Re: [Futurework] This list
Good posting, Natalia. Thanks. When I rejoined the list a few weeks ago, I didn't quite know what to expect. I have to admit that I was disappointed. There were very few people still on the list and nobody seemed to be interested in the changing nature of work, a very important topic in these times. A few years ago, when the list was at its hottest, I was told by a friend who teaches at the University of Waterloo that his students and many others read the list regularly and discussed the postings. I don't know if that's happened over the past few years, but I rather doubt it. Frankly, I don't care what people post to the list. It's not moderated (I believe) and therefore wide open. However, I personally would like to see it more on topic and I'm resolved to try to get it back to where it once was, which is why I've been posting gloomy stuff on the changing nature of the auto industry and the increasingly globablized world of work in general. Regards, Ed - Original Message - From: Darryl or Natalia To: Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 6:08 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] This list Cordell, Arthur: ECOM wrote: Harry, Please stick around. And please keep posting. The list needs you and perhaps you also need the list. arthur Arthur, Of all the responses you and others have posted about this list, this one is by far the best. Though Mike's posting was honest in one respect in that Harry is expert at pushing buttons, exclusion of anyone, including individuals who present opposing or questionable views, is suicidal of this list. We like to think ourselves capable of proposing future solutions without recognition that solutions must be good for the whole as well as the individual to be sound. Many on this list are involved in serious negotiations which would soon flounder without vital inclusion. Tempers have been expressed by almost everyone regularly contributing to this list, even calmest of the bunch, instigator Harry. Yet, one should be asking, what avenues of learning have opposing views afforded us, and the instigators in turn by our responses? Intolerance of others different from ourselves is the reason for enmity. The reason we are justified to go to war and take others' resources for ourselves. And with enmity we sever a part of ourselves, as though any part of humanity is expendable. If we can't learn to be tolerant within this academic circle, what hope is there for larger numbers? If you have felt disappointment over the conversations, change them. Take responsibility. I think one of the problems lie within members' self determined restrictions of what topics are suitable. Neither Arthur nor Sally have ever wished that FutureWork be solely a forum for economics gurus. Work arises out of needs and wants alike, and balancing these against a sustainable future presents a challenging forum indeed. This list, despite what it may appear at this moment of a "family quarrel", has evolved, as it should well do to survive. Future work is not just about the latest news in the work world. It must grow, look at the bigger picture, present and future, evolve into something no one could have predicted. We've lost some wonderful list members for the short while, and gained some too. This list would never have attracted me without R.E.H.'s wisdom to look at what society's real issues are, nor without Brad's brilliantly different observations, nor Keith's talent and enthusiasm for, not so much economics, as for life itself. As with any family, we have to grieve over losses, then accept them. Some folks most wonderfully resurrect themselves with good timing, but others have to move on, for health or time factors. That's life. And so is evolution. In gratitude for each and every one of you, Natalia -- ___ 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
Re: [Futurework] This list
Cordell, Arthur: ECOM wrote: Harry, Please stick around. And please keep posting. The list needs you and perhaps you also need the list. arthur Arthur, Of all the responses you and others have posted about this list, this one is by far the best. Though Mike's posting was honest in one respect in that Harry is expert at pushing buttons, exclusion of anyone, including individuals who present opposing or questionable views, is suicidal of this list. We like to think ourselves capable of proposing future solutions without recognition that solutions must be good for the whole as well as the individual to be sound. Many on this list are involved in serious negotiations which would soon flounder without vital inclusion. Tempers have been expressed by almost everyone regularly contributing to this list, even calmest of the bunch, instigator Harry. Yet, one should be asking, what avenues of learning have opposing views afforded us, and the instigators in turn by our responses? Intolerance of others different from ourselves is the reason for enmity. The reason we are justified to go to war and take others' resources for ourselves. And with enmity we sever a part of ourselves, as though any part of humanity is expendable. If we can't learn to be tolerant within this academic circle, what hope is there for larger numbers? If you have felt disappointment over the conversations, change them. Take responsibility. I think one of the problems lie within members' self determined restrictions of what topics are suitable. Neither Arthur nor Sally have ever wished that FutureWork be solely a forum for economics gurus. Work arises out of needs and wants alike, and balancing these against a sustainable future presents a challenging forum indeed. This list, despite what it may appear at this moment of a "family quarrel", has evolved, as it should well do to survive. Future work is not just about the latest news in the work world. It must grow, look at the bigger picture, present and future, evolve into something no one could have predicted. We've lost some wonderful list members for the short while, and gained some too. This list would never have attracted me without R.E.H.'s wisdom to look at what society's real issues are, nor without Brad's brilliantly different observations, nor Keith's talent and enthusiasm for, not so much economics, as for life itself. As with any family, we have to grieve over losses, then accept them. Some folks most wonderfully resurrect themselves with good timing, but others have to move on, for health or time factors. That's life. And so is evolution. In gratitude for each and every one of you, Natalia ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] This List
