James R's Independent Review Process

[Gustav]

if any of the mods communicates in an official capacity thru pm's with me, understand this.....

Is government e-mail considered public record?

Yes. Records created in the course of public business are considered public records regardless of format. Agency staff should be strongly cautioned that government e-mail is a part of the public record and that they have no privacy rights when using government e-mail at any level.​

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

if any of the mods communicates in an official capacity thru pm's with me, understand this.....

Is government e-mail considered public record?

Yes. Records created in the course of public business are considered public records regardless of format. Agency staff should be strongly cautioned that government e-mail is a part of the public record and that they have no privacy rights when using government e-mail at any level.​

ut Oh , you mean Me e-mails to Joesph J. Adams The Economic Development Adviser to the committee on finances for the united state senate is public record ?

 

[parmalee]

Habermas's elaboration of a procedural, discursive deliberative democracy extends from his faith in communicative action, in symmetrical communicative interactions played out in an arena of communicative rationality. Yet Habermas expects too much of his agents. His theory of communicative action, built upon the necessary possession of communicative rationality, requires individuals to have clear, unfettered access to their own reasoning, possessing clear preference rankings and defendable rationales for their goals and values. Without such understandings, agents would have no reasons to extend or defend their positions in a discursive interchange; no validity claims are redeemable between communicative participants if the agent cannot access, substantiate or understand their own rationality. The psychological and discursive preconditions that agents must manifest to meet Habermas's conditions as participants in communicative rationality are exceptionally demanding.

source

Interesting critique of "communicative rationality." Habermas always struck me as someone who doesn't get out of the office enough.

Keepin' it relevant and shits, I see some of the same here: "Habermas expects too much of his agents." Yeah, one could substitute any number of names for Habermas there. The obvious (and most common, I believe) objection would be that "communicative rationality" is too "euro-centric" (substitute "phallo-" or whatever at your discretion, though I would also argue that it's specieist, or too anthropocentric: social non-humans achieve the same ends without recourse to "c.r."), but the deeper issue is one of applicability.

On one hand, certain persons will claim that sciforums is a place of "science," "scholarship," "rigorous analysis," and all that crap, while concurrently proffering their subjective, and highly emotive, opinions on matters ranging from music to ethics to politics. Can't really have it both ways--or rather, you can, you simply have to acknowledge that it's "all that" and more, without condemning the other party for not adhering to one's stringent standards (to which one oneself does not adhere.)

So what's a "lighthearted dig" and what's a "blatant insult?" I don't think anyone can really decide, and I also don't think it's necessarily one of those things for which "I'll know it when I see it." (For that matter, neither is pornography.)

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

Interesting critique of "communicative rationality." Habermas always struck me as someone who doesn't get out of the office enough.

Keepin' it relevant and shits, I see some of the same here: "Habermas expects too much of his agents." Yeah, one could substitute any number of names for Habermas there. The obvious (and most common, I believe) objection would be that "communicative rationality" is too "euro-centric" (substitute "phallo-" or whatever at your discretion, though I would also argue that it's specieist, or too anthropocentric: social non-humans achieve the same ends without recourse to "c.r."), but the deeper issue is one of applicability.

On one hand, certain persons will claim that sciforums is a place of "science," "scholarship," "rigorous analysis," and all that crap, while concurrently proffering their subjective, and highly emotive, opinions on matters ranging from music to ethics to politics. Can't really have it both ways--or rather, you can, you simply have to acknowledge that it's "all that" and more, without condemning the other party for not adhering to one's stringent standards (to which one oneself does not adhere.)

So what's a "lighthearted dig" and what's a "blatant insult?" I don't think anyone can really decide, and I also don't think it's necessarily one of those things for which "I'll know it when I see it." (For that matter, neither is pornography.)

