background to Gordon's report
This is a reponse to what Xabier writes about Gordon's report. Pardon, demasiado complicado para escribir en espagnol. let me first say that I agree that Gordon's report is biased, but that does not make it untrue. It is biased because once he had been deceived three times in a row, publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment, and subject to an intense campaign of disinformation and lies, which continues to this day, he got understandably angry and started looking for negative information to explain what had happened to him. But that doesn't make the chargnes in the document untrue, it just means they are unbalanced. For balance, and for the record. Gordon Cook was promised $4k for a report. This was then unilaterally changed to $3500 on condition that he would come to the summit. Gordon Cook informed that with a spinal operation, it was impossible for him to travel economy in cramped conditions. I was physically present twice when this agreement and promise was made to him, by Daniel Vazquez. When Gordon was informed this promise would not be kept, he was publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment. But in fact, since he could not attend without a business class ticket, and he could not be paid without attendance, this effectively meant he would not be payed in effect. Now of course, Daniel denies making promise, and I could have been in a mental state of confusion twice, but given the rather systematic non-keeping of engagements, which I can document extensively, I would say occam's razors dictate that a change of mind is the easier explanation. Note that there was no obligation to change that decision, it was a pragmatic decision to spend the money differently, as admitted by DV. Gordon was accused of the following things and apologies if they charges sound ridiculous, because of course they are. These charges were leveled internally and privately by DV, and relayed publicly and repeatedly by Bernardo Gutierrez, who continued levelling them even after being informed of facts to the contrary. This is why I wrote the 'parting with bernardo Gutierrez' letter, because it is one thing to spread disinformation out of igorance, or privately, but another thing to continue even when you are aware of the facts. 1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g> 2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence 3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ?? 4) Gordon Cook is a neocon : demonstrably false, read gordon's reporting on progressive telecom and internet infrastructure reform Particularly nefarious was the internal disinformation, in which we were told that Gordon's report was an adolescent rant. As we had 15 reports to review, this pushed gordon's to the end. Only to discover then that it was rather excellent and took just two afternoons of back and forth to make it into a fine report. I have no idea why Gordon Cook was singled out for this particular treatment; why so many lies, why such a systematic breaking of engagements. But the background is the following: 1) as research team we were systematically subjected to such broken engagements, not once, but repeatedly, which is why most of us did not invite our networks to the Summit 2) everyone who was scapegoated in the project was subjected to minor forms of the same treatment. Whether Bethany Horne, Andres Delgado, Gordon Cook or perhaps even others, it was not possible to leave the project without being thoroughly trashed, and subject to character assisination, defamation, and disinformation campaigns. I was myself violently attacked without about 99% false accusations by PDS, who subsequently proceeded to wreck the 'urban mesa' and faced a general revolt there; obviously the attacks on my character were kept indoors, but if I had not been protected by my reputation and network, I have little doubt I would be subjected to the same treatment. In fact, I was, and Bernardo Gutierrez, after publicly threatening to publish my private emails, also publicly spread false information. For example that I 'defend fora do eixo because I am getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes'. Though the accusations were mostly ridiculous, they are nevertheless symptomatic of a particular 'paranoid' state of mind. So, while Cook's report may be one-sided, his charges are mostly well documented, as acknowledged by Xabier (screenshots, citations); so they may be one-sided, but since they are documented, they are not defamatory, despite xabier's claim. But the undocumented and unproven charges to Gordon, which I outlined above, were definitely defamatory and contrary to truth. By treating Gordon so systematically in a dishonourable way, the flok mgt has created a monster that will haunt them forever. All the other reports by Gordon, such as the ones on Guifi.net, are well documented and well written and recommended reading. His FLOK report is mostly interesting as an anthropological account of a particular management style. Let's hope it stays confined to Ecuador, but Bernardo's public threats would indicate that there is a danger there is an attempt to export them. However, I don't think it will be successful. My recommendation to the flok mgt is: stop trashing Gordon, it will backfire. You will be judged, not how you treat your friends, but how you treat your enemies. and there is something particularly shameful about systematically mistreating an old man with severe health problems and not paying someone for 3 months of research work even though you had the money to do it. Other researchers, be warned. Please note that despite repeated promises, not one charge of Gordon Cook has been refuted, and probably because they can't (disclaimer: i have only read the summary and scanned the full report); this is why they attack Gordon as a person. The critique that Gordon may have published private emails, is particularly unreceivable given Bernardo's public threat to publish my own private emails. Michel <<"Repetidamente he dicho que no pienso entrar a valorar el difamatorio pseudo-informe de Gordon Cook. Creo que quien intente leer sus más de 100 páginas se va a dar cuenta de lo tendencioso que es: las capturas de pantalla, la información privada desvelada sin permiso, incluyendo imágenes, etc. por no hablar de lo completamente sesgado de las pseudo-entrevistas, a quién da voz y a quién no, de qué manera, etc. Todos los Cook Report son copyright restrictivo (modelo de negocio basado en consultorías), excepto este, aunque sigue sin poner bien el copyleft y es dudosamente copyleft ante la ley. En cualquier caso, las sospechas de la parcialidad del documento surgen en cualquier persona mínimanente informada y conocedora de los que es el mundo copyleft, procomún etc. En fin, no perdamos tiempo con eso Bernardo porque ese informe se desvirtúa a sí mismo. Aunque suscribo al 100% lo que comentas. Tal como viví las cosas, Gordon Cook se pilló un rebote gordo porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba. A partir de ahí comenzó una guerra sin cuartel. Así de triste lo he vivido." [en] I have repeatedly said that I will not get to appreciate the defamatorypseudo-report Gordon Cook. I think anyone who tries to read its over 100 pages is going to realize how biased that is: screenshots, private information disclosed without permission, includingimages, etc.. not to mention it's completely biased pseudo-interviews, who gives voice and who does not, how, etc.. All Cook Report are copyright restrictive (business model based consultancies), except this, but is yet to put either thefine the copyleft and is arguably before the law. In any case, the suspicion of bias arise in anyone document minimally informed and aware of the world that is copyleft,commons etc. In short, do not waste time with that because that Bernardoreport undermines itself. Although I subscribe to 100% whichyou comment. As things lived, Gordon Cook caught a fat reboundbecause he could not afford the trip he needed. From therestarted a merciless war. So that sad I have lived. -- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
estoy de acuerdo que es mejor no difamar Gordon Cook y otra personas, asi que no es necessario responder para defender el honor de los difamados, es la mejor solucion, Michel On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Ramón Ramón Sánchez <[email protected]> wrote:
Hola a todos y todas, ¿De veras que no hay manera de acabar con este desgastante debate? En los últimos días parecía que se había vuelto a recibir propuestas, proyectos, ideas,... y otra vez un correo sobre el señor Cook, ¿tan importante es este señor? Yo con todos mis respetos no le conocía, ni me sonaba su nombre, y si muchos de los que hay en esta lista, desde las últimas incorporaciones, como la de Xabier o el hermano Marcelo Branco, hacker brasileño por excelencia y una de las figuras más admiradas en toda Latinoamérica, a luchadoras latinoamericanas como Mariangela Petrizzo, Simona Levi o Renata Avila. ¿Por favor, os lo ruego, no hay manera de acabar con este hilo de historias, y concentrarnos en positivo, en sumar, construir, aportar, comentar,....?
Gracias por adelantado, RAMON RAMON SANCHEZ
El 10/07/14 12:40, Michel Bauwens escribió:
This is a reponse to what Xabier writes about Gordon's report.
Pardon, demasiado complicado para escribir en espagnol.
let me first say that I agree that Gordon's report is biased, but that does not make it untrue. It is biased because once he had been deceived three times in a row, publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment, and subject to an intense campaign of disinformation and lies, which continues to this day, he got understandably angry and started looking for negative information to explain what had happened to him. But that doesn't make the chargnes in the document untrue, it just means they are unbalanced.
For balance, and for the record.
Gordon Cook was promised $4k for a report. This was then unilaterally changed to $3500 on condition that he would come to the summit. Gordon Cook informed that with a spinal operation, it was impossible for him to travel economy in cramped conditions. I was physically present twice when this agreement and promise was made to him, by Daniel Vazquez. When Gordon was informed this promise would not be kept, he was publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment. But in fact, since he could not attend without a business class ticket, and he could not be paid without attendance, this effectively meant he would not be payed in effect. Now of course, Daniel denies making promise, and I could have been in a mental state of confusion twice, but given the rather systematic non-keeping of engagements, which I can document extensively, I would say occam's razors dictate that a change of mind is the easier explanation. Note that there was no obligation to change that decision, it was a pragmatic decision to spend the money differently, as admitted by DV.
Gordon was accused of the following things and apologies if they charges sound ridiculous, because of course they are. These charges were leveled internally and privately by DV, and relayed publicly and repeatedly by Bernardo Gutierrez, who continued levelling them even after being informed of facts to the contrary. This is why I wrote the 'parting with bernardo Gutierrez' letter, because it is one thing to spread disinformation out of igorance, or privately, but another thing to continue even when you are aware of the facts.
1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g>
2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence
3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ??
4) Gordon Cook is a neocon : demonstrably false, read gordon's reporting on progressive telecom and internet infrastructure reform
Particularly nefarious was the internal disinformation, in which we were told that Gordon's report was an adolescent rant. As we had 15 reports to review, this pushed gordon's to the end. Only to discover then that it was rather excellent and took just two afternoons of back and forth to make it into a fine report.
I have no idea why Gordon Cook was singled out for this particular treatment; why so many lies, why such a systematic breaking of engagements. But the background is the following: 1) as research team we were systematically subjected to such broken engagements, not once, but repeatedly, which is why most of us did not invite our networks to the Summit 2) everyone who was scapegoated in the project was subjected to minor forms of the same treatment.
Whether Bethany Horne, Andres Delgado, Gordon Cook or perhaps even others, it was not possible to leave the project without being thoroughly trashed, and subject to character assisination, defamation, and disinformation campaigns. I was myself violently attacked without about 99% false accusations by PDS, who subsequently proceeded to wreck the 'urban mesa' and faced a general revolt there; obviously the attacks on my character were kept indoors, but if I had not been protected by my reputation and network, I have little doubt I would be subjected to the same treatment.