Karen: I am offering this simple outline, hoping for a reaction: Beginning of the week business/economic and work-related posts to share. How about a midweek Book and Scholarly review 'section'. End of the week socio-cultural-political topics related to the world we live and work in. Me: I like the idea of a more disciplined approach, but I could never hold to it, Karen. It just wouldn't be me. Ed - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:53 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] This List > Thank you, Lawry, for your constructive criticism regarding Future of work. > Hearing from Charles and Gail today is also encouraging. > > While I agree that there is too much dissonance, my assessment would be the > broader problem is less with the individuals posting, and more with > expectations of what we are supposed to be doing. > > Arthur and Sally were visionary in providing space and context. Today, there > are myriad venues online where people can converse, share discoveries and > compare work product and ideas. > > The internet has changed enormously since FW was initiated. And naturally, > our communal interests have changed as well. Since this is not a moderated > list it depends on the collection the readers bring to share. It is incumbent > upon those who want to read about and discuss more narrowly-defined Future of > Work items to proffer them. > > Many times in the past few years I have posted items in the hope that there > will be some reaction, spark a conversation or thread, when a vacumn existed, > adding to the cafeteria menu, as Gail described. > > Others have left the list for various reasons. Sometimes it is just time to > move on. I've certainly considered it more than once. But if more people were > posting, fewer lurking, there would be less [negative] concentration of posts > that distract others from the [positive] openness of the list and the online > community we have built. > > I would prefer some structure - along with some friendly boundaries - but a > priority should be drawing more voices into the conversation to keep the big > tent and variety of input as stimulating as it can be. This does not depend > upon a few "star" posters. > > I am offering this simple outline, hoping for a reaction: > Beginning of the week business/economic and work-related posts to share. > How about a midweek Book and Scholarly review 'section'. > End of the week socio-cultural-political topics related to the world we live > and work in. > > Is that too calendary? The purpose would be to provide readers with a space > to share and time to tune in, hoping to add new voices, wider input when some > don't want to write an essay but allow for more creative participation. > > These FW conversations have contributed to my learning and comprehension, for > which I am deeply grateful. If we choose, we can address the issues that need > updating. I hope we can. > > Time is a precious commodity for most of us, and we have stayed here because > we value the community, not just the input. But we have to maintain both. > It's up to us. > > Regards to all, > Karen > > ___ > 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
Re: [Futurework] This list
Arthur, thank you. Between your response to Harry and your last posting about your thoughts on the nature of this list you have given me the yea/nay guidance that I and others asked for. To Harry and Chris, I say no hard feelings on my part. You guys are just doing what you do best. I understand. Perhaps with this matter being put explicitly on the table you will do even better. As I said at the conclusion of my original post to "This list": [If I leave], 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 I repeat the last item! And, finally, a desperate request: if any of you are engaged in constructive and convivial discussions in other fora (including discussion of the future of the economy, ethics, society and work) and might welcome my participation, please email me I will add: While awaiting Arthur's answer I have had some quick and hopeful exchanges with several people, and have a better sense of just how the discussion of the future of work should be framed. This has been important for me, both personally and professionally. Thank you - you know who you are. And to the many who were encouraging and helpful in this "This list" effort, I say to you a deep and heartfelt thank you. It took social courage, especially on Mike's part, who really got it started, to try and accomplish something. He obviously touched on something that has been lying just beneath the surface for some time. I'm sorry I could not bring it to a better conclusion. Cheers, Lawry _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cordell, Arthur: ECOM Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ed Weick; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] This list Harry, Please stick around. And please keep posting. The list needs you and perhaps you also need the list. arthur ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] This list
Many thanks to all who posted your thoughts and hopes to "This list" -- Gail, Vernon, Karen, Ed, Mike, Charles, Stu, Arthur (I hope I haven't forgotten anybody! If so, my apologies) and, yes, Chris and Harry. Cheers, Lawry ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] This list
