The following material has been censored at the
[Structural_Integration] forum

On Mar 15, 2005, at 9:43 AM, redaelandaloussi wrote:


>
>
>
> I do not read these hum 'guidelines'.
> hiiihahaha
> Sorry, if it wasn't so serious, it would be really funny.
>
> Seriously,
>
> It is interesting to see these people just recently converted to
> consumerism to justify their censorship. Make no mistake we are
> censored. Once a discussion is eliminated from main view, it is
> effectively killed. It will not continue. Where were they during
the
> 3-4 years of my consumer advocacy to move the forum to a moderated
> platform. Where were they when I tried to convince everybody that
> the forum should move towards a moderated platform. Did they try to
> help me, did they advocate with me. No. They let me do all the
dirty
> work. They let me take all the risks, they let me write the book,
> they let me hammer it on everyone's head. And now that my plan to
> get them a moderated forum has worked, they want me out. Tsk Tsk
> Tsk. Who are they to prevent the public's access to the creator's
> unique masterpieces. Who are they to assume that it is not in
> Structural Integrators and consumers' interest to have fully open
> discussions? Didn't we already demonstrate that open did the trick,
> open got us a moderated forum against spam. The `Open' Directory
> Project (dmoz.org) got us a moderated forum against spam. Open is
> where everyone can see that Jim Pascucci was never an active owner,
> which is why I had to be so direct with him. And which is also why
> in the new platform he is not the owner (he never wanted anything
to
> do with managing the forum). Open is what allowed these neo-leaders
> to see it coming because I told everyone what was coming. Open is
> the source. And they want to kill it. But see, there is a problem.
> The only way to do that is through dishonesty.
>
> First of all, if they really were concerned with information
> consumers, why are they still refusing to talk about the changes in
> the mission statements, that would let consumers know this is a
> resource accessible to them? This would save lives, and much more,
> it would also prevent problems here such as practitioners living an
> the illusion of privacy, and therefore posting things they regret.
> Just like my actions have already altered the destiny of consumers
> access to vital SI information. MY free and open actions, MY
> consumer advocacy and activism. Nobody said thank you. Nooo.
Nobody.
> What I got instead is lies and deception.
>
> If they were so concerned with consumers, why are they not
> considering doing a more useful type of moderation, like educating
> users to not post personally identifiable information such as
> practitioners phone numbers?
>
> Remember, I wrote the book on Internet SI consumers, they didn't
> read.
>
> What are they trying to hide from mankind if not their own
darkness?
> Aren't they really trying to hide from themselves. The only thing I
> see in our secret vaults (File Section) are their inability to
> address consumer issues, their inability to be honest.
>
> For me, the one moral contract which ties me to this group is the
> one promise that was made at the foundation of this group, by both
> old founder Jim Pascucci, and new founder Pat Smith, that the only
> moderation was going to be antisex spam. If I can't trust the
> leaders of this group to mean what they say and say what they mean,
> then really I do not belong here, which is one thing of which they
> are trying to convince me and others. They made such promises. They
> also maintain to this day that Jim Pascucci is the owner. This is a
> lieThey deserve to be called what they are: dishonest.
>
> I perused these `guidelines' once though. My understanding is even
> if they were morally legitimate, which they are not, that there is
> an undeniable unresolved paradox in these guidelines.
>
> I already received a warning (before banning) initiated by Michael
> Vilain who is also a an active member and technical volunteer of
the
> IASI, and who is the new co-boss here. Jim Pascucci is no longer
the
> boss, as anyone can find out in the members section, contrarily to
> what the 2 ONLY bosses Pat and Michael say. There is therefore a
> clear administrative inconsistency, and misinformation of members.
> Wouldn't it be better to give Jim an honorary title like 'Honorary
> Dean' or something of the sort. That way Jim could continue to be
> absent from administrative responsibilities, as he has always been,
> yet a historical acknowledgement would be made about the fact that
> he created the 1st forum.
>
> Anyway, about banning, once I am banned, then when someone like
> Michael Vilain make false claims about my projects, I will no
longer
> have the privilege to answer and correct the record.
>
> It is not paranoia for me to clearly see what is at work here.
> Membership organizations consider my projects competitive to
theirs.
> Obviously, if there is a good tool, which also allows practitioners
> (among other functionalities which also include gathering
> practitioners listings from existing 'known' schools and
> associations) to create an account freely and openly, then it is
> only logical for these membership associations to think that such a
> tool would make people think twice before purchasing or renewing a
> membership. Of course that would be short sighted, but membership
> associations have proven over and over their shortness of vision.
> The reality is that the tool will let everyone chose, it would
> balance the market, re-adjust it to a more natural place, and that
> in the long run is healthy for everyone, including membership
> associations.
>
> Memberships have other services in their packages, witch may still
> be attractive, like a newsletter, like continuing ed. access,
> discounts, and who knows what else. However the fact that they have
> bundled access to an online list of practitioners makes their offer
> more attractive than it would, if there was a good free tool. Then
> perhaps many of their members would simply not purchase their
> package. Following market rules, they may have fewer members, or
> have to drop their membership fee. Then they would have to improve
> quality somewhere, re-invent membership to make it more attractive.
