Colleagues,
I have always seen this list as analogous to that group of people who gather just outside a lecture hall or auditorium where a speech has been given. Say the talk was on the Future of Work. An excited and engaged group wants to continue talking about it. And they do. It can't be considered structured. Like all conversations it is mostly anecdotal with one person or another mentioning a book or article they had read and likes. The talk continues and sometimes a side conversation or two begins. Sometimes the side conversation dies out on its own and sometimes it dominates the entire conversation. After some time one or another person feels that diminishing returns has set in and decides to leave. Perhaps someone from another lecture walks by and decides to listen in with a view to joining in. This is my view of Futurework. We sometimes stray and stray quite far from the original topic. But someone posts an article or an idea of work and working and it all begins again. Like the conversation I outlined above I don't think a list of this type can support structured ongoing research Perhaps there are some, especially among those doing such research and wanting to compare ideas and outcomes with fellow researchers. Some of us have done some "deep thinking" on the subject and some have done research but mostly this is a collection of those interested in the future of work and working and what this means for society. Like any conversation when there is divergence from the main topic that occupies most, civility takes over and there is a return to the topic. Of course, if the divergence becomes the main topic and remains so then most of the original group usually leaves and those interested in the divergence continue to talk amongst themselves. We are the group. It will be what we make of it. Of course Sally and I have the "power" to remove people from the list but I don't think that during its lifetime have we had the need to exercise that power. We have had quiet "talks" with some off list and things have generally been corrected. As I said in an earlier posting, I see FW as a "big tent" There is room for many views. And, yes, we can handle divergent views and drifts from the main topic. What we can't and won't handle is "hate" talk or talk aimed at undermining any racial or ethnic or religious group. For those who like to partake of this sort of thing there are ample lists on the Net where such activities are tolerated. arthur -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lawrence de Bivort Sent: Monday, July 2, 2007 9:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] This list Greetings everyone, Since Mike posted this message a couple of weeks ago I have been thinking quite a bit about this list and the state that it is in. Mike mentions one problem, and I think we have several besides this one. I've been a member for several years, and I have never seen the list as dead as it is now. There is very little that passes for conversation, and very little genuine exploration or learning going on. We have always had a problem straying from the nominal subject of the list, the future of work. But we have always had vibrant discussions, until these last many months. Karen is carrying on valiantly with her Casey Reports, but receives no feedback and little thanks. Harry and Chris doggedly pursue their pseudo-discussions with argumentative, unwavering, and repetitive self-righteousness. We have obviously lost many valued members in the last couple of years, and it is with sadness that I think of their brilliance, energy, bonhomie, curiosity and knowledge. Some of these have explicitly or privately referred to Chris and Harry as the cause of their departure. The moderators of this list, the list-owners, seem by their silence to accept the deterioration of the list. Who else misses the qualities that we created here some time ago? And if I and Mike are not alone in missing them, what should we do to bring this list back up. The moderators may well tell me that I am overstepping my place with this email, in which case I will happily follow my friends over the horizon and disappear. If this happens, those of you who know that I enjoy and learn from your postings, and who may from time to time enjoy mine, please make note of my email address in the header to this message, and please know that you will ALWAYS be in my heart and your contacts will always be deeply welcomed by me. To those who are only lurking here, if you too wish for a day in which vibrant conversations might again prevail, I would love to hear from you as well. And, finally, a desperate request: if any of you are engaged in constructive and convivial discussions in other fora and might welcome my participation, please email me.... Cheers, Lawry -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Spencer Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:13 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Futurework] [META] Re: Bill Gates,Rockefellers & Africa's biopiracy Hello all -- I dropped off the FutureWork list a couple of years ago, not only because Harry was trolling [1] the list, trying to provoke opportunities for his condescending barbs and his free-market-cures-all polemics but as well because all the other bright folks on the list were politely responding to him as if his posts were mature and sensible contributions and his jibes and provocations were unintentional oversights. I quite missed the dialog so now I've subscribed again and, oh dear, oh dear, what do I find? That Harry is still trolling for arguments, intentionally provoking them and pointlessly prolonging them. It's a bit reassuring that others are no longer tolerating his provocations with good grace in the interest of decorum. On the other hand, allowing the list discourse to degenerate into the kind of shouting match that makes Harry feel righteous and important is not a big win, either. I would hesitate to suggest that the list owner(s) bar Harry from the list but perhaps it would be constructive to simply ignore all of his posts that are devoid of redeeming value or which serve chiefly as a launching platform for his belligerent rhetoric. Harry's skill is an ability to be so irritating that one feels compelled to respond. Suppressing that compulsion might improve the FW conversation. - Mike -------------------------- /| /| | | ||__|| | Please | / O O\__ do not feed | / \ the troll. | / \ \ | / _ \ \ ---------------------- / |\____\ \ || / | | | |\____/ || / \|_|_|/ | __|| / / \ |____| || / | | /| | --| | | |// |____ --| * _ | |_|_|_| | \-/ *-- _--\ _ \ // | / _ \\ _ // | / * / \_ /- | - | | * ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________ [1] On the off chance that you haven't encountered the term "troll" in a net context, here's a snippet from Wikipedia : In Internet terminology, a troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or otherwise inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an established online community such as an online discussion forum to bait users into responding. They may also plant images and data...in order to cause confrontation. [...] The contemporary use of the term first appeared on Usenet groups in the late 1980s. It is widely thought to be a truncation of the phrase "trolling for suckers", itself derived from the sport fishing technique of trolling. -- Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~. /V\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] /( )\ http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