In fact, I was, and Bernardo Gutierrez, after publicly threatening to publish my private emails, also publicly spread false information. For example that I 'defend fora do eixo because I am getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes'. Though the accusations were mostly ridiculous, they are nevertheless symptomatic of a particular 'paranoid' state of mind.
So, while Cook's report may be one-sided, his charges are mostly well documented, as acknowledged by Xabier (screenshots, citations); so they may be one-sided, but since they are documented, they are not defamatory, despite xabier's claim. But the undocumented and unproven charges to Gordon, which I outlined above, were definitely defamatory and contrary to truth.
By treating Gordon so systematically in a dishonourable way, the flok mgt has created a monster that will haunt them forever.
All the other reports by Gordon, such as the ones on Guifi.net, are well documented and well written and recommended reading. His FLOK report is mostly interesting as an anthropological account of a particular management style. Let's hope it stays confined to Ecuador, but Bernardo's public threats would indicate that there is a danger there is an attempt to export them.
However, I don't think it will be successful.
My recommendation to the flok mgt is: stop trashing Gordon, it will backfire.
You will be judged, not how you treat your friends, but how you treat your enemies. and there is something particularly shameful about systematically mistreating an old man with severe health problems and not paying someone for 3 months of research work even though you had the money to do it.
Other researchers, be warned.
Please note that despite repeated promises, not one charge of Gordon Cook has been refuted, and probably because they can't (disclaimer: i have only read the summary and scanned the full report); this is why they attack Gordon as a person.
The critique that Gordon may have published private emails, is particularly unreceivable given Bernardo's public threat to publish my own private emails.
Michel
<<"Repetidamente he dicho que no pienso entrar a valorar el difamatorio
pseudo-informe de Gordon Cook. Creo que quien intente leer sus más de 100 páginas se va a dar cuenta de lo tendencioso que es: las capturas de pantalla, la información privada desvelada sin permiso, incluyendo imágenes, etc. por no hablar de lo completamente sesgado de las pseudo-entrevistas, a quién da voz y a quién no, de qué manera, etc. Todos los Cook Report son copyright restrictivo (modelo de negocio basado en consultorías), excepto este, aunque sigue sin poner bien el copyleft y es dudosamente copyleft ante la ley. En cualquier caso, las sospechas de la parcialidad del documento surgen en cualquier persona mínimanente informada y conocedora de los que es el mundo copyleft, procomún etc. En fin, no perdamos tiempo con eso Bernardo porque ese informe se desvirtúa a sí mismo. Aunque suscribo al 100% lo que comentas. Tal como viví las cosas, Gordon Cook se pilló un rebote gordo porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba. A partir de ahí comenzó una guerra sin cuartel. Así de triste lo he vivido."
[en] I have repeatedly said that I will not get to appreciate the defamatorypseudo-report Gordon Cook. I think anyone who tries to read its over 100 pages is going to realize how biased that is: screenshots, private information disclosed without permission, includingimages, etc.. not to mention it's completely biased pseudo-interviews, who gives voice and who does not, how, etc.. All Cook Report are copyright restrictive (business model based consultancies), except this, but is yet to put either thefine the copyleft and is arguably before the law. In any case, the suspicion of bias arise in anyone document minimally informed and aware of the world that is copyleft,commons etc. In short, do not waste time with that because that Bernardoreport undermines itself. Although I subscribe to 100% whichyou comment. As things lived, Gordon Cook caught a fat reboundbecause he could not afford the trip he needed. From therestarted a merciless war. So that sad I have lived.
-- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..*
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- Ramón Ramón Sánchez Fundador y portavoz de Iniciativa Focushttp://iniciativafocus.org/
Mi blog: http://ramonramon.org/blog
Mi perfil profesional:http://www.linkedin.com/in/ramonramon
Otras redes http://twitter.com/ramonramonhttp://www.facebook.com/ramonramonhttp://apps.f...
"Compartiendo y cooperando conseguiremos un futuro mejor para todos"
-- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..* P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens #82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
Mis disculpas por contestar a Michel Bauwens, estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo. vayamos a lo constructivo, hay mucho trabajo por hacer, xabier On 10/07/14 13:06, Ramón Ramón Sánchez wrote:
Hola a todos y todas, ¿De veras que no hay manera de acabar con este desgastante debate? En los últimos días parecía que se había vuelto a recibir propuestas, proyectos, ideas,... y otra vez un correo sobre el señor Cook, ¿tan importante es este señor? Yo con todos mis respetos no le conocía, ni me sonaba su nombre, y si muchos de los que hay en esta lista, desde las últimas incorporaciones, como la de Xabier o el hermano Marcelo Branco, hacker brasileño por excelencia y una de las figuras más admiradas en toda Latinoamérica, a luchadoras latinoamericanas como Mariangela Petrizzo, Simona Levi o Renata Avila. ¿Por favor, os lo ruego, no hay manera de acabar con este hilo de historias, y concentrarnos en positivo, en sumar, construir, aportar, comentar,....?
Gracias por adelantado, RAMON RAMON SANCHEZ
-- wget -O - http://sindominio.net/~xabier/xabier.gpg.asc | gpg --import xabier BARANDIARAN | http://www.barandiaran.net "There is no need for fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons" DELEUZE
+ 1 hay idea de generar algun report sobre las recomendaciones del proceso de investigación para integrar en políticas públicas ? a. ----- Mensaje original ----- De: "xabier" <[email protected]> Para: [email protected] Enviados: Jueves, 10 de Julio 2014 13:57:02 Asunto: Re: [P2P-es] background to Gordon's report Mis disculpas por contestar a Michel Bauwens, estoy totalmente de acuerdo contigo. vayamos a lo constructivo, hay mucho trabajo por hacer, xabier On 10/07/14 13:06, Ramón Ramón Sánchez wrote:
Hola a todos y todas, ¿De veras que no hay manera de acabar con este desgastante debate? En los últimos días parecía que se había vuelto a recibir propuestas, proyectos, ideas,... y otra vez un correo sobre el señor Cook, ¿tan importante es este señor? Yo con todos mis respetos no le conocía, ni me sonaba su nombre, y si muchos de los que hay en esta lista, desde las últimas incorporaciones, como la de Xabier o el hermano Marcelo Branco, hacker brasileño por excelencia y una de las figuras más admiradas en toda Latinoamérica, a luchadoras latinoamericanas como Mariangela Petrizzo, Simona Levi o Renata Avila. ¿Por favor, os lo ruego, no hay manera de acabar con este hilo de historias, y concentrarnos en positivo, en sumar, construir, aportar, comentar,....?
Gracias por adelantado, RAMON RAMON SANCHEZ
-- wget -O - http://sindominio.net/~xabier/xabier.gpg.asc | gpg --import xabier BARANDIARAN | http://www.barandiaran.net "There is no need for fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons" DELEUZE
On 10/07/14 14:07, Anto Recio wrote:
+ 1
hay idea de generar algun report sobre las recomendaciones del proceso de investigación para integrar en políticas públicas ?
Sí claro. Bueno FLOK ha sido y es mucho más que un proceso de investigación. Ahora mismo esperamos a terminar la cuentas, que son un follón, para poder publicarlas de manera transparente. Lo bueno sería poder sacar un informe de cómo han ido todos los aspectos de FLOK. Y respecto a la investigación pues aún seguimos trabajando, está el trabajo de las redes, el del equipo de investigación, el de las mesas de discusión, la elaboración posterior... vamos lentas pero nos gustaría hacer un public-reselease (osea una publicación del contenido) revisado pronto. Probablemente pidamos ayuda para revisar algunos documentos. Pero hay tantísimo material que primero tenemos que ordenarlo y elaborarlo. os mantendremos informadas, un abrazo, xabier -- wget -O - http://sindominio.net/~xabier/xabier.gpg.asc | gpg --import xabier BARANDIARAN | http://www.barandiaran.net "There is no need for fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons" DELEUZE
Vaya insistencia y vaya tristeza tener que seguir hablando de estas cosas en listas que no están destinadas a esto. De todas formas, por alusiones, me siento forzado a responder, aunque sea brevemente. Lo asombroso es que Michel ya sabe lo que voy a decir, se lo dije a él repetidamente por mails privados y también a Gordon Cook, hace ya meses. Antes de nada me gustaría comentar que he intentado suscribirme 3 veces a la lista internacional de la p2pfoundation pero que no me ha sido posible, el administrador no da de alta mi inscripción. Creo que ha Bernardo lo han echado hace semanas sin avisarle siquiera, y sin que en la lista quede constancia de que se le ha expulsado (pero eso mejor que lo confirme Bernardo). El caso es que esta respuesta no llegará a la lista internacional, pero al menos aquí constará. Al grano. Por lo que yo sé el orden de los acontecimientos es el siguiente: * Para el proyecto FLOK intentamos hacer algo bonito: pagar a gente para que escribiera documentos copyleft de políticas públicas en los ámbitos en los que eran expertas. Liberar renta para los comunes. Eso es complicadísimo en Ecuador, por lo que era necesario que para cobrar, esas personas, vinieran a la cumbre y cobraran allí en metálico sus honorarios (firmaran recibos, etc. ya que es casi imposible pagar a extranjeros de otra manera, por motivo de todas las mediadas anti-corrupción y de control de divisas en el país). * Os podéis imaginar que el proyecto FLOK ha tenido muchos enemigos de verdad (ministerios de derechas en Ecuador, lobbies, etc.) que operaron saboteando la administración y los procesos burocráticos. Una verdadera pesadilla para el grupo de administración, que no podía gastar el dinero de la cumbre sin el concurso público correspondiente, etc. La licitación de este concurso público y la empresa que al final asumió los gastos de viajes, etc. no se pudo hacer hasta apenas una semana (!) antes de la cumbre. Imaginaros la tensión y el follón. * El Sr. Gordon Cook tiene necesidades espaciales de salud, por lo que pedía un billete especial en business class, pero las circunstancias administrativas lo hacían imposible. En un momento dado él pidió (exigió) que aunque no fuera business class, al menos que le compraran el billete al momento, porque tenía miedo de que a pocos días de la cumbre no pudieran comprarle un billete directo y tenía miedo de que, con la espalda mal, le tocara un billete con 5 conexiones y un viaje larguísimo. Comenzó a enviar mails insistentes a los administradores, que no podían hacer absolutamente nada, simplemente porque no podían comprar los billetes. Mi billete, por ejemplo, se compró apenas una semana antes de la cumbre y así con los billetes de todas las invitadas. Lo que pedía el Sr. Cook era razonable, pero imposible de hacer. * Esto le sentó muy mal al Sr. Gordon Cook, pero no había nada que hacer. Entonces comenzaron las acusaciones de que Daniel prefería traer a sus amigos a la cumbre en lugar de pagarle al Sr. Cook, etc. éste comenzó a decir que le estaban amenazando (sic!), que Daniel le había puesto "una bota en la cabeza"... el caso es que no se le había comprado ningún billete a nadie (no sólo a Cook), sencillamente porque no se podía. Y entonces comenzó toda una serie de hilos sobre el Estalinismo de FLOK y que Daniel era una dictador, etc. y evidentemente, se rompieron las relaciones con este señor. Pero ni se le ha atacado, ni se le ha amenazado, de hecho se le ha ignorado por un sencillo motivo: había y sigue habiendo muchísimo trabajo por hacer, y no hay tiempo para esto. Es una pena terminar así, pero ya está. Mucha gente se ha ido del proyecto, por motivos diferentes, incluso criticando el proyecto de diferentes maneras, pero no se les persigue ni se realiza un "character assesination" ni cosas así. Por cierto y para que conste: El documento de políticas públicas que escribió Gordon Cook está bastante bien. Pero él mismo lo retiró porque no se le podía pagar, y me parece totalmente razonable. Lo que no entiendo es todo el drama posterior :( saludos, xabier On 10/07/14 12:40, Michel Bauwens wrote:
This is a reponse to what Xabier writes about Gordon's report.
