Prometheus Lists, January 1999

Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1999 15:57:50 -0800
To: theft_of_fire@egroups.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Test Message

This is a test message. Please e-mail me if you don't receive it. :-)

To send a message, address theft_of_fire@egroups.com.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1999 15:23:33 -0800
To: theft_of_fire@egroups.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Re: The "fire" List -- a final message

This is a complaint to the Prometheus Ombudsman in response to the
contents of Fred Vaughan's latest e-mail.

At 11:02 AM 1/4/99 -0800, Fred Vaughan wrote:

> Fire list:

> It has come to my attention that the message below that had been
> (intended to be) sent to the entire fire list a few days ago was not
> received -- at least by some.

I never saw it before.

> ______________________________________________________
> Fire list:

>You will recall an interaction that occurred Monday, December 28th,
> 1998.

>>> Maybe fire is not the place for this particular hot potato.

>> "Fire" is *not* the place for this. It is a private facility funded
>> privately. It has been provided to the Society for its use, but the
>> results of the recent election disavows that it has any association with
>> the Society. Its use for this kind of conversation is short-lived, but
>> I do not wish to rudely pre-empt an in-process discussion. However,
>> by the end of the week/year, it's over! Next year *will* be better.

Yes. This year nobody's going to pull the plug on you.

>>> have all sorts of ideas, but all concerns must be aired somehow.

>> I would suspect that most happy people would strongly disagree with
>> you on this, but none would argue it at length if you were unwilling
>> to listen.

How are we going to have a democratic society if it's not permitted to
air concerns without someone passing on whether "this is the place"
for them? There may not be as many "happy people" as Fred thinks.

> The line was cut New Years Eve with Robert Dick who had named the
> "fire@prometheus" allowed to fire the final round.

> As the current president of Prometheus I will tell you that there is
> *no* Prometheus-authorized e-mail list in case you did not gather that
> from our last election. I do not know whether the president could
> constitutionally authorize such capabilities that have not been accepted
> by the membership when placed to a vote -- I suspect he could. But I
> am certain that no other officer or member of this Society has such
> powers

As a current member of Prometheus (almost; I'll send a check to Fred
Britton right away--and everyone else should do likewise before we get
into trouble with questions about whether voters in the election are
paid-up members), I can tell you just as well as the President that there
is no "official" Prometheus e-mail list. I would prefer for us to make it
official, but that doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

And Fred's attempt to link the demise of the fire list with the defeat of
his Internet Officer amendment in the recent balloting is simply childish.

> You may, as I did, start your own private list and you may envite
> whomever you desire to participate in the activities there, of course.

Gee, thanks.

> I would even be interested in participating in such a list as well if it
> were to be exclusively dedicated to intellectual and fun activities.

Fred means if Fred and his ideas were not criticized there. Fred's
actions have proven that he can dish it out but he can't take it.
Indeed, his demand that everyone stop sending him these terrible
e-mails is an unacceptable position on the part of an officer of
Prometheus, but this is only cause to vote against him if he runs
for reelection and not the behavior of which I am complaining now.

As a member I have a right to submit whatever I damn well please
to *Gift of Fire*, including criticism of the President and Editor.
Fred is demanding that I make no such submissions to him, via the
usual channel of delivery of submissions to the Editor. This is in
direct contradiction to the duties of the Editor, as specified in
Article X.4. Also, the Editor is charged in Article X.4 with the
duty of "administering the election process of the society." As I
intend to run against Fred for President (unless another suitable
candidate can be found) and to strongly advocate that he not be
retained as an officer of Prometheus, my rights under Article VI.1
to "select and recall any officer" and "to present proposals and
suggestions, and to advocate for their acceptance" are being
violated by the Editor.

> With regard to the list being used for "endorsements for the
> upcoming election," I think that is bogus. The constitution of
> this Society neither requires nor encourages such endorsements.

This gives Fred a free hand to slant things his way in *GoF*--or it
would have before I set up the theft_of_fire list.

> And as far as its use to intimidate possible candidates to withdraw
> from candidacy or intimidate others to run, it is criminal.

I say what I think. You say what you think. What's criminal about that?

> I have always considered lobbying to be one of the worst things that
> happens in the democracy in the US, but of course *it* is not criminal.