Harry, Please stick around. And please keep posting. The list needs you and perhaps you also need the list. arthur From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Harry Pollard Sent: Tue 7/3/2007 6:09 PM To: 'Ed Weick'; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Futurework] This list Ed, I too didn't post for a long while but actually came back rather as you did - to try to get it moving. As it happened, I managed it, but apparently that is not what is wanted. Good argument, discussion, questions, are what keeps things interesting. Unfortunately, some list members only want the politically correct. They need to be confirmed in their beliefs all the time and if there is disagreement they write like Mike - bitching because some-one casts doubt on the truth they have surrounded and made their own. Perhaps Mike should write to himself. Then, he can be sure he will agree with what he reads. So, I shall not contribute to FutureWork unless I am directly addressed, or referred to (right of personal privilege). I shall miss showing Chris where he is wrong, which I regard as light entertainment. I shall continue to read Karen's contributions which are a delight - even when (often) I disagree with them. I shall miss putting Natalia right (hey, hey, hey - that's a joke). We've had some good exchanges and I respect her strongly held views and occasionally I agree with them. I shall continue to read what Lawry has to say for he is my preferred source for the Arab point of view. He disappointed me with his reaction to the Liberty attack. When Chris mentioned it, I looked it up to remind me what it was about. I checked the first site offered by Google - don't believe I really noticed who was running it, read some of it, and posted the URL to show where I had been. I don't think I even made much of a comment. Then I virtually forgot it. I got back an ad hominem post telling me that the site was hard core Israeli propaganda, along with remarks alluding to my secret "agenda". I seemed to have donned the mantle of an Israeli propagandist, or something. I said I didn't care about the subject, but nevertheless it was worried like a terrier chewing its toy. Of course Chris chimed in. He has obviously been an out-spoken anti-Israelite ever since he has been on this list. But, that doesn't matter, he is often fun to read. So, this subject from some 40 years ago about which I had almost no interest went on and on and on. I obviously touched a nerve or two without meaning to, but a simple reply giving some competing URLS would have done the trick. I might even have looked at them. It wasn't really necessary to accuse me and belittle me - even though it is part of conspiracy theory to do such things. The controversy did allow Mike to be glad that I am not being tolerated anymore. I do suggest that if Mike wants to help the list he posts something with substance instead of bitching. But, that may be too much to ask. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ed Weick > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] This list > > Hi Lawry, > > I've recently returned to the list despite the bad state it's in, and > have > posted about half a dozen on-topic (the future of work) messages > to it > during the past couple of weeks. I've also sent the messages to > my > "undisclosed" list, which includes Karen Cole. My intention is to > revive > and revitalize the list to the extent I can. > > I've had a few responses both on the list and from my > "undisclosed" list. > Where someone from the latter list has said something > worthwhile, I've > posted it to the FW list. > > I don't know if the list will ever come back as the great list it once > was, > but I'm not about to give up on it. I hope that you and others > who may be > lurking in the shadows don't either. > > Regards, > Ed Weick > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lawrence de Bivort" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:07 PM > 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 n
Re: [Futurework] This list
Ed, I too didn't post for a long while but actually came back rather as you did - to try to get it moving. As it happened, I managed it, but apparently that is not what is wanted. Good argument, discussion, questions, are what keeps things interesting. Unfortunately, some list members only want the politically correct. They need to be confirmed in their beliefs all the time and if there is disagreement they write like Mike - bitching because some-one casts doubt on the truth they have surrounded and made their own. Perhaps Mike should write to himself. Then, he can be sure he will agree with what he reads. So, I shall not contribute to FutureWork unless I am directly addressed, or referred to (right of personal privilege). I shall miss showing Chris where he is wrong, which I regard as light entertainment. I shall continue to read Karen's contributions which are a delight - even when (often) I disagree with them. I shall miss putting Natalia right (hey, hey, hey - that's a joke). We've had some good exchanges and I respect her strongly held views and occasionally I agree with them. I shall continue to read what Lawry has to say for he is my preferred source for the Arab point of view. He disappointed me with his reaction to the Liberty attack. When Chris mentioned it, I looked it up to remind me what it was about. I checked the first site offered by Google - don't believe I really noticed who was running it, read some of it, and posted the URL to show where I had been. I don't think I even made much of a comment. Then I virtually forgot it. I got back an ad hominem post telling me that the site was hard core Israeli propaganda, along with remarks alluding to my secret "agenda". I seemed to have donned the mantle of an Israeli propagandist, or something. I said I didn't care about the subject, but nevertheless it was worried like a terrier chewing its toy. Of course Chris chimed in. He has obviously been an out-spoken anti-Israelite ever since he has been on this list. But, that doesn't matter, he is often fun to read. So, this subject from some 40 years ago about which I had almost no interest went on and on and on. I obviously touched a nerve or two without meaning to, but a simple reply giving some competing URLS would have done the trick. I might even have looked at them. It wasn't really necessary to accuse me and belittle me - even though it is part of conspiracy theory to do such things. The controversy did allow Mike to be glad that I am not being tolerated anymore. I do suggest that if Mike wants to help the list he posts something with substance instead of bitching. But, that may be too much to ask. Harry ** Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles. Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 818 352-4141 ** > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Ed Weick > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:45 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Futurework] This list > > Hi Lawry, > > I've recently returned to the list despite the bad state it's in, and > have > posted about half a dozen on-topic (the future of work) messages > to it > during the past couple of weeks. I've also sent the messages to > my > "undisclosed" list, which includes Karen Cole. My intention is to > revive > and revitalize the list to the extent I can. > > I've had a few responses both on the list and from my > "undisclosed" list. > Where someone from the latter list has said something > worthwhile, I've > posted it to the FW list. > > I don't know if the list will ever come back as the great list it once > was, > but I'm not about to give up on it. I hope that you and others > who may be > lurking in the shadows don't either. > > Regards, > Ed Weick > > > - Original Message - > From: "Lawrence de Bivort" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:07 PM > 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,
Re: [Futurework] This list
Actually, I just joined recently and was a bit surprised by the content but joined in anyway. Figuring out what happened on 9/11 is already being seriously examined on a number of blog sites and perhaps it's better fought there. I read Empire Burlesque, Winter Patriot and others and get more links to 9/11 and other similar matters than I can read. If you read one of those, you can tell where my bet is. As I mentioned in another post, I do see 9/11 affecting the future of work psychologically at least and therefore a legitimate topic in that respect. I will be happy to respect the scope of this forum. Stuart> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 21:07:39 -0400> 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. |> / \ \
Re: [Futurework] This List
Thank you, Lawry, for your constructive criticism regarding Future of work. Hearing from Charles and Gail today is also encouraging. While I agree that there is too much dissonance, my assessment would be the broader problem is less with the individuals posting, and more with expectations of what we are supposed to be doing. Arthur and Sally were visionary in providing space and context. Today, there are myriad venues online where people can converse, share discoveries and compare work product and ideas. The internet has changed enormously since FW was initiated. And naturally, our communal interests have changed as well. Since this is not a moderated list it depends on the collection the readers bring to share. It is incumbent upon those who want to read about and discuss more narrowly-defined Future of Work items to proffer them. Many times in the past few years I have posted items in the hope that there will be some reaction, spark a conversation or thread, when a vacumn existed, adding to the cafeteria menu, as Gail described. Others have left the list for various reasons. Sometimes it is just time to move on. I've certainly considered it more than once. But if more people were posting, fewer lurking, there would be less [negative] concentration of posts that distract others from the [positive] openness of the list and the online community we have built. I would prefer some structure - along with some friendly boundaries - but a priority should be drawing more voices into the conversation to keep the big tent and variety of input as stimulating as it can be. This does not depend upon a few "star" posters. I am offering this simple outline, hoping for a reaction: Beginning of the week business/economic and work-related posts to share. How about a midweek Book and Scholarly review 'section'. End of the week socio-cultural-political topics related to the world we live and work in. Is that too calendary? The purpose would be to provide readers with a space to share and time to tune in, hoping to add new voices, wider input when some don't want to write an essay but allow for more creative participation. These FW conversations have contributed to my learning and comprehension, for which I am deeply grateful. If we choose, we can address the issues that need updating. I hope we can. Time is a precious commodity for most of us, and we have stayed here because we value the community, not just the input. But we have to maintain both. It's up to us. Regards to all, Karen ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] This list
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
Re: [Futurework] This list
Hi Lawry, I've recently returned to the list despite the bad state it's in, and have posted about half a dozen on-topic (the future of work) messages to it during the past couple of weeks. I've also sent the messages to my "undisclosed" list, which includes Karen Cole. My intention is to revive and revitalize the list to the extent I can. I've had a few responses both on the list and from my "undisclosed" list. Where someone from the latter list has said something worthwhile, I've posted it to the FW list. I don't know if the list will ever come back as the great list it once was, but I'm not about to give up on it. I hope that you and others who may be lurking in the shadows don't either. Regards, Ed Weick - Original Message - From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:07 PM 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 > > >-- > /| /| | | >
