COG

Ownership Discussion

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OWNERSHIP: Ownership Moderator

Dear All,
    Yet again another specious attack from Ryan.  The subject of monetary reform (and the connection with capital ownership) is being very substantially  pursued in other fora.    If Ryan thinks a moderator is obliged to post messages to any elist, he is mistaken.  Indeed, it is weird that he should think so.
 
    I supported Alan as moderator for Ownership.  Since he is unwilling,  we have to find another moderator if Steve cannot do it.
 
    If nobody else is willing and acceptable to Kent University as moderator, I will volunteer if I have the power to:--
a) stop personal attacks
b) insist on people keeping to the subject (capital ownership)
c) clean up the files 
 
and do not have to vet all emails before they are sent to the list -- a quick ability to delete offending material after it is posted should be adequate.
 
   
   In view of the above, Kent University  COG may not, of course,  wish to have me as moderator.  However it is time for COG to face the fact that Bill Ryan upholds his right to send emails to this list and to have those emails kept in the archives yet, at the same time, censors  hundreds of emails to his own Social Credit elist and thus is deleting hundreds of files from its archives.  Thus even this email (being copied to Ryan's social credit list) will be censored by Ryan.
 
     It is always a big mistake to uphold the liberty of those people who attack liberty wanting it for themselves and not for others.  Ryan wants the freedom to attack as he likes and yet does not give even basic freedom to others whose emails do not even attack but only say what he does not like.  
 
 
Rodney Shakespeare.
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "William B. Ryan" <w_b_ryan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 10, 2005 6:13 PM
Subject: Re: OWNERSHIP: Ownership Moderator

> That's all well and fine, Jack, but what
> Kurland/Shakespeare/Reiners et al. really want to
> do--as should be obvious--is establish a Holy
> Inquisition to enforce the Gospel According to Kelso,
> as they alone interpret it, where criticism of the
> pinheaded cult's High Priests is a capital offense.
> Offending epistles are to be redacted into
> non-existence, never to be mentioned again.
>
> As experimental evidence, we already have the fine
> example of a COG list that is moderated, Monetary
> Reform, with Rodney Shakespeare as designated
> Inquisitor, that hasn't had a message posted since
> October 31, 2004, by Shakespeare himself, and before
> that, May 16, 2004, nearly six months earlier.  A
> closed group of True Believers have very little to
> discuss between themselves; such is the nature of True
> Belief.
>
> I think it is significant that Shakespeare's moribund
> list has the familiar cast of characters as
> subscribers, who we see actually posting here in
> coordinated outrage.
>
> Conspiracy to suppress dissent through intimidation of
> the COG administration, and erase it from the record,
> is not too strong a word to use in this context.
>
> Should I say, it is Satanic?
> -
>
>
>
> --- Jock Coats
> <jock.coats@oxfordshirecommunitylandtrusts.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > May I make a comment/suggestion, as one who has been
> > on here for months
> > wondering much of the time whether I should just cut
> > and run because of
> > apparently frequent bouts of flame wars?
> >
> > I realise I don't come from the Land of the First
> > Amendment, but as a
> > liberal, in the proper, non-US sense, I believe that
> > freedom has two
> > sides to it - freedom from something and freedom to
> > do something.  And
> > whilst the freedom to exercise your free speech is
> > widely practiced, it
> > seems in forums like this rarely to take account of
> > the rest of our
> > rights to freedom from arbitrary attack.
> >
> > I am on other forums where the moderator does not in
> > fact have to do a
> > great deal, does not have to read everything that
> > passes onto the
> > forum, unless there are complaints about it.  A
> > clear set of posting
> > guidelines together with a clear procedure on which
> > people can call if
> > those guidelines are breached seems to work quite
> > well.
> >
> > Penalties include warnings as to future conduct,
> > perhaps just even
> > reminders that something might be a problem, through
> > to a few days'
> > suspension of posting ability and finally to banning
> > from the forum,
> > temporarily or permanently.
> >
> > The guidelines also help to keep people focussed.
> > Decisions are
> > announced publicly so that people are aware that
> > it's happening and by
> > and large people get on reasonably well as a result.
> >
> > Jock
> >
> > On 10 Jul 2005, at 14:47, Adavans@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Y'all!
> > > 
> > > After agonizing a bit about the need for some
> > kind of referee for
> > > this list I've decided that I'm probably not the
> > right person for that
> > > role, if for no other reason than not having
> > enough time to give it
> > > the attention that it needs. I check my messages 2
> > to 3 times a day,
> > > and so I thought that I could probably add 5 to 10
> > minutes each time
> > > to attend to moderator duties. After seeing
> > certain of  yesturday's
> > > back and forth exchanges and imagining myself
> > being a moderator having
> > > to tell two aggressive antagonists to give each
> > other a small break
> > > and stop slinging the words "libel" and "slander"
> > around...and then
> > > getting caught in the middle of it...and what if
> > it
> > > escalates...well...you get the picture.
> > > 
> > > That being said, I've got my two cents to throw
> > into the mix.  I
> > > challenge Norm Kurland and William Bedford Ryan to
> > conduct a civil
> > > debate over the next month concerning the merits
> > of social credit and
> > > BE. Both sides should refrain from impugning the
> > character and motives
> > > of the other and otherwise refrain from any
> > personal attacks or any
> > > insinuations that the other partner in the debate
> > is dishonest or
> > > unprincipled, brainwashed, gullible or
> > unintelligent. I see both
> > > Kurland and Ryan as being both principled and
> > honest. Ryan has been a
> > > great resource for steadily increasing the  amount
> > of social credit
> > > writings that can be found in one place, and he
> > has a gift for tightly
> > > defining his subject.  I used to live in Alberta,
> > and I didn't know a
> > > darn thing about social credit until years after I
> > left. I have both
> > > Bill Ryan and Dan Parker to thank for
> > initially stirring up some
> > > curiousity to explore Social Credit. Kurland has
> > used his energies to
> > > systematically connect the many dots along a path
> > to universal capital
> > > ownership, and I regard many of his proposals to
> > have great merit.
> > > 
> > > This list could be a tremendous resource if only
> > the bickering could
> > > stop. How sad it is to see the folks that left
> > this list years ago
> > > continue to stay away. Gee, how long has it been
> > since you've all seen
> > > Ellerman post here?
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Alan Avans
> > > Prairie Village KS
> > --
> > J1e Morrell Hall, OXFORD, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom
> > T: +44 1865 485019 F: +44 845 1275714 M: +44 7769
> > 695767
> >
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Sell on Yahoo! Auctions - no fees. Bid on great items. 
> http://auctions.yahoo.com/
> To subscribe to this or another of COG's discussion groups register at:
> http://cog.kent.edu/register.html
> To unsubscribe from this group send a message to majordomo@cog.kent.edu
> with a single line in the body of the message that says:
> unsubscribe ownership
>