Whats a matter with you , Penetration dude penetration. Any orifices will do . Wa La Porn is Born

 

[Gustav]

Keepin' it relevant and shits, I see some of the same here: "Habermas expects too much of his agents." Yeah, one could substitute any number of names for Habermas there. The obvious (and most common, I believe) objection would be that "communicative rationality" is too "euro-centric" (substitute "phallo-" or whatever at your discretion, though I would also argue that it's specieist, or too anthropocentric: social non-humans achieve the same ends without recourse to "c.r."), but the deeper issue is one of applicability.

indeed

a valid alternative to habermas's CR

So what's a "lighthearted dig" and what's a "blatant insult?" I don't think anyone can really decide, and I also don't think it's necessarily one of those things for which "I'll know it when I see it." (For that matter, neither is pornography.)

why don't you give it try....

---------------------------------------------------------

What accusations?

mmph
james playing the innocent
---------------------------------------------------------


consider context then pronounce judgment
you could also remain waffling around in indecision
thats ok too

 

[parmalee]

indeed

a valid alternative to habermas's CR

Hmmm. Funny, I was actually thinking along the lines of other more "desirable" alternatives, IOW achieving a "nice" outcome.

That is, there's a subtle--and not so nice--implication in this phrasing, "Habermas expects too much," namely, that basically everyone is a dumbshit. This may or not be the case; regardless, I think this would be better:

"Habermas expects this from his agents, when in fact this may not be the best, the only, or even the optimal methodology for the scenario at hand."

But pursuing it from the angle of darker alternatives, it should be noted that such displays of alpha behaviors only occur amongst wolves raised or bred in captivity, IOW such behavior is in response to order being imposed from without. Likewise, people (in certain contexts) tend to behave badly when constrained by rigidly interpreted codified rules and whatnots. (See page 8 and page 9 of this thread for a brief and sketchy digression on the matter of "laws" informing people's behavior.) And while sciforums isn't a democracy, it can still effect some sort of system to ensure that those in positions of power do not impose what they perceive as the best, the only, or the optimal methodological constraints upon everyone else.

Or it can insist upon being a "science" board, a place of "scholarship," etc. and eliminate all discussions of a political, ethical, aesthetic, etc. nature. Which isn't to suggest that such matters can not be approached with "scientific" methodologies, but to insist upon such--and to insist that such are the best, the only...--is just kinda silly and would likely bring many a discussion to an abrupt stalemate.

why don't you give it try....

I don't really think it's possible. The other day, I remarked in another thread that a certain poster was either a "complete fucking dumbshit, or simply a moderately clever troll." Sure, that's probably a "blatant insult," but it can also be construed as a jarring reminder to stop stating things as "fact" which a person has in no manner confirmed.

 

[wynn]

a valid alternative to habermas's CR

A discussion forum is an artificial environment, built on the premise of talking for talking's sake. As such, it is an irrational environment.

In regular real life interactions, humans perform activities with a particular purpose, toward a particular goal.

This is characteristically absent in a discussion forum like this, one that doesn't even have a proper manifesto, and every poster is pursuing their own goals, whatever they may be.

In regular real life interactions, since they have particular purposes, it is easy enough to be rational, as rationality is tied to the purpose, tied to the goal.

Without a purpose, there can be no rationality, only a mask of it.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

A discussion forum is an artificial environment, built on the premise of talking for talking's sake. As such, it is an irrational environment.

In regular real life interactions, humans perform activities with a particular purpose, toward a particular goal.

This is characteristically absent in a discussion forum like this, one that doesn't even have a proper manifesto, and every poster is pursuing their own goals, whatever they may be.

In regular real life interactions, since they have particular purposes, it is easy enough to be rational, as rationality is tied to the purpose, tied to the goal.

Without a purpose, there can be no rationality, only a mask of it.

That is all right! Big Time Girl you are amazing . Except Me I have a purpose . It is not self motivated . It is group motivated . I work hard to hypnotize Me captive audience and Then Bad Me implants suggestions your subconscious can't ignore. I measure my success by the amount of verbalized changes that occur in the forum rhetoric. It is slow and tedious . Adjustments need to be made constantly .

O.K. consider this: Question like < How many boards of discussion are dysfunctional in real life . Lets say you got a board of 10 people . Do they think like the endless talk of S.F. ... I would think so , Human Nature tells Me it is so
I can tell you this < The skills I learn Here are unmatched anywhere for collecting personalities . I thank you all for that cause you fuckers believe it or not are absolutely Brilliant people

 

[quadraphonics]

A discussion forum is an artificial environment, built on the premise of talking for talking's sake. As such, it is an irrational environment.

