Here's my response from another thread:

I followed that post on the other thread actually expressing appreciation to Pinga that she did handle my questions and concerns thoughtfully and thoroughly yesterday. It helps.

I wasn't talking about blocking voting.  Just that often times the location choosen is immediately outside the voting station.

Nowhere I've voted. They probably want you to stop and talk to them about their concerns. They might have something to say worth a listen. Sometimes party reps will still be handing out their pamphlets on the sidewalk if that's what you mean. That is a good thing about free speech and democracy, IMO. Far worse if we had none of that- as long as it's civil.

Aaron, out of acknowledgement for a critique Rev John made on the other thread about this post can you please remove the word "lynch" and just keep "mob". It was hyperbole for "mob mentality", not literal. I'm sorry.

If you're gonne conceed that "lynch" was inappropriate, the next thing you have to justify is "mob".

Or maybe I just have higher mob standards than you do. I see mobs as being a crowd of people, numbering a dozen people or more. I also do not see them exchanging dozens and dozens of posts and PMs with their victims, providing reasons and answering questions before becoming exasperated. I think that is very un-mob-like behaviour, but maybe it's just me.

I am talking about the reaction of other posters as a "mob", not you. And take yourself out of the equation for a moment. I trust you. And I am not concerned about your employer so much as far as my ethics and values goes. You build buildings. I don't find that controversial. Okay?

A mob who simply says they don't agree with your concerns? That's a pretty pathetic mob. There are groups of pre-teens shaking their heads at what an amateur mob we have here.

And through my old work, I bet I know more organized crime members than Pinga does. Not one has ever asked me if I have admin at a religious forum, and that it would be in my best interests if I wrote my credentials on a piece of paper and dropped it when I left. Whoops.

People are telling me that if I am concerned I should leave. People are making me into a fool for asking. That's what feels like a mob. I probably will leave. Check in in a couple of months and see what the place looks like. But I don't want to be in a place where concerns are scoffed at no matter how stupid they might seem.

I posted a response to you on the other thread. I don't think you should leave because you're concerned. I do think anyone who has a profound level of distrust for those running the site or a profound fear of what's going to happen to information posted on the internet should either not be a part of discussion forums in the first case or should stay off the internet in the second.

We make the Internet better by asking people in charge to be accountable to our concerns. If I wanted to cower in a corner and go off the grid I wouldn't be here. The concerns I have could apply to everyone not just me. If you don't care fine but don't castigate me for asking. Asking people to consider where their information is going, who can snoop on their privacy, is not a stupid question. If we become convinced that's a stupid question, because we're told it is over and over, we give up our rights. It starts with the small picture if we don't question, and grows into the big picture.

I left a response to you and RedHead on the other thread.

Hi Kimmio,

I have already responded to the content of this post in the thread where it was made so I am not going to repeat that here.

What I do want to address is the choice in the OP made between blind consensus and critique.

To start I think that it is a false choice as neither one represents the opposite to the other.

Blind consensus would oppose informed consensus while critique (not inherently negative) is opposed by compliment.

Criticism has been offered and so far several attempts have been made to address criticism raised.  As Rev. Steven Davis points out there appears to be no acceptance that answers have been provided be they satisfactory or not.

Blind consensus has not been given unless all that has been presented to date is a ruse.  Will the Code of Conduct presented for our review and approval be the actual Code of Conduct or will we suddenly be forced into sacrificing newborns to appease Moloch?

Blind Consensus cannot come when informed consent has been sought.  Unless nobody has actually read the documents or questioned any part of them.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Okay. One more post. Who do you work for and could you address possible concerns over privacy and conflict of interest...is not a concern that was brought up for democratic debate in the decision making process. So, therein lies the blind consensus. A comparable example... If I worked for Monsanto it might be seen as a conflict of interest to volunteer for Oxfam or Greenpeace. People supporting Greenpeace would appreciate knowing if their volunteer coordinator works for Monsanto. They likely would have some ethical concerns about it. Even if the Monsanto person was friendly, and got along with everyone. But maybe that's just me. I don't know how to ask it without it being a controversial point. I'm in the process of making my spiritual, vocational and personal life more consistent. Things I didn't used to think about. It would never occur to me before- these conflicts of interest or values or whatever. That means questioning if where I spend my time agrees with my values and if not, if it is the way it is maybe I should go someplace that does.