"Lobbying" is monied interests making it clear that they want legislation
to go their way. What we're talking about here is not lobbying but a
free press.

> However, if you start your own list, do *not* distribute me on any
> e-mail which attacks me or anyone else personally. Anyone who
> persists in doing that will be turned in to the Washington State Attorney
> General's Office that is putting together an enforcement branch to
> protect citizens from such unsolicited targetting. I know this because
> my son happens to have consulted with their office to help them
> establish their capabilities. He is friends with the woman who heads
> the activity. They are looking for test cases. If anyone else
> experiences such problems, it would be interesting to see what is
> provided for your protection by legal authorities in your region.
> "Spam" laws are real and prosecutions *are* going to happen.

The Washington State Attorney General's Office has no authority over
anyone outside the state of Washington, but Californai has just enacted
an antispamming law and the Federal government is considering
similar regulations. I am not sending this message to Fred under protest,
for the reasons given above. He will have to deal with it in any case in
the course of the Ombudsman's handling of this complaint.

> I will tell you as a supervisor once told our group, "I don't care if
> you talk about me, but please, do it behind my back!" And Robert,
> please don't bother my son by asking him whether his father has
> personal mental or health problems. He really doesn't like it.

> If and when civility returns to all parties on this list or there is a
> sufficient number who are willing to frame guidelines for such a list
> with conditions to immediately "unsubscribe" offenders until they
> accept the minimal guidelines,

Such a control freak.

> I will be glad to provide the technology and pay the rent. We are
> getting a cable interface that will provide extremely good bandwidth
> if there is interest.

Earth to Fred: the Prometheus Society isn't for sale.

> There is no need for anyone to respond to this message. I've had all
> the hate mail from four people I need in my lifetime.

More like pity mail.

> I thank all the rest of you for the most enjoyable conversations I
> have ever had. I hope we can converse freely again some time.

> Your friend,

> Fred

Fred is the one who took away the means for conversing freely--and
now it's back.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1999 22:44:51 -0800
To: theft_of_fire@egroups.com
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Observations on Prometheus Governance

For publication in *Gift of Fire*:

Observations on Prometheus Governance

Kevin Langdon

Those who have not been close to the center of the action at the present
time in the Prometheus Society may not be aware of what is behind
what's going on.

Those with ringside seats, primarily those on the fire list and especially
officers and Membership Committee members, have seen Fred Vaughan
pick quarrels, with one person after another, for many months (e.g.,
Bob Dick, Richard May, Harold Nickel, etc.). He is arrogant, ungracious,
and unwilling to admit that he's ever wrong, and he is attempting to exert
top-down control over every aspect of what has been a cooperative and
inclusive process since the before the adoption of the Prometheus
constitution. He has imposed official secrecy where none has existed
before (except for the confidentiality of members' test scores, dues
waivers, and the like).

People don't join a super-high-IQ society to be dictated to. Our current
President has done a great deal of harm to the collegial atmosphere of
Prometheus, even though I acknowledge that he has made important
material contributions and donated much time and energy.

If I stand out from the crowd of Fred's victims it's only by virtue of
speaking up--and it's becoming less so, as many voices have now been
raised against the virtual dictatorship of our President and Editor.

Abuses of Power by Fred Vaughan:

* Assuming the Presidency through hounding former President
Richard May out of office.

* Appointing nonmembers to the Membership Committee while
excluding qualified members of Prometheus. The constitution
is silent on whether nonmembers may be appointed, but it
doesn't take a genius to see something wrong with including
nonmembers while excluding members who wish to serve.

* Keeping Membership Committee deliberations secret from the
membership.

* Misinterpreting the constitutional language regarding ballot
deadlines, admitting he was wrong, *and then doing it again*.

* Announcing that the fire list would be censored for what he
(ironically, the hands-down champ in this department) defines
as "rancor"--after representing the list as belonging to the
Prometheus Society--days before the election issue deadline,
and actually shutting it down as of the end of 1998.

* Reneging on a number of promises, including that he would
allow members of the Membership Committee to determine
its policy on secrecy (he imposed his view without allowing
time for debate or taking a vote), that he would resign as
Editor, and that he would publish all submissions by members
of Prometheus.