Pardon, demasiado complicado para escribir en espagnol.
let me first say that I agree that Gordon's report is biased, but that does not make it untrue. It is biased because once he had been deceived three times in a row, publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment, and subject to an intense campaign of disinformation and lies, which continues to this day, he got understandably angry and started looking for negative information to explain what had happened to him. But that doesn't make the chargnes in the document untrue, it just means they are unbalanced.
For balance, and for the record.
Gordon Cook was promised $4k for a report. This was then unilaterally changed to $3500 on condition that he would come to the summit. Gordon Cook informed that with a spinal operation, it was impossible for him to travel economy in cramped conditions. I was physically present twice when this agreement and promise was made to him, by Daniel Vazquez. When Gordon was informed this promise would not be kept, he was publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment. But in fact, since he could not attend without a business class ticket, and he could not be paid without attendance, this effectively meant he would not be payed in effect. Now of course, Daniel denies making promise, and I could have been in a mental state of confusion twice, but given the rather systematic non-keeping of engagements, which I can document extensively, I would say occam's razors dictate that a change of mind is the easier explanation. Note that there was no obligation to change that decision, it was a pragmatic decision to spend the money differently, as admitted by DV.
Gordon was accused of the following things and apologies if they charges sound ridiculous, because of course they are. These charges were leveled internally and privately by DV, and relayed publicly and repeatedly by Bernardo Gutierrez, who continued levelling them even after being informed of facts to the contrary. This is why I wrote the 'parting with bernardo Gutierrez' letter, because it is one thing to spread disinformation out of igorance, or privately, but another thing to continue even when you are aware of the facts.
1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g>
2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence
3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ??
4) Gordon Cook is a neocon : demonstrably false, read gordon's reporting on progressive telecom and internet infrastructure reform
Particularly nefarious was the internal disinformation, in which we were told that Gordon's report was an adolescent rant. As we had 15 reports to review, this pushed gordon's to the end. Only to discover then that it was rather excellent and took just two afternoons of back and forth to make it into a fine report.
I have no idea why Gordon Cook was singled out for this particular treatment; why so many lies, why such a systematic breaking of engagements. But the background is the following: 1) as research team we were systematically subjected to such broken engagements, not once, but repeatedly, which is why most of us did not invite our networks to the Summit 2) everyone who was scapegoated in the project was subjected to minor forms of the same treatment.
Whether Bethany Horne, Andres Delgado, Gordon Cook or perhaps even others, it was not possible to leave the project without being thoroughly trashed, and subject to character assisination, defamation, and disinformation campaigns. I was myself violently attacked without about 99% false accusations by PDS, who subsequently proceeded to wreck the 'urban mesa' and faced a general revolt there; obviously the attacks on my character were kept indoors, but if I had not been protected by my reputation and network, I have little doubt I would be subjected to the same treatment.
In fact, I was, and Bernardo Gutierrez, after publicly threatening to publish my private emails, also publicly spread false information. For example that I 'defend fora do eixo because I am getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes'. Though the accusations were mostly ridiculous, they are nevertheless symptomatic of a particular 'paranoid' state of mind.
So, while Cook's report may be one-sided, his charges are mostly well documented, as acknowledged by Xabier (screenshots, citations); so they may be one-sided, but since they are documented, they are not defamatory, despite xabier's claim. But the undocumented and unproven charges to Gordon, which I outlined above, were definitely defamatory and contrary to truth.
By treating Gordon so systematically in a dishonourable way, the flok mgt has created a monster that will haunt them forever.
All the other reports by Gordon, such as the ones on Guifi.net, are well documented and well written and recommended reading. His FLOK report is mostly interesting as an anthropological account of a particular management style. Let's hope it stays confined to Ecuador, but Bernardo's public threats would indicate that there is a danger there is an attempt to export them.
However, I don't think it will be successful.
My recommendation to the flok mgt is: stop trashing Gordon, it will backfire.
You will be judged, not how you treat your friends, but how you treat your enemies. and there is something particularly shameful about systematically mistreating an old man with severe health problems and not paying someone for 3 months of research work even though you had the money to do it.
Other researchers, be warned.
Please note that despite repeated promises, not one charge of Gordon Cook has been refuted, and probably because they can't (disclaimer: i have only read the summary and scanned the full report); this is why they attack Gordon as a person.
The critique that Gordon may have published private emails, is particularly unreceivable given Bernardo's public threat to publish my own private emails.
Michel
<<"Repetidamente he dicho que no pienso entrar a valorar el difamatorio
pseudo-informe de Gordon Cook. Creo que quien intente leer sus más de 100 páginas se va a dar cuenta de lo tendencioso que es: las capturas de pantalla, la información privada desvelada sin permiso, incluyendo imágenes, etc. por no hablar de lo completamente sesgado de las pseudo-entrevistas, a quién da voz y a quién no, de qué manera, etc. Todos los Cook Report son copyright restrictivo (modelo de negocio basado en consultorías), excepto este, aunque sigue sin poner bien el copyleft y es dudosamente copyleft ante la ley. En cualquier caso, las sospechas de la parcialidad del documento surgen en cualquier persona mínimanente informada y conocedora de los que es el mundo copyleft, procomún etc. En fin, no perdamos tiempo con eso Bernardo porque ese informe se desvirtúa a sí mismo. Aunque suscribo al 100% lo que comentas. Tal como viví las cosas, Gordon Cook se pilló un rebote gordo porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba. A partir de ahí comenzó una guerra sin cuartel. Así de triste lo he vivido."
[en] I have repeatedly said that I will not get to appreciate the defamatory pseudo-report Gordon Cook. I think anyone who tries to read its over 100 pages is going to realize how biased that is: screenshots, private information disclosed without permission, including images, etc.. not to mention it's completely biased pseudo-interviews, who gives voice and who does not, how, etc.. All Cook Report are copyright restrictive (business model based consultancies), except this, but is yet to put either the fine the copyleft and is arguably before the law. In any case, the suspicion of bias arise in anyone document minimally informed and aware of the world that is copyleft, commons etc. In short, do not waste time with that because that Bernardo report undermines itself. Although I subscribe to 100% which you comment. As things lived, Gordon Cook caught a fat rebound because he could not afford the trip he needed. From there started a merciless war. So that sad I have lived.
-- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..*
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/
-- wget -O - http://sindominio.net/~xabier/xabier.gpg.asc | gpg --import xabier BARANDIARAN | http://www.barandiaran.net "There is no need for fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons" DELEUZE
xabier is a totally unprincipled liar he sent me an outrageous private note in May saying that i owed DV an apology how laughable. again if anyone wants got see what is giving xabier such fits http://www.cookreport.com/pdfs/July-augCRecuadorfinal.pdf On Jul 10, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
This is a reponse to what Xabier writes about Gordon's report.
Pardon, demasiado complicado para escribir en espagnol.
let me first say that I agree that Gordon's report is biased, but that does not make it untrue. It is biased because once he had been deceived three times in a row, publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment, and subject to an intense campaign of disinformation and lies, which continues to this day, he got understandably angry and started looking for negative information to explain what had happened to him. But that doesn't make the chargnes in the document untrue, it just means they are unbalanced.
Michel looks for the good which is his right. We both see the same set of facts. And having been assured that this was good,when i found out it was run by duplicitous raving maniacs i set out to do do my own investigation. I guess it must be hitting close to home because xabier keeps warning people not to waste their time reading it. and as far as balance goes, this goes to the critique of mainstream so called objective journalism by glen greenwald. The duty of the reporter i believe is to show what those in power do not want got be seen and michel as you well know if you let these rants go unanswered , that would be unbalanced as well
For balance, and for the record.