I cringed when I read the words 'Blind Consensus' ~ the negative connotations are offensive.

Hi Kimmio,

No, people are telling you if you are that concerned don't join.  There is a subtle difference.

The first is an expression of exclusion, you are here, you don't like it now get out.

WonderCafe.ca is not WC2.  Any and all talk about WC2 is about what will be rather than what is.

You are not being excluded if folk are telling you that you can choose not to enter.  You are being excluded if folk are telling you that you should leave.

Nobody, that I have read has suggested you leave WonderCafe.ca.

Many are saying that if you don't trust WC2 then by all means don't join WC2.

Respectfully, I don't see that happening at all.  Some of your questions appear to presume an ability to compel admins to hand over WC2 info to their employers.

I cannot adress your feeling.

I can address the optics of multiple responses to singular questions.  Poster A asks question A and then posters B through to J respond to question A.  Each response will be flavoured by the poster who offers it.

Why do we get so many responses to a singular question?

We get so many because posters B through to J are not staring at one another and asking who should answer.  Each may be reading the question at precisely the same time or even in the same sequence of posts and responding to it at the same time.

In a room of individuals if I ask a question I may get one answer or I may get several answers from several individuals.  All are responding to me and my individual question (some may reference other answers provided by others present).  That doesn't represent a mob.

Unless everyone is responding is a Kangaroo and then you need at least three for it to qualify as a mob.

That presumes that WC2 will be as open access as WonderCafe.ca is now.  I mean I can read all content here without loggin in.  I can't respond and I won't know how many replies have been made to any thread.

So far I cannot see WC2 content without logging in and what can be seen after I log in is probably adequately described as test driving.  We are trying to learn how to do various things from an Admin/Moderator role.

So we are making nonsense comments flagging those comments and offering general commentary one might experience in any team environment.  Good-natured ribbing and the like.

If concerns are being scoffed at it is not a universal response to those concerns.

Questions may be raised which are beyond the ability of anyone currently involved to answer due to limitations to our particular intelligence set.  Legal questions could be answered by a Lawyer (though you might want second and third opinions--lawyers agreeing with one another is something like folk having a third nipple--rather unusual).  I am not aware of any lawyers currently in the mix.  So the best we can offer is general idea.

Grace and peace to you.

John

deja vu

WC2 is not Oxfam. WC1 is not Oxfam. People care about Oxfam and their lobbying. Nobody cares about us. No one. Not one company on the face of the Earth cares about WC1 or WC2.

Please let this line of questioning go.

We have wasted literally days of our lives saying the same things over and over. The answers may be slightly different because we all see it differently, but the net result is the same - you and redhead don't trust us. Or at least one of us.

If your trust issues run that deep, and can clearly not be resolved by our answers, then stop asking questions and do not register for WC2. Our answers are not going to change. Redhead's demands are not going to be met.

If I didn't care, I wouldn't have invested all this time typing answers. I do care, but I'm sick of this. If you were my employer, I'd be upset. Given that I'm doing this for free, and invested about $150 into this, while unemployed, I'm pissed.

Hi Kimmio,

Would you do me the favour of addressing your questions to specific parties rather than to none at all.

I think you might be responding to me but I don't know.

Taking for granted that you are directing the question to me.  I am an employee of The United Church of Canada.  

Fair enough.  You are questioning the integrity of individuals involved with WC2.

I don't know that WC2 has any conflicts of interest with any other entities.

I also don't know how to address the issue of integrity beyond what has been made evident in all of the interaction here to date.

