<div dir="ltr">This is a reponse to what Xabier writes about Gordon's report.<div><br></div><div>Pardon, demasiado complicado para escribir en espagnol.</div><div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For balance, and for the record.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><div><br></div><div>1) Gordon Cook did not exist. Obviously false, since I met him <g></div><div><br></div><div>2) Gordon Cook is CIA .. not a shred of evidence</div><div><br></div><div>3) Gordon Cook was a front for Robert Steele .. well , what can you say ??</div>
<div><br></div><div>4) Gordon Cook is a neocon : demonstrably false, read gordon's reporting on progressive telecom and internet infrastructure reform</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>By treating Gordon so systematically in a dishonourable way, the flok mgt has created a monster that will haunt them forever.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>However, I don't think it will be successful.</div><div><br></div><div>My recommendation to the flok mgt is: stop trashing Gordon, it will backfire.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Other researchers, be warned.</div><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>The critique that Gordon may have published private emails, is particularly unreceivable given Bernardo's public threat to publish my own private emails.</div><div><br></div><div>Michel</div><div><br>
</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><<"Repetidamente he dicho que no pienso entrar a valorar el difamatorio<pre>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
<span title="pseudo-informe de Gordon Cook.">pseudo-report Gordon Cook. </span>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
<span title="imágenes, etc.">images, etc.. </span>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
<span title="copyleft y es dudosamente copyleft ante la ley.">fine the copyleft and is arguably before the law. </span>In any case, the
suspicion of bias arise in anyone document minimally informed and aware of the world that is copyleft,
<span title="procomún etc.">commons etc. </span>In short, do not waste time with that because that Bernardo
<span title="informe se desvirtúa a sí mismo.">report undermines itself. </span>Although I subscribe to 100% which
<span title="comentas.">you comment. </span>As things lived, Gordon Cook caught a fat rebound
<span title="porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba.">because he could not afford the trip he needed. </span>From there
<span title="comenzó una guerra sin cuartel.">started a merciless war. </span><span title="Así de triste lo he vivido.">So that sad I have lived.</span></pre><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><b>Please note an intrusion wiped out my inbox on February 8; I have no record of previous communication, proposals, etc ..</b></div>
<div><br></div>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br><br><a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank"></a>Updates: <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br>#82 on the (En)Rich list: <a href="http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/" target="_blank">http://enrichlist.org/the-complete-list/</a> <br></div>
</div></div></div></div>