> Everyone would win, and practitioners too.
>
> From a consumer perspective, of course the cost of membership and
> their very existence as a condition to be listed are both
> outrageaous. And of course from a graduate-alumni perspective too.
> If you have graduated from a good school, that is your achievement,
> and consumers should find you because of that achievement. No one
> should take it away from you. But the big schools keep your records
> in their drawers, and then ask you to pay on a yearly basis to pull
> them out and put them online. And you don't pay the $5 it takes to
> maintain your record acurate and up to date. You pay for the
bundled
> package of $ 100 to $ 500 per year. If all you want is be listed,
> for your achievement of graduating, you are forced into buying a
> package or loose your affiliation and your exposure to web
customers.
>
> This is also the case of the IASI by the way. If I understand
> correctly, and I may be wrong, you may undergo a certification
> process once, but then you have to keep paying every year to be
> renewed on their list.
>
> So of course the idaprolf.org database project is not popular at
all
> among all membership associations accross our profession.
>
> Make no mistake, they have seen it right away, and have been
> determined ever since, to pass on the word to ignore me. The idea
is
> simple. The more they can delay my project, the better of their
> treasury is, without having to invest in change. Is it reasonable
to
> think they would go as far as conspiring, even without
> concentration, towards jeopardizing my membership to this group? Of
> course it is. Michael Vilain has made that demonstration:
>
> He gave me a warning before banning me. So I went away, clearly
> stating that I did not accept the legitimacy of the banning
> guidelines. This may have helped him conclude that he could begin
> disinformation about my project, to pump up the image of the IASI's
> project. What Michael did not realize is that he gave me a
wonderful
> opportunity to prove my points:
>
> - Michael is dishonest
> - Membership associations have a negative influence, and practice
> manipulations
> - You can't ban anyone from here precisely because it is the one
> place to fight against these associations' malicious practices.
> Surely they should be able to explain themselves here, but so
should
> anyone else.
>
> Now I also made another point that the management of this group has
> preferred to not discuss. I don't know how these guys can live with
> such embarrassing attitudes. But here it is.
>
> The mission statements have been unilaterally changed in a way
which
> seems to effectively reduce Structural Integration as a work on
> human posture. I expected more from Ramblemuse. He really
> disappointed me here. He made it a power conflict with me. I really
> thought, that with the kind of mind he wants people to see him as,
> that he would actually appreciate the mind challenge. But instead
he
> turned the issue into a power trip.
>
> Obviously, In the Files section, he has had plenty of opportunities
> to examine my Decision Matrix, which proves once and for all that I
> have been looking at these missions statements for longer than he
> has, and that I have been playing with carefully wording Structural
> Integartion resources for longer than he has. Yet one day he
decided
> Structural Integration engineer should know that this forum is not
> about engineering, made a unilateral change, and then refused to
> listen to what I have to say about it. Keith eric Grant Ramblemuse
> swept in less than a week the years of thoughts I have put in these
> mission statements. That is where he proved that the mind challenge
> wasn't what interested him. But the power to tell me to get lost.
> That is what made him tick. I hope he indulged himself. Cause he
> lost all credibility right there on the spot, and his big diplomas
> went down the drain.
>
> This power trip is very important. It is just so important for them
> to make me bow. There is not many courteous ways to tell people
they
> act stupid. They know that I do not bow to stupidity, therefore all
> they have to do is act stupid for me to tell them that they look
> stupid.
>
> And then they can ban me.
>
> Let's make it simple for kids:
> This has been the motto of the SI community towards me since
school.
> When one person (A) is in a situation of power, one can easily do
> that. The challenger (B) shows up, proposes something
(challenging),
> then (A) ignores it, then (B) insists, then (A) keep ignoring it,
> etc... Down the road (B) says: "(A) you look stupid". Then the
whole
> thing gets on everyone's nerves, and (B) can be banned.
>
> The oldest trick in the book, for whoever read Machiavelli's the
> prince.
>
> Watch them politicians now make meaningless statements: we are not
> plotting against you. I recused myself. Bla Bla Bla.
>
> If the clique in charge of our community AT LARGE were well
> intentioned, they would have provided a space for conflict
> resolution, and to examine new concepts. Believe me I tried all
> possible channels. Our community leaders have individually and
> collectively proven that they are not well intentioned, that they
> are indeed Machiavellic in the most basic sense.
>
> Now the disease has reached this forum.
>
> Notice it hasn't contaminated me. My counter poison is straight
> simple: open - open - open. Everything I did, I did openly. I meant
> what I said, and I said what I meant. That is why they want it
> closed – closed – closed.
>
> The old ownership and the new alike have lied, deceived, and
> manipulated, and they continue to do so.
>
> Sincerely
>
> Reda el Andaloussi
> http://www.idaprolf.org
> http://www.biomechanics-structural-integration.org
> http://www.abcsi.net
> http://www.redaelandaloussi.net
>