We need a President who is a servant of the membership, not a
petty tyrant. We need someone who will uphold the rights of
members and the Prometheus constitution. That person is not
Fred Vaughan.

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1999 15:01:05 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Membership Committee Goes Bonkers

I have it on good authority that the Prometheus Membership
Committee has submitted a report which, if its recommendations were
adopted, would compromise our admission standards and destroy the
society as we know it. I understand that this report has been mailed
and will be in the hands of members at the end of this week--just too
late for anyone to reply to it via *GoF* in time to affect the election.
This timing is obviously quite deliberate and is one more dishonest
tactic employed by Fred Vaughan and his cronies to prevent a fair
election.

The MC report calls for the replacement of the Mega Test with a 27-
item subset omitting known compromised items, the removal of the
Titan Test from our list of qualifying scores, and the acceptance of
the following scores for Prometheus admission:

Old SAT: 1560 (new SAT not accepted)
Old GRE: 1610 (new GRE not accepted)
WAIS-R: 160
Cattell II A+B: 88 ("Culture Fair," not the Cattell Verbal)
Miller Analogies: 98
ThinkFast: "Brainmaster +11"

The27-item Mega Test and ThinkFast would be accepted only when
accompanied by a 99.9th-percentile score on a standard test.

The LAIT would continue to be accepted with a cutoff of 164 (for
test submissions through the end of 1993, when official scoring
ended).

Only scores achieved at the age of 16 or above would be accepted.

These are incredibly stupid recommendations. Obviously, I am not
saying this because I object to the finding with regard to my own
test, which would still be accepted.

Apparently, the Mega and Titan tests have been compromised. The
27-item test can't be expected to hold for long and the artificial
step of requiring a 99.9th-percentile score on another test along
with it is dumb.

The use of scores as close to the test ceilings as those for the SAT,
GRE, WAIS, and MAT is inadvisable, as test reliability is close to
zero this close to the range extremes.

Scores on the WAIS are reported in an age-dependent way; older
testees' scores are adjusted upward.

ThinkFast is an unproven instrument. No data on correlations
with standard psychometric instruments was availabe as of the
last time I spoke with a member of the MC about it. And anyone
who has visited the ThinkFast Web site knows that there's
something really strange about the test publisher's promotional
literature.

I understand that none of the MC members (Prometheus members
or nonmembers) dissented from the report. No wonder Fred
Vaughan wanted me off the Committee! This is a disgrace and
indicates that no member of the MC is to be trusted as an officer
of Prometheus.

I strongly urge the members of Prometheus not to shy away from
the only justifiable conclusion--that no currently-scored,
uncompromised test discriminates at the four-sigma level and we
need to develop new admission tests--and to reject the ill-advised
and cowardly recommendations of the Membership Committee
when they are brought to a vote.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 00:59:24 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Another Invalid Election

Article X.2 of the Prometheus constitution reads:

     When more than two candidates are running for an office, or when
     more than two alternative proposals covering the same subject
     matter are voted on simultaneoulsy, a preferential ballot shall be
     used. If there is not a majority according to first place votes, the
     candidate or proposal receiving the fewest first place votes shall
     be eliminated, with the ballots indicating this first place choice
     redistributed according to their second place choices, etc., until a
     majority vote emerges. If theere is a tie for any office or proposal,
     it is broken by a vote of the previous officers. The Treasurer shall
     cast a vote only in case there is a tie vote among the other officers.

There are three candidates for President in the current election, but the
preferential voting required by the constitution has not been implemented
in the voting instructions.

As little as it pleases me that Fred Vaughan should be President for five
more weeks, the Presidential election should be redone in *GoF* #103.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 01:39:21 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Initial Response to MC Report

Although the information I had on the MC Report was inaccurate in some
details, it was largely as I had represented it.

The report contains a wealth of interesting data and much with which I can
agree, but there are real problems with the recommendations.

I think that the Cattell Culture Fair may have potential as an admission test
for Prometheus, though the very short time limit of 12.5 minutes is a problem.
According to Arthur Jensen, severely-timed tests have very low *g* loadings.

Only Bill McGaugh's small sample of SAT vs. TF scores provided any direct
information on the correlation between TF and other tests. Better data is
needed before we can say with confidence what scores on this test mean.

