[P2P-es] background to Gordon's report

Jue Jul 10 12:40:36 CEST 2014

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 mÃ¡s de
100 pÃ¡ginas se va a dar cuenta de lo tendencioso que es: las capturas de
pantalla, la informaciÃ³n privada desvelada sin permiso, incluyendo
imÃ¡genes, etc. por no hablar de lo completamente sesgado de las
pseudo-entrevistas, a quiÃ©n da voz y a quiÃ©n no, de quÃ© manera, etc.
Todos los Cook Report son copyright restrictivo (modelo de negocio
basado en consultorÃas), 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
mÃnimanente informada y conocedora de los que es el mundo copyleft,
procomÃºn etc. En fin, no perdamos tiempo con eso Bernardo porque ese
informe se desvirtÃºa a sÃ mismo. Aunque suscribo al 100% lo que
comentas. Tal como vivÃ las cosas, Gordon Cook se pillÃ³ un rebote gordo
porque no se le pudiera pagar el viaje que necesitaba. A partir de ahÃ
comenzÃ³ una guerra sin cuartel. AsÃ 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/
------------ próxima parte ------------
Se ha borrado un adjunto en formato HTML...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-lang-es/attachments/20140710/e654955a/attachment-0001.htm 