[Peace-discuss] Chomsky et al.

[Chas. 'Mark' Bee]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Karen Medina" <kmedina at uiuc.edu>
To: "ouroboros rex" <c-bee1 at itg.uiuc.edu>; 
<peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Chomsky et al.


> ouroboros rex wrote:
>>  The key to stop the disruption from moles is the power to eject them 
>> from the meeting.  If you have no way to eject them, it's not really your 
>> meeting.
>
> Charles,
>
> uh, nope, no ejections.

  'No ejections' does not equal 'nope'.  That's a nice policy, but it 
doesn't invalidate my statement.  And ejections are veeeery rarely needed, 
when the potential itself is there.

>  Moles are welcome to stay. mice (computer mice) and rats (human rats) 
> too. (Did I increase Bob's animal count?)

  I think three is currently the status quo, but I'm working thru my email 
backwards. =)

>
> Ownership has many meanings, and the meaning in which "power" and "control 
> of power" are way over-rated.

  That's certainly one opinion, if I'm reading that sentence correctly, and 
it does you credit.  Perhaps one day I'll relate the extended saga of how 
vandalism by bullies affects one's high school art efforts - 'natural law' 
is found in the darndest places... =)

> If you are implying that control of power is the only way to move forward,

  That of course does not follow.  'Only' and 'all' (and 'none') are usually 
dead giveaways.  However, it is occasionally the case.

> then I beg to differ. I too doubted at first, then I came and saw. I have 
> seen consensus work -- in conjunction with a 90% rule if a very few people 
> disagree.

  That's not consensus, that's a 90% supermajority.  We ran the original 
WEFT PR committee by consensus with no 90% rule, and that worked because, to 
paraphrase an old sage, there was nothing much to get hung about.

>
> Is consensus perfect? No. But much closer to perfection than rule by 
> control of power.

  The results would seem to beg to differ.  I understand you've lost several 
members, and for much more than one meeting, because of squabbles that 
couldn't be stopped.  Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.