And all the other recommended additions are too close to the ceilings of the
tests involved. One figure contained in the report shows clearly that scores
on the Mega Test more than a few points above the four-sigma level have
such wide confidence limits as to be of very questionable value. But this
property is not unique to the Mega Test. All tests decline precipitously in
reliability very close to their ceilings. This problem is not even mentioned
in the report.

On the other hand, I think that Ron Hoeflin's tests have not been treated
quite fairly. The tests have not always been compromised; the Committee
should have made a determination of the dates as of which the tests were
substantially compromised and recommended accepting only scores earned
before these dates. That's what was done in the case of my LAIT.

I have no quarrel with keeping secret information on which Mega Test
items have been compromised and where the answers can be found. But
something doesn't feel right about the secrecy regarding the individual
opinions of members of the committee. This tends to foreclose meaningful
debate about the contents of the report before it starts. We're not so
desperate that we need to add questionable qualifying scores in haste.

I'll have more detailed responses to the report later.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:19:48 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Free Expression

At 12:44 AM 1/18/99 -0800, Hedley wrote:

> ---Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com> wrote:

>> I fully support people's right to say things that I think they have a
>> lot of nerve to say.

> Glad to see you subordinate your urge to impede the expression of
> the subject(s) that you object to, to that right.

I'm not interested in, and don't have an "urge" to, impeding discussion
of *any* subject, although I find it hard to understand why anyone is
interested in discussing some things (e.g., why Einstein is wrong or
whether God is purple).

I did object to the implication of Hedley's demand to know whether I
have proper IQ credentials, given that he has not submitted scores to
qualify for Prometheus, just as it seems hypocritical to me when Fred
Vaughan complains about other people's argumentativenss and
quarrelsomeness. But my critique of content should not be confused
with a wish to censor anyone. I believe in the power of a free
marketplace of ideas.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 23:37:14 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] What Kind of List Do We Want?

At 09:49 PM 1/25/99 -0800, Fred Vaughan wrote:

> Darryl, all:

> Since I don't know what goes on on the "theft" list since I am no longer
> being cc'd on recipes for cooking the editor, I certainly am not annoyed
> by it.

To clarify, Fred is unsubscribed from theft_of_fire at his own request.
This message is being sent to theft_of _fire and separately to Fred, because
I don't know how Fred will perceive it.

> I have sensed more of an embarrassed lull in activity after an unsightly
> brawl. It seems to me that it takes a certain amount of time and
> graciousness to restore respect among participants of such an
> undignified squabble.

Message traffic fluctuates. Brawls on the fire list broke out from time to
time, long before the current political disagreements, but it didn't seem
to make a great deal of difference in the quantity or quality of material
being posted, except once in a while in the very short run.

> I know I am somewhat afraid of expressing even my own opinion on
> a mellow intellectual topic too definitively since I feel a definite fear
> of being attacked. I suspect I am not alone. I hope we can quickly get
> past such worries.

I perceive Fred as being hypersensitive to criticism of his actions and/or
his ideas. You say something. Somebody else says, "That's a dumb idea."
Then you reply. No big deal.

> There is a certain authenticity to "fire" in the Prometheus Society
> context since we do have a couple of years of pretty successful service
> and a web coordinator (even though his role has not been authorized
> as an official one of the Society). Those on "fire" are supposed to be
> members or subscribers in good standing and like the restricted areas
> of the web site (provided by the same server), it has been a resource
> available to members and subscribers.

Unfortunately, fire became something different from what it was when
Fred threatened to kick people off for "rancor," a term which Fred
seems to apply very selectively.

[Fredrik:]

>>> and I hope we´ll return to the state of one list soon. I´ve left "theft"
>>> myself, and I recommend all others to do the same.

[Darryl:]

>> I'm replying to this using the "fire" list, since Fredrik has asked to
>> be removed from "theft_of_fire." It seems to me that the email list
>> has obtained a level of importance and usage that it merits an
>> explicit policy statement, especially if the list is the official
>> electronic arm of the Prometheus Society.

> Since you are evidently acting as *devil's advocate* in this, it seems
> appropriate that you should receive the following message for him in
> good faith:

> In Kevin Langdon's "Letter to the Editor" (Vidya #179, p. 21, Oct./Nov.
> 1998) he clarifies his concept of "defamation" in responding to the
> Regent, Jacqueline White. He states that use of terms such as "snake"
> and "villain" in referring to another person do not constitute defamation
> of character. Perhaps not. Presumably he believes this to apply also to
> "the murderer among us," a term he has used in reference to me on this
> list.