Re: [Futurework] This list
Lawry de Bivort wrote: > 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. ^ ^^^ I ask you to back up this accusation with names and quotations. I would expect that if someone leaves due to me, they'd let me know about it (at least indirectly). But with the sole exception of Keith Hudson (with whose departure I disagreed), I have not received any such feedback. (And even with Keith, it's difficult to blame his departure on me. He was simply fed up with getting his paleo-myths debunked, also by others such as Brad McC.) So your accusation sounds like you need a scapegoat. My impression is that the list has simply "burned out", i.e. the substance of what the regulars have had to say is consumed, and the rest is "fillers" and repeats in variations. It seems to me that e.g. REH and Brad left due to workload IRL. Chris SpamWall: Mail to this addy is deleted unread unless it contains the keyword "igve". ___ Futurework mailing list Futurework@fes.uwaterloo.ca http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Re: [Futurework] This list
Hello Lawry, Strangely, you wrote just as I was struggling to get into the futurework archive, having inadvertently deleted a recent posting by John Verdon. His posting, about the need for insurance arrangements in a world of the self-employed, plus an earlier posting (see reference below) which John had sent to a group of us here in Ottawa who meet to discuss work, plus Ed Weick's recent "Your gloom for today," are cogent and interesting. It seems to me that there is much to be said and done about work today, and I would be sorry to see the disappearance of the futurework list. As one component in the many ongoing discussions on the topic of work, it has its value. For those of us who are "working on work" as an important key to our future -- where survival meets self-image meets climate change (whatever became of homo ludens?) -- its continuing existence is welcome. I do agree that the list is being used for other than Sally's intended purposes. For my part I do not treat postings to it as a conversation in which I should be respectful of all comments by all participants. I treat it more like a newspaper, ignoring many postings and/or columnists, while sampling others and valuing some -- a resource for learning. I am one who regrets that it proved possible to learn together but not also to work together. I always hoped that Charles Brass's contributions, for example, might compound with others, in a glorious brainstorming, to a global breakthrough -- the conceptual repositioning of work in our lives into a less dangerous position than it currently occupies, where its nexus with income is driving us to self-destruction collectively and often personally. We don't seem to be able to develop any better way of distributing the means to survival than through processing the planet's resources, having organized ourselves more as a factory than as family, spurred by a vastly exaggerated notion of scarcity and praising our remunerated activity as "work." It seems all such a pity. Meanwhile, Lawry, thank you for your invitation and your posting. We'd be delighted to have you in our "work" working group here -- it's too bad the commute would be so long!.The conversation ranges widely -- work, it seems, is everywhere. John, who has been thinking deeply about these matters, has drawn me at least to some fresh thinking about "communities of practice" and the internet. I'm also intrigued by the pivotal potential of the newly retired and the "guaranteed incomes" that at least some of them enjoy -- a nexus in which work is now being (and could now usefully be) redefined. I sense though that there is a tension between a use of this list to discuss work in all its ramifying challenges to our future and the desire to have the list carry an intelligent and civil conversation among a community in the form of an extended network. Such a list (or maybe a wiki site) could be a pleasure. Might you think of starting one, Lawry, for that purpose, a conversation which you might monitor and nurture? It doesn't seem to me that futurework is that conversation or capable of becoming so, although some of the contributions to it, on various topics over the years since it began, and some of the exchanges, have been rich and even profound. Sally surely wot not what she would wrought! Regards, Gail Forces Shaping the Future U.S. Workforce and Workplace Implications for 21st Century Work LYNN A. KAROLY CT-273 February 2007 Testimony presented before the House Education and Labor Committee on February 7, 2007 (Part of the RAND Corporatioin testimony series) This PDF document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND Corporation. - Original Message - From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:07 PM 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 o
Re: [Futurework] This list
I have been part of this list for over 10 years, and basically have stopped reading almost all posts. I remain passionately interested in the future, and in particular the future of work, but much of what travels through this list is, by my measure, very wide of the mark. A couple of years ago Arthur experimented with a week long 'tutorial' session which I lead (and hence I guess it is obvious that I enjoyed it) but it too attracted both relatively little interest and quite some dogma (I still have every email posted during the session, however, and still refer to them in some of the work I do). I am not sure what might be done to return to our roots, but I for one would welcome the return. Thanks Lawry for sparking this post. Charles Brass Chairman futures foundation phone:1300 727328 (International 61 3 9459 0244) fax: 61 3 9459 0344 PO Box 122 Fairfield3078 www.futuresfoundation.org.au the mission of the futures foundation is: "...to engage all Australians in creating a better future..." - Original Message - From: "Lawrence de Bivort" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:07 AM 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 >
