Touch up - errata - typo

Just to take care of some easy criticism, obviously in the passage:
> Who are they to prevent the public's access to the creator's
> unique masterpieces.
I did not mean Creator with a big C, nor did I mean to imply that I
was the creator of masterpieces alone. Please read instead:
} Who are they to prevent the public's access to EACH creator's
} unique masterpieces.
The idea is anyone and each posting can be a master piece.
For me who is so profoundly anti-guru, and after the points I just
made earlier that I never wanted to be one to controle the destiny
of the group, this was almost unforgivable. But I know better.

Ciao

Reda



--- In Structure_Integrator@yahoogroups.com, "redaelandaloussi"
<redaelandaloussi@y...> wrote:
>
> 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
> >