I'm a very strong animal rights advocate and I do consider the wanton
killing of animals murder, but it's clearly murder in the fifth or sixth
degree, depending on the evolutionary level of the animal, and not a
mortal insult.

> He goes on to say, however, "Defamation consists of malicious or
> negligent unverified false statements tending to damage the
> reputation of another." I won't quibble about the phrase "unverified
> false statements," although it seems to be strange usage for a --
> however appointed -- "expert of English style."

The phrasing is meant to emphasize that evidence is not offered.

> I take it to mean "unverified negative statements" that will be assumed
> "false" as a matter of civility.

There's *is* an assumption that allegations of a negative character are
false in the absence of proof, but allegations accompanied by proof
are acceptable (e.g., Don Johnson's statement that Fred Vaughan
apologized for using a far-fetched interpretation of the constitution
and then used it again, proven by one of Fred's own messages).

There is also a big difference between a negative characterization of
a person's views or an officer's conduct in office and an unsupported
allegation of specific misconduct.

> I will otherwise accept Kevin's definition as a premise for what
> constitutes inappropriate behavior under the aegis of the
> "Prometheus" constitution as slander.

Slander is defamation via the spoken word; defamation via the
written word is *libel*.

> If such statements are held to be verified by an acuser or they are
> *definitely* verified in some sense of that word, they still do not
> belong on this list. That is not the pupose of the list.

It's Fred's privilege to define the rules of his own list any way he
wants, but it's up to Prometheus to define the rules of its official list.

> Such statements to the extent that the acuser believes his statements
> to be verified need to go to the person himself for redress; if that
> does not obtain the desired effect, then they should be addressed
> privately to the ombudsman who may opt to publish a completely
> uncensored report in GoF -- the "meeting place of the Society!"

The notion t;hat one must go through channels instead of speaking
out directly is an odious restriction of members' freedom of speech.

> Any such "unverified negative statements" about *the person* of
> any member or subscriber of this Society will result in the
. perpetrator being removed from the list by the list serve provider
> -- not the web coordinator.

Quite apart from the distinction between "negative statements" versus
"false statements," it is unacceptable for "the list serve provider" to
have special power over Prometheus' official list. If such conditions
are imposed, we would be better off to find a different "list serve
provider"--and, indeed, we have.

> Reinstatement will require the perception of intent to not post such
> messages again as indicated by willingness to apologize to the
> person about whom the slanderous remark was made. Don't ask
> me whether reinstatement happens immediately seven times seven
> times in a row. I realize every word of this could be litigated for
> decades but that won't happen because anyone attempting to
> degrade the system with such litigous liturgies will be removed in
> the same way. There is no subtlety about mean and slanderous
> remarks. There is no subtlety about quibbling over nothing. If
> you want to debate those things, do it on "theft" where it belongs.

Things that are not ambiguous for Fred are often ambiguous for
others or unambiguous, but in the opposite direction.

>> Specifically, I would like to see rules stated regarding
>> 1) dicontinuance of service, and how much notice will be given
>> for such actions,

> There will be no notice given by the list serve provider, but the
> perpetrator will have guessed before he hit "send!"

>> 2) whether or not the list is moderated,

> Certainly not by the list serve provider -- the web coordinator
> may have other thoughts.

>> 2a) if moderated, what are the rules by which messages will be
>> filtered,

> None I assume. Any message (even one that results in a subscriber
> being cut off) will be distributed.

>> 3) rules for expelling subscribers.

> Defamation of character as defined by Kevin's rule above.

Fred's rule and my rule are not the same, as I have pointed out above.

> This should be looked at more as what are the rules that protect a
> subscriber from slander and defamation of character!

If defamation is defined in the narrow, legal sense, I have no
quarrel with the criterion, though, of course, I continue to object to
putting spcial powers not possessed by other members into the
hands of Fred Vaughan, whose impartiality I have reason to
distrust.