Most here appear to comport themselves with a fair degree of maturity and responsibility.  I don't think any were held in check by the UCCan presence and as most have opted to remain anonymous I would think that there is very little accountability structure keeping anyone in check.

If memory serves the current admins have had to throw their weight around (disciplinary wise) sparingly and where they have done that it has been less about any particular point of view or belief and more about the disruption caused by the poster.

I do not suspect that any individual named to the WC2 Council has any desire to make WC2 into their own image where they can control the content of the posters or the membership or reveal private information to the highest bidder.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Let me try to understand. Who do you think that i work for?

I think you work for big powerful companies that design IT products for what purpose? I don't know. Sky's the limit but your profile page and what's in it looks ominous to me. You make comments that you think arms proliferation keeps the world peaceful and that money is an equalizer in the world where there are 3.5 billion in poverty. My perception work for powerful people and the systems that manage the little people. That already conflicts with my values. I actually think you can be a nice person too- you're probably fun in a social context but these things are important to me. What can I say, I'm an INFP. We're not a huge number of people in the world but I believe it's fairly accurate.

http://www.personalitypage.com/INFP.html

http://personalitycafe.com/infp-forum-idealists/

I wonder how their admins cope?

Thank you. Maybe I should join that forum. They probably have an INFP as a consultant on their team.

Maybe you should - expect you would be more comfortable.

In all seriousness, you need to find someone to help with your trust issues. Maybe they can. I don't know.

I took a look at the other thread.  Until you posted, what you quoted in the opening comments of this thread - your name was not mentioned, nor did you post.  Since I doubt that you are a Red Head sockpuppet - you must have the imagined perception that you are being persecucted

Mr. Rogers (Fred Rogers) and Aldus Huxley were both INFPs. One made a children's show about getting along. The other wrote a book about a future dystopia where the corporation was God, there was a caste system (add: of factory produced clones), love was seen as unnecessary, and people popped pills to forget their concerns. Go figure.

http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/infp/

Kimmio, I have neither scoffed at you or made you out to be a fool. If that's your perception, it's unfortunate but inaccurate. I'm giving you the same advice I'd give to a parishioner. If you're involved with something that 's causing you such torment - and this seems to be - then you should probably leave it behind. That's simple pastoral advice. If it's causing you this much concern it's not worth it.

Did you mean that people who are legally blind cannot come to an informed decison.  Or - is it your inference that those of us who have come to consensus, have done so without discernment?

Whoosh, i thought you were concerned that I worked for Fox News or the CIA

So, i don't work for Google or Facebook either

I don't work for an IT company

I don't work for a munitions company

I do work for a multi-national

Having said that any corporate owned machine is going to be better protected than any normal humans machine.

You should be more concerned about someone being an admin who doesn't understand security and ethics. Your fear and concer.s are truly misplaced. United church of canada staff and their service providers have the same or more risk (i say that as there were some ugly security holes in the early days)

Conversation is a two way street.  Go ahead and ask the questions - then give some thought and respect to the answers given.

You must be frightened about many in the world as there are thousands upon thousands of IT folks in your city alone.

My comments regarding money and the importance of a growing middle class in developing countries were clearly not understood by you . Are you saying you don't trust people who disagree with your economics theories?

Who do you trust?

Seriously, kimmio.

Do you have someone you can consult with that you trust?

I know the amount of time that your questions take. I have been willing to drive to a solution and respond

On the other hand, when you make up wild possibiloties not based in fact the challenge that I first have to get through is what is your core concern

We are getting there, your reference to trust remain about me. Your reference to xyz company are about the company that I work for.

I cannot apologize for what I do for a living. It has given me the skills to be able to volunteer in this capacity. The United Church of Canada would have had to pay a significant rate to get done what mendella, chansen and i have done .The people they would have hired would have had similair though maybe more junior skills. You would have known squat about them

There's lots of good info on personality café. I'm a member :)

It's a different kind of forum. It's interesting talking with people who have the same personality type as you do. We ISFPs mostly get into rousing discussions about art, and the environment.

