelevant - and further demonstrates John's complete lack of 
understanding of why it became necessary to have his address blocked 
by Mailbase. The subject of your messages further assumes that John is 
being "punished" for something. This is not the case. He is being 
excluded from something he is apparantly unable to contribute usefully 
towards until he demonstrates an adequate understanding of why it was 
neccessary to exclude him. 
A short break in the frequency and volume of postings for a few days 
simply does not qualify as demonstrating such an understanding or 
change in direction.
Perhaps John may be so absorbed into his simply and precisely defined
conceptual poker-rules world that he can comprehend no basis for other
classes of rule-set which work in different ways. If so I apologise 
for suggesting in one of my postings a couple of months ago about this 
problem that John knew any better. If the problem is to do with 
John's inability to interact appropriately with others as opposed to
his unwillingness to do so then I feel genuinely sorry for John that 
he is incapable of acting in a more sociable way. In this sense Paul's
analogy about Turtle and Scorpion (analogies can only be stretched so
far) has, as Paul says, nothing whatsoever to do with Scorpion's 
concsious choice and everything to do with Scorpion's nature.
 
>'obsessive stalking behavior'.
>This prompted you to qualify any further defence of John as spam
>and threaten my Internet account if I continued to defend him.
Spam is unwanted bulk email (UBE). I have not yet complained to your
service providers netabuse address but have indicated the existence of
this prodedure for dealing with UBE to econ-lets members who appear to
be very interested in using it. The agreement _you_ have with your
service provider threatens your account if you abuse it - without this
recognition of the potential for abuse by your provider embodied in 
_your_ agreement nothing I could say on this matter would make a great 
deal of difference. So what do you think, other than my considerable 
log of past corresondence and others' complaints, would give my 
opinions on the viability of your and John's account with your 
provider any more credibility than complaints you might have about
the viability of my account with my provider?  Or are you saying that
I am responsible for the way the Internet functions?
 
>The only reason I had to defend John was that even if you had cited
>some official rules, you did not answer Tom Kennedy's question
>stated regularly in the topic line: "Why punish Turmel once he had
>stopped?" After you had prohibited all of John's favorite topics, he
>obeyed you by finding somewhere else to post them. Yet a week later,
>you still cancelled his account. So the question remains, "Why did 
>you punish John once he had obeyed you?"
I have cancelled no-one's "account" as John never had one. What I
did was ask to ask Mailbase not to relay John's unwanted messages to
econ-lets members. Tom's comments on this were appropriately answered
by Paul at the time and I have no obligation to answer comments
about my actions which have already been adequately answered by
someone else. Your question also indicates a total lack of
understanding of John's need to take responsibility for the
consequences of his own actions. The question of "punishment" is 
therefore not relevant to this situation because if a solution to his
exclusion exists it lies fairly and squarely in John's hands and
continuing your/his critique of my choice in this matter does nothing
to address what he needs to do in order to resolve a problem
which he himself created and which no-one else can resolve.
It is not within my powers to make other people want to read John's 
messages or feel that he has anything interesting to say. If John 
wants to change this situation it is up to him not me.
Do you still not understand something as simple as this?
I do not want to receive any further email from you or John
until you do understand. Richard.Kay@uce.ac.uk
-------------------------------
 

Send a comment to John Turmel



Home