Gordon Cook was promised $4k for a report. This was then unilaterally changed to $3500 on condition that he would come to the summit. Gordon Cook informed that with a spinal operation, it was impossible for him to travel economy in cramped conditions.
to be more precise daniel made it clear that it would not be until a day or two before the flight that i would get a ticket. when i first looked up flights i found one in economy newark to miami change planes in miami, total travel time 8 hours, price $900. Economy. THAT would have been possible. I told daniel that. Adding that that as it got closer to the time of the event the only things left would have been two or more changes of planes and flight times of 16 to 26 hours caused by layovers in airports of several hours apiece. THAT would have been physically impossible.
I was physically present twice when this agreement and promise was made to him, by Daniel Vazquez. When Gordon was informed this promise would not be kept, he was publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment.
the original threats came in private mail. and yes given the back alley nature of DV mode of operation instead of keeping silent and submitting I quit and this time did so in public and published a verbatim summary of DV's threat. from a private email ….shocking!!!! The irony is that i never asked for business class fare NEVER. When offered it was in february I said i didn't think i would need it and if they were going to spend the money could it go for a few extra nights at the hotel? I was told NO. It is in the budget and what is in the budget can not be changed. So i said fine and forgot about the issue until it came time to but the tickets. If one were going to buy business class one can do that a day or two ahead of time and be assured of getting the seat. THAT is when DV said no business class, never promised such a thing no money in budget and do not send me another email. If i get one more email from you between now and the summit i will remove you from the project.
But in fact, since he could not attend without a business class ticket, and he could not be paid without attendance, this effectively meant he would not be payed in effect.
Now of course, Daniel denies making promise, and I could have been in a mental state of confusion twice, but given the rather systematic non-keeping of engagements, which I can document extensively, I would say occam's razors dictate that a change of mind is the easier explanation. Note that there was no obligation to change that decision, it was a pragmatic decision to spend the money differently, as admitted by DV.
Gordon was accused of the following things and apologies if they charges sound ridiculous, because of course they are. These charges were leveled internally and privately by DV, and relayed publicly and repeatedly by Bernardo Gutierrez, who continued levelling them even after being informed of facts to the contrary. This is why I wrote the 'parting with bernardo Gutierrez' letter, because it is one thing to spread disinformation out of igorance, or privately, but another thing to continue even when you are aware of the facts.
1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g>
twice bangkok march 2010 and new york city october 2011
2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence
3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ??
4) Gordon Cook is a neocon : demonstrably false, read gordon's reporting on progressive telecom and internet infrastructure reform
Particularly nefarious was the internal disinformation, in which we were told that Gordon's report was an adolescent rant.
by Daniel or by Jenny Torres? I don't think I ever sent it to daniel as i had no idea that he was the BOSS. I was working for jenny and she was always too busy to communicate and i complained frequently to you about this michel. Jenny had done a connectivity paper as of the first of january …. before i was given the assignment i read it and sent back a detailed critique. I was very polite, but the paper was what one would expect if the author had no expertise in the subject and used google to research on the basis of what could be found there. She was recommending the philadelphia wifi project as a good example for ecaudor with no data that it had FAILED some 3 or 4 years ago. DV wound up assigning her four papers including one that replaced mine the day before the summit. the first was fine because it was technically reviewed. The others? I was skiing her for guidance after you i and she agreed on my scope of work in a Skype call. The ONLY GUIDANCE I EVER RECIEVED came in an emiail on about march 17th. I admitt that my evidence i circumstantial, but the insertion of Jorge Glas the Vice president of the country in CNT and Celec ttrans electric meant that anything that followed the assigned scope of work would raise too many embarrassing questions
As we had 15 reports to review, this pushed gordon's to the end. Only to discover then that it was rather excellent and took just two afternoons of back and forth to make it into a fine report.
I have no idea why Gordon Cook was singled out for this particular treatment; why so many lies, why such a systematic breaking of engagements. But the background is the following: 1) as research team we were systematically subjected to such broken engagements, not once, but repeatedly, which is why most of us did not invite our networks to the Summit 2) everyone who was scapegoated in the project was subjected to minor forms of the same treatment.
Whether Bethany Horne, Andres Delgado, Gordon Cook or perhaps even others, it was not possible to leave the project without being thoroughly trashed, and subject to character assisination, defamation, and disinformation campaigns. I was myself violently attacked without about 99% false accusations by PDS,
who is PDS?
who subsequently proceeded to wreck the 'urban mesa' and faced a general revolt there; obviously the attacks on my character were kept indoors, but if I had not been protected by my reputation and network, I have little doubt I would be subjected to the same treatment.
In fact, I was, and Bernardo Gutierrez, after publicly threatening to publish my private emails, also publicly spread false information. For example that I 'defend fora do eixo because I am getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes'. Though the accusations were mostly ridiculous, they are nevertheless symptomatic of a particular 'paranoid' state of mind.
So, while Cook's report may be one-sided, his charges are mostly well documented, as acknowledged by Xabier (screenshots, citations); so they may be one-sided, but since they are documented, they are not defamatory, despite xabier's claim. But the undocumented and unproven charges to Gordon, which I outlined above, were definitely defamatory and contrary to truth.
By treating Gordon so systematically in a dishonourable way, the flok mgt has created a monster that will haunt them forever.
All the other reports by Gordon, such as the ones on Guifi.net, are well documented and well written and recommended reading. His FLOK report is mostly interesting as an anthropological account of a particular management style. Let's hope it stays confined to Ecuador, but Bernardo's public threats would indicate that there is a danger there is an attempt to export them.
so this is sent to the spanish p2p list? Did you check yourself and see whether bernardo moderates it? Would be interesting to see whether he lets it through.
However, I don't think it will be successful.
My recommendation to the flok mgt is: stop trashing Gordon, it will backfire.
Obvious question…. what are they afraid of? What are they hiding? Also This copy left religion in a situation like this is childlike beyond belief. It seems to be used in such way as to enable the sponsor to change anything that it don't like. Where is the integrity of that?
You will be judged, not how you treat your friends, but how you treat your enemies. and there is something particularly shameful about systematically mistreating an old man with severe health problems and not paying someone for 3 months of research work even though you had the money to do it.
Other researchers, be warned.
Please note that despite repeated promises, not one charge of Gordon Cook has been refuted, and probably because they can't (disclaimer: i have only read the summary and scanned the full report); this is why they attack Gordon as a person.
The critique that Gordon may have published private emails, is particularly unreceivable given Bernardo's public threat to publish my own private emails.
Michel
I wonder why there has been so little response here on this general p2p list regarding the ecuador fiasco. There are some VERY influential people who have not been heard from. Is this not significant enough to justify any investment of their busy time. I will say it again if anyone here has any decent contacts in ecuador, please use them to request that the presidents office do a thorough audit of the FLOK projects expenditures.
<<"Repetidamente he dicho que no pienso entrar a valorar el difamatorio pseudo-informe de Gordon Cook. Creo que quien intente leer sus más de 100 páginas se va a dar cuenta de lo tendencioso que es: las capturas de pantalla, la información privada desvelada sin permiso, incluyendo imágenes, etc. por no hablar de lo completamente sesgado de las pseudo-entrevistas, a quién da voz y a quién no, de qué manera, etc. Todos los Cook Report son copyright restrictivo (modelo de negocio basado en consultorías), excepto este, aunque sigue sin poner bien el copyleft y es dudosamente copyleft ante la ley. En cualquier caso, las sospechas de la parcialidad del documento surgen en cualquier persona mínimanente informada y conocedora de los que es el mundo copyleft, procomún etc. En fin, no perdamos tiempo con eso Bernardo porque ese informe se desvirtúa a sí mismo. Aunque suscribo al 100% lo que comentas. Tal como viví las cosas, Gordon Cook se pilló un rebote gordo porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba. A partir de ahí comenzó una guerra sin cuartel. Así de triste lo he vivido."
[en] I have repeatedly said that I will not get to appreciate the defamatory pseudo-report Gordon Cook. I think anyone who tries to read its over 100 pages is going to realize how biased that is: screenshots, private information disclosed without permission, including images, etc.. not to mention it's completely biased pseudo-interviews, who gives voice and who does not, how, etc.. All Cook Report are copyright restrictive (business model based consultancies), except this, but is yet to put either the fine the copyleft and is arguably before the law. In any case, the suspicion of bias arise in anyone document minimally informed and aware of the world that is copyleft, commons etc. In short, do not waste time with that because that Bernardo report undermines itself. Although I subscribe to 100% which you comment. As things lived, Gordon Cook caught a fat rebound because he could not afford the trip he needed. From there started a merciless war. So that sad I have lived.
-- Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Hola a todos, Para mí es suficiente. Me despido de esta lista porque no tengo tiempo para culebrones. Lo que empezó siendo una lista interesante y llena de proyectos diversos se ha convertido en un auténtico infierno. Buena suerte a todos en vuestras iniciativas y espero encontrar información en otros canales que sirvan para aportar conocimiento y no para vendettas personales. A veces pienso que somos nuestros peores enemigos :-/ Un saludo y gracias, Patricia 2014-07-10 18:41 GMT+02:00 Gordon Cook <[email protected]>:
xabier is a totally unprincipled liar
he sent me an outrageous private note in May saying that i owed DV an apology
how laughable.
again if anyone wants got see what is giving xabier such fits
http://www.cookreport.com/pdfs/July-augCRecuadorfinal.pdf
On Jul 10, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote:
This is a reponse to what Xabier writes about Gordon's report.
Pardon, demasiado complicado para escribir en espagnol.
let me first say that I agree that Gordon's report is biased, but that does not make it untrue. It is biased because once he had been deceived three times in a row, publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment, and subject to an intense campaign of disinformation and lies, which continues to this day, he got understandably angry and started looking for negative information to explain what had happened to him. But that doesn't make the chargnes in the document untrue, it just means they are unbalanced.
Michel looks for the good which is his right. We both see the same set of facts. And having been assured that this was good,when i found out it was run by duplicitous raving maniacs i set out to do do my own investigation. I guess it must be hitting close to home because xabier keeps warning people not to waste their time reading it.
and as far as balance goes, this goes to the critique of mainstream so called objective journalism by glen greenwald. The duty of the reporter i believe is to show what those in power do not want got be seen
and michel as you well know if you let these rants go unanswered , that would be unbalanced as well
For balance, and for the record.