In regular real life interactions, humans perform activities with a particular purpose, toward a particular goal.

This is characteristically absent in a discussion forum like this, one that doesn't even have a proper manifesto, and every poster is pursuing their own goals, whatever they may be.

In regular real life interactions, since they have particular purposes, it is easy enough to be rational, as rationality is tied to the purpose, tied to the goal.

Without a purpose, there can be no rationality, only a mask of it.

Good insights Signal.

Over the years, I have noticed a striking difference in how tractable the issue of moderation is, depending on how much of an explicit purpose a forum has. On the one hand you have very specific forums (for hobbyists who like to work on some specific brand of classic motorcycle, say). These tend to be very well moderated, and very easily - it's simple to tell if somebody is contributing to the specified topic or not, and nobody has much appetite for those who aren't. In the middle, you have more loosely-defined forums (for people who attend a specific college, or who like a certain genre of movie, say). These tend to be decently-moderated - there's enough of a unified theme to make it work, but it's open enough that it inevitably draws a certain amount of trolls and drama. On the other end, you have places like SciForums that don't have any discernable purpose, and which are unmoderatable - basically, troll's nests, wherein attempts to moderate become rabbit-holes of undefined scope and prerogative.

 

[Gustav]

sci's doing just fine, buddy
the occasional hiccup does not define this place
nor the most uncharitable take on it

A discussion forum is an artificial environment, built on the premise of talking for talking's sake. As such, it is an irrational environment.

In regular real life interactions, humans perform activities with a particular purpose, toward a particular goal.

meaningless garbage
justify with examples

The skills I learn Here are unmatched anywhere for collecting personalities . I thank you all for that cause you fuckers believe it or not are absolutely Brilliant people

why thank you

 

[wynn]

meaningless garbage
justify with examples

Ah, Gussie, you romantic idealist!

Sci ain't

 

[Gustav]

so is it true you are a girl?

 

[Ophiolite]

I still have Gustav on ignore and have done for the last couple of years. It makes the universe a nicer place.

 

[Gustav]

I still have Gustav on ignore and have done for the last couple of years. It makes the universe a nicer place.

On the strength of the tenor, probable intent, coherence and general good sense of Gustav's posts in this thread I have taken him off ignore.

(I have been monitoring a selection of his posts for the past six months and have reached the conclusion that the alien entity that had taken possession of his body prior to him becoming a regular at sciforums has not survived its last metamorphosis. If correct we should expect increasingly lucid communications in the future as the real Gustav's personality reconstitutes itself.

Gustav, please not these observations do not represent a licence to be an asshole.)

in favor
out of favor
in
out
tweedle dee
tweedle dum
this little piggy......

 

[Gustav]

I started a thread to discuss the topic of material posted by Gustav

good to know. i shall give some background on the poster in order to help in your investigation

The poster in question was addressed to criminals. Specifically, it was addressed to criminals who had smashed and looted in the London riots.

not true. the poster first surfaced during the uk uncut protest. the rhetoric clearly indicates that is targeted towards protests and not riots

for illustrative purposes, i will reproduce an edited image of the poster which i hope you will allow to stand

as you can see, the scenario the poster purports to address is clearly one of a demonstration/protest rather than a riot. the word "demo" is used, the word "riot" is nowhere to be found

here are the circumstances that necessitates all the advice given in that poster

Forward Intelligence Teams (FITs) are two or more police officers who are deployed by UK police forces to gather intelligence on the ground[1] and in some circumstances, to disrupt activists and deter anti-social behaviour. They use cameras, camcorders and audio recorders to conduct overt surveillance of the public. An unsuccessful legal challenge has been made against their use of overt surveillance, but in 2009 it was ruled that they must justify retention of photographs on a case-by-case basis. Any information that is kept is recorded on the crimint database. Political activists have criticised FITs and said that they feel the aim of FIT deployment during protests is to prevent legal protests. Journalists have also complained that FITs attempt to stop them photographing protests and that they conduct surveillance of journalists. A campaign group, Fitwatch, formed in 2007 that aim to obstruct FITs and conduct surveillance on the officers. Two members of the group were arrested at the 2008 Climate Camp on obstruction charges. A similar police surveillance unit, the Video Intelligence Unit is operated by Greater Manchester Police. In June 2010, the Home Office announced it would review the use of FITs during public order policing.

