Hi julied,

I think I have managed to identify most of the references in your post, going back to May. But I am really puzzled by the 'institutional investors'. I winced when this thread got started. It meant that a minor incident enforcing the team recruiting rule at a time when, in some threads, people had started arguing and picking on each other for supposed infractions had been taken as a painful slap by UKSCS. Which was never the intention. But without any tone of voice possible online, you can never be sure how any communication will be interpreted.

Would you care to explain a bit more about the censorship? And the point about 'institutional investors' that has me completely blank?

mycrofth

This is just offal.

Hello, mycrofth. I am pleasantly surprised by your open inquiry. Sorry for the delay, but fall is a hectic time of year for me.

The term "institutional investors" is simply a metaphor for large organized groups (such as UK, TribalWar.com, /., etc.) of users as opposed to individual users like myself and most other members. [REF: A block, group or entity (such as a company, mutual fund or pension fund) with very large amounts of money to invest, they make up a large percentage of the investment market, and hence, purchase in large volumes commodities, stocks, mutual funds and bonds. Plus, block investors are less restricted in their market activity than are individual investors. www.stock-investing-guru.com/glossary.html ] WCG is wooing these “investors” just as portfolio managers solicit “institutional investors.” (http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=4064)

As to the topic of censorship: Now it's my turn to wince. Even an academic discussion about censorship makes me start to turn green.

Let's try a different approach.

On the one hand IBM has sponsored this site. By making the data open to the public domain they have insured the integrity and worth of our contributions. For this they deserve our sincere gratitude.

Their forum rules, however, are another matter.

IBM obviously has their vision of what WCG will someday be. Fine, it’s their dime. The problem is that IBM is trying to force their vision down the throats of their current users, many of whom do not share their vision.

IBM is making a mistake. Yes, the suits may be running the corporations, but the gatekeepers to the internet are not the suits. They are the ex-Trekies and today’s techies. And right now, it is these gatekeepers who are calling the Information Technology shots within the corporations.

But leaving this distinction aside, for a moment: Exactly who are these flesh and blood individuals that IBM believes are going to participate in Rosetta/WCG?

Those people/members who will actually find out about WCG and Rosetta: Who will then take the initiative to learn more about the project: Who will also have both the heart and the determination to make an active daily commitment to support it, are not cut from "your typical cloth." Suits or techies, they are not the average person.

The average/normal American is busy watching some ridiculous sitcom with their free time. They are so insecure about themselves that they beg to be told how to think and how to behave. If you do find them on a computer it is either to download porn, or to buy something else that they don’t need.

Internet user/techies are more inclined to plant a tree, save an orphaned animal, give a neighbor a helping hand, or work on a program to protect the environment. And, yes. They will often be honest to a fault. They typically delight in defying convention. They can be merciless in exposing hypocrisy and false pride. It goes with the territory. It comes with having a strong individualistic character, a passion for life, and a willingness to fight the fight that needs winning.

To participate in WCG only requires dedicating the CPUs idle capacity to run Rosetta. Participating in the Forum discussions is for those who desire increased socializing or occasional technical support. There is no reason to limit free and open communication for those who desire it because of some vague fears of offending those very members who are the least prone to participate in these discussions.

Why do you think I continue to post?

Does it really appear to you that I am enjoying this?

After the ridiculous hysterical reaction to Rejean’s post about the burning of the American flag, I received a private email asking me why I bothered to remain as a member of a team that I was actively attacking and attempting to destroy. (Read: Please go away, now!)

Let’s just hold on for a moment. There is some real confusion here.

First, I rebuked specific individuals for their over-reactive and authoritarian censorship. How does my behavior constitute an attack on “the team,” or an attempt to “destroy the team?” As they are “running the team,” these individuals have somehow managed to delude themselves into believing that “they actually are the team.” There are some serious boundary issues here. (This was one of my main points in those posts.)

Second, I was critical of the ridiculous over-reaction to what was only a joke. Who cares if someone else finds it offensive? It is only a joke. If someone doesn’t like it, they are free to ignore it. But the essential point is not the joke. Really, who cares? But being offended by a joke can never, ever give anyone the right to censor the joke or the person making it. Freedom of speech and expression is absolutely essential to our way of life. A threat to this right is a fundamental threat to all of us.

From a personal perspective, I spent a year fighting a vicious and unpopular war. During this time I (and millions of others during the course of our country’s history) were forced to kill or be killed to defend our way of life. All this pain and sacrifice was made specifically to ensure that every person had the absolute right to burn the flag, and make jokes about it, if they chose to.

We did.

Do you really believe that we should now just sit passively by while IBM, or some self-appointed team autocrat attempted to circumvent or redefine the First Amendment of The Bill of Rights just to satisfy for their own personal self-interests?

No? Then why do you?

As always, thanks Graham.

Well that goes to show what an idiot i am. I didnt know i was being slapped around by UKSCS.But rules are rules and we need to be led around like the sheep that we are