Gordon Cook was promised $4k for a report. This was then unilaterally changed to $3500 on condition that he would come to the summit. Gordon Cook informed that with a spinal operation, it was impossible for him to travel economy in cramped conditions.
to be more precise daniel made it clear that it would not be until a day or two before the flight that i would get a ticket. when i first looked up flights i found one in economy newark to miami change planes in miami, total travel time 8 hours, price $900. Economy. THAT would have been possible. I told daniel that. Adding that that as it got closer to the time of the event the only things left would have been two or more changes of planes and flight times of 16 to 26 hours caused by layovers in airports of several hours apiece. THAT would have been physically impossible.
I was physically present twice when this agreement and promise was made to him, by Daniel Vazquez. When Gordon was informed this promise would not be kept, he was publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment.
the original threats came in private mail. and yes given the back alley nature of DV mode of operation instead of keeping silent and submitting I quit and this time did so in public and published a verbatim summary of DV's threat. from a private email ….shocking!!!! The irony is that i never asked for business class fare NEVER. When offered it was in february I said i didn't think i would need it and if they were going to spend the money could it go for a few extra nights at the hotel? I was told NO. It is in the budget and what is in the budget can not be changed. So i said fine and forgot about the issue until it came time to but the tickets. If one were going to buy business class one can do that a day or two ahead of time and be assured of getting the seat. THAT is when DV said no business class, never promised such a thing no money in budget and do not send me another email. If i get one more email from you between now and the summit i will remove you from the project.
But in fact, since he could not attend without a business class ticket, and he could not be paid without attendance, this effectively meant he would not be payed in effect.
Now of course, Daniel denies making promise, and I could have been in a mental state of confusion twice, but given the rather systematic non-keeping of engagements, which I can document extensively, I would say occam's razors dictate that a change of mind is the easier explanation. Note that there was no obligation to change that decision, it was a pragmatic decision to spend the money differently, as admitted by DV.
Gordon was accused of the following things and apologies if they charges sound ridiculous, because of course they are. These charges were leveled internally and privately by DV, and relayed publicly and repeatedly by Bernardo Gutierrez, who continued levelling them even after being informed of facts to the contrary. This is why I wrote the 'parting with bernardo Gutierrez' letter, because it is one thing to spread disinformation out of igorance, or privately, but another thing to continue even when you are aware of the facts.
1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g>
twice bangkok march 2010 and new york city october 2011
2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence
3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ??
4) Gordon Cook is a neocon : demonstrably false, read gordon's reporting on progressive telecom and internet infrastructure reform
Particularly nefarious was the internal disinformation, in which we were told that Gordon's report was an adolescent rant.
by Daniel or by Jenny Torres? I don't think I ever sent it to daniel as i had no idea that he was the BOSS. I was working for jenny and she was always too busy to communicate and i complained frequently to you about this michel. Jenny had done a connectivity paper as of the first of january …. before i was given the assignment i read it and sent back a detailed critique. I was very polite, but the paper was what one would expect if the author had no expertise in the subject and used google to research on the basis of what could be found there. She was recommending the philadelphia wifi project as a good example for ecaudor with no data that it had FAILED some 3 or 4 years ago. DV wound up assigning her four papers including one that replaced mine the day before the summit.
the first was fine because it was technically reviewed. The others? I was skiing her for guidance after you i and she agreed on my scope of work in a Skype call. The ONLY GUIDANCE I EVER RECIEVED came in an emiail on about march 17th. I admitt that my evidence i circumstantial, but the insertion of Jorge Glas the Vice president of the country in CNT and Celec ttrans electric meant that anything that followed the assigned scope of work would raise too many embarrassing questions
As we had 15 reports to review, this pushed gordon's to the end. Only to discover then that it was rather excellent and took just two afternoons of back and forth to make it into a fine report.
I have no idea why Gordon Cook was singled out for this particular treatment; why so many lies, why such a systematic breaking of engagements. But the background is the following: 1) as research team we were systematically subjected to such broken engagements, not once, but repeatedly, which is why most of us did not invite our networks to the Summit 2) everyone who was scapegoated in the project was subjected to minor forms of the same treatment.
Whether Bethany Horne, Andres Delgado, Gordon Cook or perhaps even others, it was not possible to leave the project without being thoroughly trashed, and subject to character assisination, defamation, and disinformation campaigns. I was myself violently attacked without about 99% false accusations by PDS,
who is PDS?
who subsequently proceeded to wreck the 'urban mesa' and faced a general revolt there; obviously the attacks on my character were kept indoors, but if I had not been protected by my reputation and network, I have little doubt I would be subjected to the same treatment.
In fact, I was, and Bernardo Gutierrez, after publicly threatening to publish my private emails, also publicly spread false information. For example that I 'defend fora do eixo because I am getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes'. Though the accusations were mostly ridiculous, they are nevertheless symptomatic of a particular 'paranoid' state of mind.
So, while Cook's report may be one-sided, his charges are mostly well documented, as acknowledged by Xabier (screenshots, citations); so they may be one-sided, but since they are documented, they are not defamatory, despite xabier's claim. But the undocumented and unproven charges to Gordon, which I outlined above, were definitely defamatory and contrary to truth.
By treating Gordon so systematically in a dishonourable way, the flok mgt has created a monster that will haunt them forever.
All the other reports by Gordon, such as the ones on Guifi.net, are well documented and well written and recommended reading. His FLOK report is mostly interesting as an anthropological account of a particular management style. Let's hope it stays confined to Ecuador, but Bernardo's public threats would indicate that there is a danger there is an attempt to export them.
so this is sent to the spanish p2p list? Did you check yourself and see whether bernardo moderates it? Would be interesting to see whether he lets it through.
However, I don't think it will be successful.
My recommendation to the flok mgt is: stop trashing Gordon, it will backfire.
Obvious question…. what are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Also This copy left religion in a situation like this is childlike beyond belief. It seems to be used in such way as to enable the sponsor to change anything that it don't like. Where is the integrity of that?
You will be judged, not how you treat your friends, but how you treat your enemies. and there is something particularly shameful about systematically mistreating an old man with severe health problems and not paying someone for 3 months of research work even though you had the money to do it.
Other researchers, be warned.
Please note that despite repeated promises, not one charge of Gordon Cook has been refuted, and probably because they can't (disclaimer: i have only read the summary and scanned the full report); this is why they attack Gordon as a person.
The critique that Gordon may have published private emails, is particularly unreceivable given Bernardo's public threat to publish my own private emails.
Michel
I wonder why there has been so little response here on this general p2p list regarding the ecuador fiasco. There are some VERY influential people who have not been heard from. Is this not significant enough to justify any investment of their busy time.
I will say it again if anyone here has any decent contacts in ecuador, please use them to request that the presidents office do a thorough audit of the FLOK projects expenditures.
<<"Repetidamente he dicho que no pienso entrar a valorar el difamatorio
pseudo-informe de Gordon Cook. Creo que quien intente leer sus más de 100 páginas se va a dar cuenta de lo tendencioso que es: las capturas de pantalla, la información privada desvelada sin permiso, incluyendo imágenes, etc. por no hablar de lo completamente sesgado de las pseudo-entrevistas, a quién da voz y a quién no, de qué manera, etc. Todos los Cook Report son copyright restrictivo (modelo de negocio basado en consultorías), excepto este, aunque sigue sin poner bien el copyleft y es dudosamente copyleft ante la ley. En cualquier caso, las sospechas de la parcialidad del documento surgen en cualquier persona mínimanente informada y conocedora de los que es el mundo copyleft, procomún etc. En fin, no perdamos tiempo con eso Bernardo porque ese informe se desvirtúa a sí mismo. Aunque suscribo al 100% lo que comentas. Tal como viví las cosas, Gordon Cook se pilló un rebote gordo porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba. A partir de ahí comenzó una guerra sin cuartel. Así de triste lo he vivido."
[en] I have repeatedly said that I will not get to appreciate the defamatorypseudo-report Gordon Cook. I think anyone who tries to read its over 100 pages is going to realize how biased that is: screenshots, private information disclosed without permission, includingimages, etc.. not to mention it's completely biased pseudo-interviews, who gives voice and who does not, how, etc.. All Cook Report are copyright restrictive (business model based consultancies), except this, but is yet to put either thefine the copyleft and is arguably before the law. In any case, the suspicion of bias arise in anyone document minimally informed and aware of the world that is copyleft,commons etc. In short, do not waste time with that because that Bernardoreport undermines itself. Although I subscribe to 100% whichyou comment. As things lived, Gordon Cook caught a fat reboundbecause he could not afford the trip he needed. From therestarted a merciless war. So that sad I have lived.
-- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..*
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- -------------------- *Patricia Horrillo *| [+34] 609 261 142 Periodismo , comunicación y redes *[email protected]* <[email protected]> | @patrihorrillo <http://twitter.com/#!/patrihorrillo> www.patriciahorrillo.com
No entiendo porqué este señor me llama "totalmente mentiroso sin principios" no dice porqué, ni en qué he mentido. dije que su informe era tendencioso, Bauwens estaba de acuerdo (aunque añade que contiene verdades). Pido disculpas al resto de la lista por este follón que no entiendo ni yo :( no voy a seguir alimentado esto, x On 10/07/14 18:41, Gordon Cook wrote:
xabier is a totally unprincipled liar
he sent me an outrageous private note in May saying that i owed DV an apology
how laughable.
again if anyone wants got see what is giving xabier such fits
http://www.cookreport.com/pdfs/July-augCRecuadorfinal.pdf
On Jul 10, 2014, at 6:40 AM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This is a reponse to what Xabier writes about Gordon's report.
Pardon, demasiado complicado para escribir en espagnol.
let me first say that I agree that Gordon's report is biased, but that does not make it untrue. It is biased because once he had been deceived three times in a row, publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment, and subject to an intense campaign of disinformation and lies, which continues to this day, he got understandably angry and started looking for negative information to explain what had happened to him. But that doesn't make the chargnes in the document untrue, it just means they are unbalanced.