the uk riots had an origin, the execution of duggan and subsequent protests. i would not ignore that salient fact. if i were out on the streets during the riots, it would be to register my protest over those incidents rather than loot. nor would i care to be filmed by the cops and get yanked in to court for exercising my rights to assemble peacefully

and yes. that scenario is quite probable

cops


Panorama - What Ever Happened To People Power - p1
Panorama - What Ever Happened To People Power - p2
Panorama - What Ever Happened To People Power - p3


hope all that helps

 

[chimpkin]

Yes, I pointed out the word "demos" in the other thread, and noted that police do violate the rights of protesters... It just sort of got ignored.
I don't know what the police call it here, but they basically do the same thing with plainclothes cops...they put unlabeled officers out there in the crowd, but usually near the uniformed police, and these officers will be recording video.

Too, do you think in the chaos of a crowd, one person can get blamed for another's criminal behavior? yeah, pretty easily.

I just thought it might open the owner of this site up to frivolous prosecution or suit...:shrug: and if that happened he'd likely just pull the plug, and no more forum. Not worth the trouble of fighting.

@ Gustav-
JamesR has that authority here...and I believe he will continue to hold that authority for the foreseeable future. However you wish to deal with that reality is entirely up to you.

 

[Trippy]

not true. the poster first surfaced during the uk uncut protest. the rhetoric clearly indicates that is targeted towards protests and not riots

for illustrative purposes, i will reproduce an edited image of the poster which i hope you will allow to stand

as you can see, the scenario the poster purports to address is clearly one of a demonstration/protest rather than a riot. the word "demo" is used, the word "riot" is nowhere to be found.

If you trace the flyer back to fitwatch, they have this to say:

The leaflet printed above was not produced or distributed by Fitwatch, but does have a similarity to information we published after the student demo back last December. When we published it then, the police shut down our website, claiming we were 'perverting the course of justice'.

This leaflet has already been reprinted on various websites and even quoted in the Evening Standard, so we have no fear of publishing it again here. Unless the Evening Standard too is perverting the course of justice.​

Also note that the flyer you reproduced is a generalized version of a prior flyer - the orginal form, available on a blog, which I don't have the link to at my fingertips (and am disinclined to track down from my workplace workstation) contained contact information for lawyers that specialize in civil disorder charges, and the 'Bristol Arestee Support Group'.

(also note that Indymedia have 'hidden' the advice because it 'fails to meet their editorial guidelines').

 

[Varda]

In other words, the police is treating protestors like criminals, abusing their authority in shutting down websites who criticize them and support the activists, the media is being a pussy about it, and sciforums is unsurprisingly endorsing the pussification.

Get used to having no right to free speech. There's enough powerful people working day and night on making sure it goes away to actually accomplish it.

 

[Trippy]

In other words, the police is treating protestors like criminals, abusing their authority in shutting down websites who criticize them and support the activists, the media is being a pussy about it, and sciforums is unsurprisingly endorsing the pussification.

Get used to having no right to free speech. There's enough powerful people working day and night on making sure it goes away to actually accomplish it.

Or perhaps it has something to do with a peacful demonstration turning violent?

 

[Gustav]

Also note that the flyer you reproduced is a generalized version of a prior flyer - the orginal form, available on a blog, which I don't have the link to at my fingertips (and am disinclined to track down from my workplace workstation) contained contact information for lawyers that specialize in civil disorder charges, and the 'Bristol Arestee Support Group'.

(also note that Indymedia have 'hidden' the advice because it 'fails to meet their editorial guidelines').

very nice, trippy
in a fit of pique i posted some crap by a law firm in the riot thread because the sentiments are somewhat similar
i must say i was shocked at indymedia of all places for bowing to censorship. i cannot quite figure that one out