aardvark wrote: >>i really thought you had heard the expression "perception is reality"... it was >>just a response to your quote... quotes from thinkers are nice and all, but >>never do anything for me... so i respond with my own inane quotes... >> I have heard the quote and I understand your response. My point was and still is that our perceptions and beliefs are our choice. Sometimes based on fact, sometimes not. >>while i understand why you want to qualify everything i say as flawed or >>misrepresentation, or just my own imagination, there's a problem with that: >> >>- you're ignoring my concerns and opinions -- by telling me my perceptions >>are flawed and then pushing your own perceptions on me... i'm not doing the >>same to you, i only correct your factual errors... >> >>- my perceptions are based on the facts, facts i've reiterated here and >>elsewhere time and time again... ask for a list, and i'll draft it up, but if you've >>read anything i've posted today, you'll see that i am basing my opinions on >>the facts at hand as well as the experience of how things have gone to date... >> I was not trying to qualify any of your statements as flawed or misrepresented. I was referring to a lot of the ill will towards Dan being a result of the many bashings that have taken place on the admin and forum lists, now and in the past, as opposed to what happened and why. >>True defects in the function of the brain are the only exception to >>perception being a choice. Are we mature enough to work with this >>philosophy and re-examine what we have read on these lists? >> > >this is a "do you still beat your wife?" question... if you haven't heard of that >phrase, either, please take a moment and look it up... it's designed to elicit >one response... unfortunately, it's also an untenable response since it's >forced... > Wasn't meant to be. Was meant to challenge us all to think about what is going on, what has gone on in the past and what we need to do from this point forward. >my ability to do things like admin the list have been pulled (without telling me) >and i have not been granted access again after asking (requests get ignored, >and yes, i have email to back that up)... > >admining the list includes catching spammers and booting them, stopping >people from forwarding the digest 6 times as an unsubscribe request, >responding to requests on aeo to add/remove people or adjust settings, etc... > >i can no longer contribute in that way... you can disagree, but you'd be wrong >because, well, i can't do it... > If you are you saying you can't log into the web based admin pages for thelist, I would reply that I understood you were the admin for theforum, why do you need access to thelist? If you can't login to the admin pages for theforum, I would push for you to get the access since you are the admin for thefourm list. >>This is what Michele was asking for. "other keen things" might be fun >>stuff or might be things that really need to be done. But until we >>know what they are and why they are are being done, we can not >>organize it, develop a process for it, or grant access for it (safely >>and in good conscience) no matter who is asking. For what it's worth, >>I have no access at all, I don't even see pending articles when I log >>in. I believe I contribute to evolt even with this level of access. >> > >we've written those lists up, and we've gone by established processes, and >even jumped through hoops, and still nothing... > >as for knowing what things are or need to be done, this is *all* well- >documented stuff on admin, here, the wiki, numerous requests, etc... *none* >of this is new to me, though it may be to you... that doesn't make it not >documented... > I know that the tasks are documented as I acknowledged in a previous post. My support of Michele's suggestion was that knowing how people perceived the tasks being done and which tasks they wished to perform, mingled with our knowledge of the task list would allow us to develop better processes to handle the tasks. >>Adrian, you have contributed very much to evolt in the past and >>continue to contribute. Why do you say you are no longer able to do >>so? If more access is required to contribute the way you want to, add >>it to the list Michele proposed (wherever it ends up, I know, another >>delay, but as organization and process improves it will take less >>time) we will be on a good track to where we need to go. >> > >and that, ron, is the flaw... i've asked for access for some time, or at least an >explanation why it was pulled... i know others have as well... hell, i've asked >to be told who has what access, and for the 4th time today, the people dan >left to admin things while he's away was a surprise to *everyone* on admin, >and even some of the people granted access... > I recall seeing a list of who had what access in what role several days ago. If things are falling through, we need to refine our current method, or create a new one. >IOW, michele's list is built on another, older list, which is built on even older >requests... > OK, where are the lists? We need to dig them up or do it again and keep a handle on it. >you're asking me to sit back and accept a process that has so far completely >and utterly failed to address anything... > No, I am saying change the process, or create a process that will work. I know it is frustrating and time consuming, but that is part of building something different than anything before. >i can't do that... > >i want to see things get fixed and see evolt.org responsive to its members, >and ultimately run by them -- > I do too. > not you, not me, not dan, not the monkey we've >had hammering out articles in martin's name (how do you think he got so >many?)