Michel looks for the good which is his right. We both see the same set of facts. And having been assured that this was good,when i found out it was run by duplicitous raving maniacs i set out to do do my own investigation. I guess it must be hitting close to home because xabier keeps warning people not to waste their time reading it.
and as far as balance goes, this goes to the critique of mainstream so called objective journalism by glen greenwald. The duty of the reporter i believe is to show what those in power do not want got be seen
and michel as you well know if you let these rants go unanswered , that would be unbalanced as well
For balance, and for the record.
Gordon Cook was promised $4k for a report. This was then unilaterally changed to $3500 on condition that he would come to the summit. Gordon Cook informed that with a spinal operation, it was impossible for him to travel economy in cramped conditions.
to be more precise daniel made it clear that it would not be until a day or two before the flight that i would get a ticket. when i first looked up flights i found one in economy newark to miami change planes in miami, total travel time 8 hours, price $900. Economy. THAT would have been possible. I told daniel that. Adding that that as it got closer to the time of the event the only things left would have been two or more changes of planes and flight times of 16 to 26 hours caused by layovers in airports of several hours apiece. THAT would have been physically impossible.
I was physically present twice when this agreement and promise was made to him, by Daniel Vazquez. When Gordon was informed this promise would not be kept, he was publicly threatened with censorship and non-payment.
the original threats came in private mail. and yes given the back alley nature of DV mode of operation instead of keeping silent and submitting I quit and this time did so in public and published a verbatim summary of DV's threat. from a private email ….shocking!!!! The irony is that i never asked for business class fare NEVER. When offered it was in february I said i didn't think i would need it and if they were going to spend the money could it go for a few extra nights at the hotel? I was told NO. It is in the budget and what is in the budget can not be changed. So i said fine and forgot about the issue until it came time to but the tickets. If one were going to buy business class one can do that a day or two ahead of time and be assured of getting the seat. THAT is when DV said no business class, never promised such a thing no money in budget and do not send me another email. If i get one more email from you between now and the summit i will remove you from the project.
But in fact, since he could not attend without a business class ticket, and he could not be paid without attendance, this effectively meant he would not be payed in effect.
Now of course, Daniel denies making promise, and I could have been in a mental state of confusion twice, but given the rather systematic non-keeping of engagements, which I can document extensively, I would say occam's razors dictate that a change of mind is the easier explanation. Note that there was no obligation to change that decision, it was a pragmatic decision to spend the money differently, as admitted by DV.
Gordon was accused of the following things and apologies if they charges sound ridiculous, because of course they are. These charges were leveled internally and privately by DV, and relayed publicly and repeatedly by Bernardo Gutierrez, who continued levelling them even after being informed of facts to the contrary. This is why I wrote the 'parting with bernardo Gutierrez' letter, because it is one thing to spread disinformation out of igorance, or privately, but another thing to continue even when you are aware of the facts.
1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g>
twice bangkok march 2010 and new york city october 2011
2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence
3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ??
4) Gordon Cook is a neocon : demonstrably false, read gordon's reporting on progressive telecom and internet infrastructure reform
Particularly nefarious was the internal disinformation, in which we were told that Gordon's report was an adolescent rant.
by Daniel or by Jenny Torres? I don't think I ever sent it to daniel as i had no idea that he was the BOSS. I was working for jenny and she was always too busy to communicate and i complained frequently to you about this michel. Jenny had done a connectivity paper as of the first of january …. before i was given the assignment i read it and sent back a detailed critique. I was very polite, but the paper was what one would expect if the author had no expertise in the subject and used google to research on the basis of what could be found there. She was recommending the philadelphia wifi project as a good example for ecaudor with no data that it had FAILED some 3 or 4 years ago. DV wound up assigning her four papers including one that replaced mine the day before the summit.
the first was fine because it was technically reviewed. The others? I was skiing her for guidance after you i and she agreed on my scope of work in a Skype call. The ONLY GUIDANCE I EVER RECIEVED came in an emiail on about march 17th. I admitt that my evidence i circumstantial, but the insertion of Jorge Glas the Vice president of the country in CNT and Celec ttrans electric meant that anything that followed the assigned scope of work would raise too many embarrassing questions
As we had 15 reports to review, this pushed gordon's to the end. Only to discover then that it was rather excellent and took just two afternoons of back and forth to make it into a fine report.
I have no idea why Gordon Cook was singled out for this particular treatment; why so many lies, why such a systematic breaking of engagements. But the background is the following: 1) as research team we were systematically subjected to such broken engagements, not once, but repeatedly, which is why most of us did not invite our networks to the Summit 2) everyone who was scapegoated in the project was subjected to minor forms of the same treatment.
Whether Bethany Horne, Andres Delgado, Gordon Cook or perhaps even others, it was not possible to leave the project without being thoroughly trashed, and subject to character assisination, defamation, and disinformation campaigns. I was myself violently attacked without about 99% false accusations by PDS,
who is PDS?
who subsequently proceeded to wreck the 'urban mesa' and faced a general revolt there; obviously the attacks on my character were kept indoors, but if I had not been protected by my reputation and network, I have little doubt I would be subjected to the same treatment.
In fact, I was, and Bernardo Gutierrez, after publicly threatening to publish my private emails, also publicly spread false information. For example that I 'defend fora do eixo because I am getting a free PhD from Ivana Bentes'. Though the accusations were mostly ridiculous, they are nevertheless symptomatic of a particular 'paranoid' state of mind.
So, while Cook's report may be one-sided, his charges are mostly well documented, as acknowledged by Xabier (screenshots, citations); so they may be one-sided, but since they are documented, they are not defamatory, despite xabier's claim. But the undocumented and unproven charges to Gordon, which I outlined above, were definitely defamatory and contrary to truth.
By treating Gordon so systematically in a dishonourable way, the flok mgt has created a monster that will haunt them forever.
All the other reports by Gordon, such as the ones on Guifi.net <http://Guifi.net>, are well documented and well written and recommended reading. His FLOK report is mostly interesting as an anthropological account of a particular management style. Let's hope it stays confined to Ecuador, but Bernardo's public threats would indicate that there is a danger there is an attempt to export them.
so this is sent to the spanish p2p list? Did you check yourself and see whether bernardo moderates it? Would be interesting to see whether he lets it through.
However, I don't think it will be successful.
My recommendation to the flok mgt is: stop trashing Gordon, it will backfire.
Obvious question…. what are they afraid of? What are they hiding?
Also This copy left religion in a situation like this is childlike beyond belief. It seems to be used in such way as to enable the sponsor to change anything that it don't like. Where is the integrity of that?
You will be judged, not how you treat your friends, but how you treat your enemies. and there is something particularly shameful about systematically mistreating an old man with severe health problems and not paying someone for 3 months of research work even though you had the money to do it.
Other researchers, be warned.
Please note that despite repeated promises, not one charge of Gordon Cook has been refuted, and probably because they can't (disclaimer: i have only read the summary and scanned the full report); this is why they attack Gordon as a person.
The critique that Gordon may have published private emails, is particularly unreceivable given Bernardo's public threat to publish my own private emails.
Michel
I wonder why there has been so little response here on this general p2p list regarding the ecuador fiasco. There are some VERY influential people who have not been heard from. Is this not significant enough to justify any investment of their busy time.
I will say it again if anyone here has any decent contacts in ecuador, please use them to request that the presidents office do a thorough audit of the FLOK projects expenditures.
<<"Repetidamente he dicho que no pienso entrar a valorar el difamatorio pseudo-informe de Gordon Cook. Creo que quien intente leer sus más de 100 páginas se va a dar cuenta de lo tendencioso que es: las capturas de pantalla, la información privada desvelada sin permiso, incluyendo imágenes, etc. por no hablar de lo completamente sesgado de las pseudo-entrevistas, a quién da voz y a quién no, de qué manera, etc. Todos los Cook Report son copyright restrictivo (modelo de negocio basado en consultorías), excepto este, aunque sigue sin poner bien el copyleft y es dudosamente copyleft ante la ley. En cualquier caso, las sospechas de la parcialidad del documento surgen en cualquier persona mínimanente informada y conocedora de los que es el mundo copyleft, procomún etc. En fin, no perdamos tiempo con eso Bernardo porque ese informe se desvirtúa a sí mismo. Aunque suscribo al 100% lo que comentas. Tal como viví las cosas, Gordon Cook se pilló un rebote gordo porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba. A partir de ahí comenzó una guerra sin cuartel. Así de triste lo he vivido."
[en] I have repeatedly said that I will not get to appreciate the defamatory pseudo-report Gordon Cook. I think anyone who tries to read its over 100 pages is going to realize how biased that is: screenshots, private information disclosed without permission, including images, etc.. not to mention it's completely biased pseudo-interviews, who gives voice and who does not, how, etc.. All Cook Report are copyright restrictive (business model based consultancies), except this, but is yet to put either the fine the copyleft and is arguably before the law. In any case, the suspicion of bias arise in anyone document minimally informed and aware of the world that is copyleft, commons etc. In short, do not waste time with that because that Bernardo report undermines itself. Although I subscribe to 100% which you comment. As things lived, Gordon Cook caught a fat rebound because he could not afford the trip he needed. From there started a merciless war. So that sad I have lived.
-- *Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..*
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net <http://p2pfoundation.net/> - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/>
<http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation>Updates: http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
#82 on the (En)Rich list: http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- wget -O - http://sindominio.net/~xabier/xabier.gpg.asc | gpg --import xabier BARANDIARAN | http://www.barandiaran.net "There is no need for fear or hope, but only to look for new weapons" DELEUZE
Ya no entiende y por el ruido desaparece, no den tantas vueltas + Accion. @Makoescalzo La vida en Veta. Seguime y te sigo. Con amor y Respeto.