Fine then I must apologize for jumping to conclusions. This isn't the ideal way to address my concern. I'd have prefered more of a person to person chat- without it my concerns got blown out of proportion. Can you understand that? Anyway. Who do I trust? Most of the people I trust are people who are not of great means, salt of the earth types, artists, philosophers, social worker types- eccentric in their own ways most of them - and people low on the totem pole who've come out of adversity without much materially to show for it but have a depth of character that's not something easy to come by. True grits. As my neighbour called me. I had to look it up. I am not sure I would agree with that as a characterization of me, I'm not as courageous as the people I look up to, but that's what she thinks. Hard logic, organization, material 'success', competition, are not priorities to me. I guess you've figured that out.

As for the the thousands of IT folks- I read that Microsoft was moving into my city. I had a wave of nausea. That's the Mothership of IT companies. ;) Brave New World stuff.

So, you only trust those who have characteristics you identify with or desire?
Conversely, you do not trust who you do not identify with?

My question wasn't to you...it was more of a question of," do or might people find this relevant when coming to a consensus? Can we discuss it?" And by now Pinga has answered and the answers to my questions are clearer and I am feeling at least somewhat better about my concerns.

Can I turn the same question back to you? To everyone for that matter? It applies to anyone. None of us trusts everyone. Most of us don't trust people who are a perceived threat to either emotionally or materially to what matters to us most. Socialists are a threat to capitalists, and vice versa. Messy Marvins are a threat to Neat Freaks. Data oriented people are threatening to people who are ethereal/ artistic types (if they seriously lean in one direction and don't fall in the other that is- just two totally different lenses to see the world through). We all have people in whose company we generally feel more at ease and we all generally trust those whose values and relatable experience in the world we share more in common with. That doesn't mean there's no room for the other view- but generally I feel that the people I feel most comfortable with are few and far between. I have about 5 close friends in my personal life. Some 'fairweather friends'. I'm fine with that. That's 5 people who appreciate me for who I am, not just superficially, and that's a blessing. I can get along with anyone but with most people the connection is superficial. That's because I find that's all most people want it to be. That's life. But as for who I trust- yeah it's people who think more like me I trust most. I would assume it's the same for you.

I trust the barista to pour my coffee, or the bus driver to drive the bus- that's totally impersonal. I can tell when people are sincere even if we don't agree on much- I trust chansen to be honest because his personality comes through. The thing I have a hard time with with the business world is actually that you have to put on a cover, a shell. For many it's like that. I felt like that in corporate environments if I was expected to talk the company talk and walk the company walk. The company hat. Sometimes it seems like people become their company brand. It's hard for me to trust people who give off that vibe. And it's hard to get through the shell.

you would presume wrong.

I trust people who have far different opinions than I do.  I trust them based on areas where they have expertise.

I trust my doctor to be my doctor and to have basic medical skills until I am proven wrong.  I do not accept financial or political stances from them.

I trust my close friends who have shown they are truthworthy for personal confidences.

I trust folks on here who I have never met, based on their evidence of being trustworthy. I have seen how they have handled themselves when faced with challenges or confrontation.  I have witnessed their analysis and responses which are balanced and caring.

So, you presume wrong.

I do not trust people just because they whisper what I want to hear in my ear.  If I did, I would fall victim to the first con artist on the street, the first manipulator at work, and the first sock puppet at this site.

Anyway. Off to work now.

I know what you're saying. I do trust a variety of people for a variety of reasons but what matters to me more than any skilled competency is people caring about people- usually the weaker. First the care, for the person, then the competency that the person needs. In that order, I trust. I don't look for the competency first if I can't read the person behind the hat that's providing it. As for friends I am an odd duck so I trust people who care enough to appreciate that.

hope you find some of that tax-free cash, Kimmio