... > How does he pay for all the bananas to feed the thing? > > >[...] > >>What I mean is, the recurrance of "Dan" bashing, the recurrance of "I >>did, you did", "this was decided but never done", "well, I set this up >>for a similar purpose, use it", etc., etc., etc . . . . sorry, but I >>can't hold this in any longer; a bunch of self interest BULL SHIT! >> > >you need to get past the dan bashing... ask *anyone* here that you think is >opposed to dan, and they can absolutely verify that i have *always* defended >him and given him the benefit of the doubt on the lists and in offline discourse >(which i also avoid, because i believe in a public forum)... *ask*... don't just >accept this, *ask* them all, every last one of them, because i want this put to >bed right now... > So do I. The reason for my statement. A post by rudy to kill admin and do something differnt was quickly overtaken by the old, and recurring, *stuff*. So, here we are again. >i'm not bashing dan, i *like* him, i'm glad he does what he does, but i think >the process and methods he and others use are crap... note the difference: >dan is da bomb... the process sucks... > I know you are not bashing Dan, and I did not say, or mean to imply, you were. >this self-interest bull-poo-poo as you call it is in fact a history, a well- >documented history, > It is, and it re-surfaced again. I want it gone forever. > of why we are here talking about this... what on earth do >i have to gain? please, if it is self-interest, explain to me how i benefit? street >cred? my name on things? bragging rights at the bar? here's your other task >-- tell me *how* i benefit... i want that killed, too, and only you can take the >initiative to do that... > >please, ron, you're responding to this too emotionally, and while i don't fault >you for it, you're ascribing behaviors and motivations to me that aren't >accurate... > I didn't ascribe them to you. I stated what I see happening with no names attached. >> Let's get past it. If it can't put it aside, go play in another sand >>box or be quiet so those that really want to grow and improve >>evolt.org can do so. >> > >is that a put-up or shut-up statement? > >i'm putting up... i'm putting up because i want to grow and improve evolt.org... >my history here speaks for itself, my activities, my visibility, *everything* i do >supports it... i have been very vocal all along, and i won't stop... bozo-filter me >if you like, but i have every intention of helping evolt.org turn into something >that doesn't *need* me... > It was a cooperate and help or get out of the way statement. Maybe not a good statement to make because we all think we are helping. My intent was to get the fighting stopped and get focus on creating a cooperative organization. We had it before and we can have it again. >>Access priveleges, titles, responsibilities, processes are moot and >>worthless until we have the cohesiveness and cooperation we had in the >>beginning. If your feelings are out on your sleeve and got hurt, >>sorry, that's life. If you didn't get what you wanted, sorry that's >>life. It should not impact or even be mentioned here or on admin. A >>list was set up for personal messages and interaction. >> > >we will not achieve cohesiveness until everyone can speak freely... your >comments notwithstanding, i think we all need to voice our opinions... > I agree. I did. Part of mine is that the old arguments and dissent need to go away. >>>there will always be dissent... it's unfortunate we're viewing it as >>>negative... contrary viewpoints have always been our strength... >>> >>Contrary viewpoints for improvement and discussion to a solution, yes. >> What we have experienced for the past few months is no where near >> that >>ideal. What we have been experiencing is power and control fights. I >>don't understand it. There is nothing to be gained by controlling >>evolt.org. Control of evolt.org is in the hands of the users (should >>be). Execution of the tasks to support that control is up to the >>volunteers on theforum, admin and thesite. We need to create an >>organization and processes that support the execution. >> > >- i can't fight over control and power when i don't have either... > Some don't because it is not their nature or way. Some do because it is their desire to have control and power. >>>it really isn't as directed at him as it may sound -- it's directed >>>at how we do things... if it were anyone else, i'd say the same >>>things... >>> >>I disagree Adrian. How many times have seem similar posts from the >>same members, on simailar issues? >> > >i don't get your point, but just by what you say, that means something isn't >happening correctly... some people feel they aren't being heard... perhaps >that's a better way to look at it... instead of accusing people of whining, >maybe we should consider that they feel unheard? > A good point. And something that has been done. The problem is that some people live their lives "feeling unheard". Doesn't matter where, who or what, the same feeling always, in all places. Should it stop progress? This may seem cold to some, but it is simply life. >>Yes, there will always be dissagreement. But if everyone looks for a >>solution to the disagreement we progress. When some disagree >>consistantly no matter what, we digress. That is the problem. We >>have members that are unhappy and disagree even when they get what >>they ask for. >> > >do you qualify me as one of them? > No >- if yes, then bozo-filter me, i'm not stopping... > no filtering, I would be disappointed if you stopped. >- if no, don't mention it again to me... > I will not. It has been stated and is up to each individual what they will do with it. Ron D.