Parece ser que quienes no quieren disenso evitan que otros se expresen. Pienso que para las iniciativas p2p es necesario el disenso. Demuestra que hay diferencias y que se pueden resolver. Muestra qué opinión tienen las personas de los proyectos y cómo se manejaron desde las diferentes perspectivas. Lo crítico no es que no haya disenso. Lo es que se lo suprima. Lo crítico no es que alguien provea su propia perspectiva sobre algo. Lo es que ese algo quiera mostrarse de una forma cuando en la práctica actúa de otra forma. Lo crítico no es que las personas digan sus opiniones contrarias. Lo es que se los censure. Así que hay gente que no quiere que se hable sobre lo malo de sus proyectos. Para evitarlo proceden con la censura y el autoritarismo. Luego quieren verse bien y resienten que la gente se exprese. Es sencillo darse cuenta de quién es quién: se debe uno fijar en lo que hacen y no en lo que escriben (incluyendo esto). El saber quién es quién sirve para tomar decisiones futuras de qué esperar de ellos. Es por eso que Gordon y Michel escriben en este hilo: para que se sepa quién es quién y que la gente no solamente se fije por la propaganda en los medios. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
Buenas! Creo que para que no se borre más gente de la lista (si es que a esta hora aún alguien sigue pendiente de este hilo) podríamos ir cerrando la discusión de alguna forma. Es verdad que debemos debatir y buscar consensos, pero creo que estos hilos no se abrieron con ese fin: 1. El problema que originó todo esto se dio en un proyecto muy concreto que fue FLOK, muy al margen de la lista P2P. Todos los afectados han expuesto sus puntos. Michel inició en esta lista la polémica anunciando que separaba sus caminos de Bernardo y criticando algunas cosas de FLOK, ese era el fin, no dialogar ni crear consensos, sólo exponer su opinión. Lo que sucedió en FLOK debió quedar entre las paredes de FLOK. Me refiero a lo interno. Obviamente que la construcción del proceso fue y es pública, es P2P, se hizo para eso. Pero en todo grupo de trabajo hay diferencias de criterios, roces por la tensión acumulado. Esos trapitos, con madurez, se resuelven de puertas para adentro. Eso deberíamos aprender de los “otros”, los que no defienden el P2P, los antagónicos contra los que debemos pelear. Pero nosotros nos fijamos en las diferencias de los que persiguen nuestros mismos sueños y nos hacemos mierda (perdón por la palabras), pero es cierto. Se están vertiendo acusaciones muy serias en esta lista. Se acusa a gente con una trayectoria impresionante en el trabajo comunitario de ser “fascistas” y de tener prácticas mafiosas. Al calor de los acontecimientos, se puede abrir la boca, pero creo que se les fue un poco la mano. Una cosa es el disenso y otra, lo que hemos leído en estos hilos. 2. El informe del señor Cook cada uno que lo juzgue como quiera, ahí está para leerlo y somos mayorcitos. Que alguien opte por revelar información que se intercambia de forma personal entre dos particulares es poco ético e ilegal. Sí, ilegal, porque todos tenemos entre nuestros derechos la inviolabilidad de nuestras comunicaciones si no damos el consentimiento. Y sobre las acusaciones concretas, la verdad que sin haber estado dentro del proceso administrativo y sin tener todos los datos es imposible “juzgar” con justicia ni a unos ni a otros. 3. Me indigna que se se siga hablando de censura. Si participo de una asamblea comunitaria (una lista de correo vendría a ser su formato virtual) no puedo estar murmurando todo el rato. Hay normas, se levanta la mano, se respeta el turno de palabra de los demás, no se interrumpe, no se juzga ni critica gratuitamente. Censura es cuando alguien se levanta en esa asamblea, quiere expresar su opinión res-pe-tan-do las nor-mas, pero se le impide. Eso es censura, pero que te echen de una asamblea ciudadana porque no respetas las normas es, sencillamente, parte del juego democrática de la sociedad en la que vivimos. Yo fui uno de los que voté a favor de que se sacara de la asamblea virtual de FLOK a Quiliro. Por qué? Porque esta sucediendo lo mismo que en esta Asamblea. Quiliro no respetó en aquella las normas, al igual que las dos personas anteriores a las que se sacó. Sólo pedía la palabras (siempre se le daba) para criticar, para hacer ruído, no aportaba, sembraba cizaña, en definitiva, no dejaba que la Asamblea discurriera en paz y fuera productiva. Por eso se le calificó como troll. Hay mucha gente que pensó diferente en la lista, que habló negativamente del enfoque FLOK y del Sumak Yachay y siguió participando, porque proponía, o criticaba respetando las formas establecidas. Me acuerdo de la discusión enriquecedora de si se llama o no Manifiesto, otra sobre el concepto del buen vivir, por ejemplo. Pero si alguien que estuvo en la lista de FLOK se da el trabajo e revisar todos los hilos (llevo una hora en eso) se dará cuenta que los más largos han sido los más infructuosos y destructivos. Y en todos, alguien (lease Quiliro) encendía una mecha que sólo llevaba a estirar las discusiones, a sembrar mal ambiente y a distraernos de lo fundamental. De ninguno de estos hilos salió nada positivo, sólo envenenarnos más, disgustarnos y que gente se diera de baja harta de tanta tontería. Es curioso que en una lista de trabajo colaborativo, los hilos más largos, sean esos. Bueno, creo que este mismo hilo está siendo una buena muestra de lo que digo. Lo “hits” de los hilos más largos y menos productivos de FLOK: · Censura en la lista de correo (8 mails): por la expulsión de Willi, avalada por el mismo Michel después de que leyó los correos de este señor, pronunciamiento que originó otro hilo “my protest for censorship on FLOK” autoconvocado sin consentimiento una vez que el señor fue expulsado de la lista y mando un mail masivo a los correos de la lista por fuera de ella. · Intento de hilo para conciliación (17 mails) para sembrar la paz por todo lo anterior. · Resumen de dev, Vol 10, Envío 1 (este es imposible de saber cuántos son porque se reabrió, casi infinito) acusaciones de extranjeros autoritarios que venían a imponer un modelo ajeno,ect... · FLOK en Fayerwayer (38 mails). Se abrió por una noticia puntual, se criticó el uso de las redes sociales tradicionales (comparto la crítica, pero ¿alguna alternativa o propuesta de solución? ¿No usarlas? ¿Difundir por diaspora solamente?) Al final 38 mails para no concluir na-da. · Exclusión de Quiliro de la lista (13 mails). No se, quizás yo mismo con este correo esté contribuyendo a alargar estos hilos. Y podremos seguir indefinidamente (y me temo que así será) pero, desgraciadamente no llegaremos a nada más que seguirnos haciéndonos daño como movimiento.. Creo que hay suficiente documentación (la que falta como resultados de los debates, las cuentas claras que anunciaba Xavier,...parece que está por publicarse) como para que cada quien tenga su propia opinión, y a otra cosa mariposa. Como el mismo Quiliro dice, esto ha servido “para que se sepa quién es quién y que la gente no solamente se fije por la propaganda en los medios.” Ahora, a trabajar. Hay mucho por hacer como para andarnos desgastando con los diferentes, apuntemos a los antagónicos, a esos sí tenemos que vencer y siempre llegamos a esa lucha cansados por las peleas internas. Hasta aquí llegué. Abrazos colaborativos. Santiago Radialistas / Radios Libres
El jue 10 jul 2014 19:08:27 ECT, Santiago García Gago escribió:
3. Me indigna que se se siga hablando de censura. Si participo de una asamblea comunitaria (una lista de correo vendría a ser su formato virtual) no puedo estar murmurando todo el rato. Hay normas, se levanta la mano, se respeta el turno de palabra de los demás, no se interrumpe, no se juzga ni critica gratuitamente. Censura es cuando alguien se levanta en esa asamblea, quiere expresar su opinión res-pe-tan-do las nor-mas, pero se le impide. Eso es censura, pero que te echen de una asamblea ciudadana porque no respetas las normas es, sencillamente, parte del juego democrática de la sociedad en la que vivimos.
Censura según la Wikipedia en español: "La censura, según el Diccionario de la lengua española (DRAE) de la Real Academia Española, es la «intervención que practica el censor en el contenido o en la forma de una obra, atendiendo a razones ideológicas, morales o políticas».1 En un sentido amplio se considera como supresión de material de comunicación que puede ser considerado ofensivo, dañino, inconveniente o innecesario para el gobierno o los medios de comunicación según lo determinado por un censor." Puedes llamarlo como quieras llamarlo y hasta puedes indignarte pero censura es supresión de material de comunicación inconveniente. Eso se realizó hacia varias personas y muestra el proceder del proyecto. El poder siempre se escuda en leyes, reglamentos y otros medios para proteger su abuso. El problema surgía cada vez que se cuestionaba lo que se decía de lo que se hacía con respecto de: sumak kawsay, Twitter, software libre, iniciativas endógenas. No sé cuántas veces más se censuró al equipo interno así que no lo puedo comentar pero es simple saber que para muestra de un traje se requiere solamente un botón. Ese análisis se lo dejo a Michel que estuvo adentro y que ha expresado la misma opinión de la dirección del proyecto que yo: desconfianza. El p2p requiere comprensión y consenso en lugar de intolerancia disfrazada de reglamentación. Una cosa es no poder y otra es no querer. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
Saludos a todos A mí también me parece triste, Xabi, seguir tocando este punto Gordon Cook tan irrelevante de FLOK (su episodio no es más que un 0,1% de todo em mi opinión) y peor todavía con este tono. Pero lo que me parece preocupante es la dificultad de Bauwens para diferenciar o recordar qué vino de una conversación privada, en un mail, en una lista, en Facebook. Qué es público, qué es privado. Y quién dijo qué (ensalada mental avanzada). Voy acalarando puntos, pues caen por su próprio peso> Sobre Gordon Cook> será el último comentário que yo haga al respecto. Creo que Xabi explicó todo a la perfección. Como ya he comentado en esta lista (infelizmente en inglés) yo apenas envié dos mails al hilo de mail de “la polémica”, en la listas de FLOK, en su día. Nunca más comenté nada, ni seguí hablando de él, ni en redes, ni en listas, ni en mails. Nunca. Es tan irrelevante que pensaba que era parte del pasado. Cuando boomerang Cook regresó, pues sigo comentando. De lo que dije ese día, retiré públicamente lo de 'neocon' y pedí disculpas. Cierto que sus ideas tocao n o rozan lo liberal, como ocurre com el paradigma p2p (también defendido por liberales-que-odian-el-Estado), aunque al mismo tiempo visibiliza algún asunto “progresista”. Sobre la acusación de que Cook viola la privacidad, la sigo manteniendo, porque es verdad.Peor> es ilegal. Lo mismo sobre el copyright> mantengo essa persona apenas ha usado esa licencia en su vida. Añado> tal vez no sea la más apropiada para el paper justo por eso. También he comentado que se podría haber realizado el paper de Conectividad de forma colaborativa, incorporando el trabajo de personas (de México y Basil, concretamente), más vinculados a la realidad latinoamericana. Pero esa es outra historia.. Sobre esto> 1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g> Yo no dije nada. Creo que otra persona lo comento en la lista en tono de humor 2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence Yo no he dicho nada, creo que también era humor 3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ?? Yo no he dicho nada. Lo siento no sé quién es Robert Steele. Supongo que era broma. Sobre revelación de mails privados. He ironizado, en tono muy sarcástico y crítico, justamente para criticar la postura de Bauwens y Cook. El único que lo ha hecho de forma clara, es Gordon Cook. También el próprio Michel Bauwens, de forma no literal, pues revela pedazos selectos de conversaciones privadas, sin contexto. Me gusta el método wikileaks: publicar todo, em bruto. Cada uno saca tus interpretaciones. Por lo que, a estas alturas, estaría bien publicar todos nuestros mails. Aunque aquí ni hay asuntos de Estado ni transparencia, yo no veo incoveniente em publicar em bruto todos nuestros mails. Sin duda, sería poco conveniente, principalmente para la Investigación Sobre Fora do Eixo y el doctorado de Bauwens en Rio. De nuevo, confusión público-privado. Yo nunca he dicho absolutamente nada en listas o espacios comunes o redes sociales sobre ello. Nunca, Si le envié DM en Twitter a Bauwens y en nuestros mails privados así se lo he comunicado. Es lo que pienso, como outros “p2p” de Río. Si te parece interesante, abre un hilo al respecto, será un buen debate! Sobre lista “apertura” de la oficial p2p inglés Pues es una lista cerrada, raro para quien predica de openness. Curiosamente, yo déje de recibir los mails y mis respuestas hace unas semanas que no llegan a la lista. Allá habla Bauwens y no existe posibilidad de responder, curiosa democracia. Espero que sea un error del adminsitador o incluso tecnológico (mailman a veces falla). Tanto Xabi como yo esperamos ser aceptados (hice de nuevo la inscripción). SUgiero debatir en otras listas en inglés más relevantes, donde estamos todos. Aprovecho para comentar del otro hilo la acusaciõn de "Comunicación propaganda" En todo el proceso FLOK se ha publicado de todo. En general, se ha publicado sobre FLOK en el contexto de la Economía Social del Conocimiento de Ecuador, un marco mayor. Yo mismo publiqué un texto em diciembre de 2013, en eldiario.es, cuando todavía no estaba vinculado oficialmente al proyecto. Después de entrar oficialmente (cobrando), por ética, paré casi de publicar casi sobre FLOK en formato “informativo” y deje de hacerlo durante la Cumbre. En ese mismo texto mío, hay un párrafo sobre todas las contradicciones que planean en Ecuador. "A pesar del buen recibimiento internacional del proyecto FLOK Society, se han lanzado críticas níticas contra algunas contradicciones del Gobierno Correa. El cierre del Instituto Pachamana <http://www.elcomercio.com/politica/ONG-Pachamama-decreto_16-Correa_0_1044495784.html>, la polémica ley de prensa <http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2013/07/12/nota/1152511/instituto-internacional-prensa-critica-nueva-ley-medios-ecuador>, el proyecto de ley de Internet <http://alt1040.com/2013/11/internetlibre-ecuador>(que limitaría el acceso a la misma) y el actual extractivismo de petróleo en la región de Yasuní <http://www.elcomercio.com/negocios/Ecuador-Yasuni-ITT-petroleo-negocios-NNUU_0_931106893.html>son las principales contradicciones del Gobierno de Ecuador". Cuando el enviado de The Guardian fue a la Cumbre y preguntó por Yasunidos, vi perfecto que hablara con el lado crítico de Ecuador, Yasunidos, los que protestan contra el extractivismo de Correa. En general, en casi todos los textos aparecidos, se habla de un lado contradictorio. Como el Huffinton Post Brasil, que criticaba la ley de Internet, entre tras cosas. O como Diagonal, donde una participante de la mesa de cultura libre criticaba concretamente el hecho de que la investigación había tenido poco contato con la realidad local. Antes de la Cumbre apenas se envío una nota de prensa. Es pública y abierta. Aquí el link> http://pt.slideshare.net/floksociety?utm_campaign=profiletracking&utm_medium... En ella, el titular es “La Cumbre del Buen Conocer innova en la creación de políticas públicas desde los paradigmas libres y abiertos".. Justamente es el ángulo más interesante en mi opinión: FLOK como método de creación de política pública. Si de ahí alguien ha interprado outra cosa o publicado algo “propagandístico”, tal vez no dependa del comunicador y sí de la interpretación. No ha sido así, creo. Esta nota de Página12, titulada, Economía Social del Conocimiento me parece buena, equilibrada. http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/suplementos/cash/17-7719-2014-06-14.html Podría ser propagandística interpretar la Carta a los Procomuneros del mundo, incentivada por Bauwens, como propaganda? Tal vez para algunos. A mí no me lo parece. Creaba entusiasmo, emoción, totalmente necesario entonces. Durante la Cumbre, por cierto, no planeamos ningún “twittazo “ (twitter storm) porque no era necesario. Reforzamos apenas el hashtag #buenconocer, que ya había sido usado y tendría dificultadaes para ser TT. Podría haber buscado outro y conociendo como conocemos Twitter, habría sido TT. Lo importante era el proceso y por eso elegidos no hacer campaña. Fue orgánico.La conversación expandida fue tan alucinante, que se expandió por todo el mundo Propaganda? Estadísticas superficiales? En desacuerdo total en todo ello. Un abrazo y sigamos construyendo. Ójala Xabi visibilize en outro hilo los múltiples rincones, procesos y caras de FLOK. Bernardo El 10 de julio de 2014, 21:43, Quiliro Ordóñez Baca < [email protected]> escribió:
El jue 10 jul 2014 19:08:27 ECT, Santiago García Gago escribió:
3. Me indigna que se se siga hablando de censura. Si participo de una asamblea comunitaria (una lista de correo vendría a ser su formato virtual) no puedo estar murmurando todo el rato. Hay normas, se levanta la mano, se respeta el turno de palabra de los demás, no se interrumpe, no se juzga ni critica gratuitamente. Censura es cuando alguien se levanta en esa asamblea, quiere expresar su opinión res-pe-tan-do las nor-mas, pero se le impide. Eso es censura, pero que te echen de una asamblea ciudadana porque no respetas las normas es, sencillamente, parte del juego democrática de la sociedad en la que vivimos.
Censura según la Wikipedia en español: "La censura, según el Diccionario de la lengua española (DRAE) de la Real Academia Española, es la «intervención que practica el censor en el contenido o en la forma de una obra, atendiendo a razones ideológicas, morales o políticas».1 En un sentido amplio se considera como supresión de material de comunicación que puede ser considerado ofensivo, dañino, inconveniente o innecesario para el gobierno o los medios de comunicación según lo determinado por un censor."
Puedes llamarlo como quieras llamarlo y hasta puedes indignarte pero censura es supresión de material de comunicación inconveniente. Eso se realizó hacia varias personas y muestra el proceder del proyecto. El poder siempre se escuda en leyes, reglamentos y otros medios para proteger su abuso.
El problema surgía cada vez que se cuestionaba lo que se decía de lo que se hacía con respecto de: sumak kawsay, Twitter, software libre, iniciativas endógenas. No sé cuántas veces más se censuró al equipo interno así que no lo puedo comentar pero es simple saber que para muestra de un traje se requiere solamente un botón. Ese análisis se lo dejo a Michel que estuvo adentro y que ha expresado la misma opinión de la dirección del proyecto que yo: desconfianza. El p2p requiere comprensión y consenso en lugar de intolerancia disfrazada de reglamentación. Una cosa es no poder y otra es no querer.
-- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
-- www.futuramedia.net www.codigo-abierto.cc @bernardosampa (twitter) / @futura_media São Paulo +55 11 43044380 (fijo) +55 11 84881620 (celular)
El jue 10 jul 2014 22:54:50 ECT, Bernardo Gutiérrez escribió:
1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g>
Yo no dije nada. Creo que otra persona lo comento en la lista en tono de humor
2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence
Yo no he dicho nada, creo que también era humor
3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ??
Yo no he dicho nada. Lo siento no sé quién es Robert Steele. Supongo que era broma.
¿O sea que todo era una broma? ¡Que chiste! Pues para mí, lo que se nos censuró no es broma. Las cosas claras y el chocolate espeso. Es importante que se sepa lo que pasa y no que siga una suerte de campaña de limpieza de imagen cuando eso no cabe. Para ello también es importante promover las redes libres y usarlas al igual que el software libre y trabajar con la dinámica inclusiva del p2p. No es cuestión de decir a otros háganlo. Es de dar el ejemplo: hacer lo que se pide que hagan otros. Es mejor que digan que no están de acuerdo con el p2p, las redes libres y el software libre. Eso es más frontal. -- Saludos libres, Quiliro Ordóñez 600 8579
participants (10)
-
Anto Recio -
Bernardo Gutiérrez -
Gordon Cook -
MAko -
Michel Bauwens -
Patricia Horrillo -
Quiliro Ordóñez Baca -
Ramón Ramón Sánchez -
Santiago García Gago -
xabier