>> As a subscriber, I have already made my preference clear for an
>> unmoderated list. But regardless of what the policy is, it should
>> at least be made clear.
>>
>> Darryl

> As a war correspondent for High IQ slug fests, you should perhaps
> recuse yourself when it comes to treaty procedures:) Seriously, I
> agree with disdaining moderated lists. "fire" is for intellectual
> enjoyment and information without or injurious mischief. No one
> should ever fear being thrown off the list if they are not
> intentionally injuring someone else.

Those who said that Bill Clinton was screwing around with an
intern certainly injured his reputation, but their allegations were
true and they had a perfect right to do so.

> But most importantly, no one should ever fear being harrassed by
> slander on this list.

> Is this clear?

> Fred V.

Not particularly. Our President, too, has a tendency to define words
in nonstandard ways.

For me it is essential that people feel free to vigorously dispute one
another's ideas, to characterize others' points of view as nonrational,
to comment on the ethics and psychodynamics of others' behavior
exhibited to the group, and to criticize the statements, actions,
programs, and character of officers and committee members
performing the official functions of the society. We should err in
the direction of freedom of expression.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:41:21 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Re: What Kind of List Do We Want?

The topic of my message under this title was accurate. But instead of
replying to the points in that message, Fred seized on one of my examples,
which was thoroughly substantiated by Don Johnson and which I see no
point in rehashing here.

At 01:01 AM 1/26/99 -0800, Fred Vaughan wrote:

> I'm sure many of you received the message from Kevin on "theft" that
> he routed to me privately. It is another indication of the kind of
> discussion we don't want to get into -- but I feel I have to reply to
> one of the statements in his message that is being repeated so much by
> so few that everyone might one day just assume it to be true. It is a
> technique that has been used too frequently on this and other lists. I
> replied to him personally asking him to specifically *not* include me
> on distribution of any such messages again.

My message directly concerned Prometheus Society business. It is highly
inappropriate for the President, Editor, and Chairman of the Membership
Committee to refuse to respond to members' concerns because of his
delicate ego.

> He did not include "fire" on the distribution, so I will not kick him off
> our list.

"*I* will not kick him off *our* list." What's wrong with this picture?

> That kind of message is evidently in good standing on "theft," but it
> isn't on fire and it isn't in my inbox.

Anything that isn't legally problematical is welcome on this list.

> I won't get into this other than a slight attempt to restore my name
> from the defamation that I have received and refrain from defaming
> anyone in return. And then this subject is done on "fire."

What subject is next in line for censorship?

[Quotation of my message and Fred's remarks on whether he cheated
and lied deleted.]

Kevin Langdon

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:00:55 +0900
To: fire@wwwh.com
From: bonapart@tk.xaxon.ne.jp
Cc: theft_of_fire@egroups.com
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Defamation

Fellow Prometheans

Let me tippy toe in for a moment and without an ounce of rancor point out a
few things. Since I am running for President, you can understand that, if
someone makes a serious charge against me (forgery) on this list at the
very moment you fill out your ballots, it should be reasonable that I
respond on this list at this time, especially when I can point to proof to
the contrary. Note that it is not me reopening this case. I have simply
been quietly observing things and just now saw what's going on and the timing.

So what kind of a list do we want? One on which the person in control
makes an accusation of a candidate right when people fill out their ballots
and then declares the subject is closed? I hope not. With respect to
certain charges of defamation, you even have an opportunity to prove them
one way or the other, that is, if truth is what we go by here. Surely I am
not the only person who has neglected to delete old fire messages. A crash
took out my hard disk, but I can thank my lucky stars in view of the
circumstances that I have diskettes all over the place with all sorts of
stuff on them. It is important for me here to determine whether or not we
have people in the Prometheus Society who will stand up for what is right
when proof does exist.

Note the following Exhibits:

Exhibit A - This is a clip of Fred speaking from a msg dated 7/25/97:

> 2) The editor stands corrected concerning his comment to Don Johnson,
> Harold Nickel, et. al. concerning "twisted interpretations" of the
> constitution with regard to time alloted to send in a ballot! It seems
> quite clear that "mailing" should be interpreted as "sending" and NOT
> "receiving!" I'm sorry.

Exhibit B - What Fred claims to have said from his msg of 1/26/99:

Accusations of my having admitted I was wrong are with regard to an
apology for having called the interpretation of "mailing" as "sending" a
"twisted interpretation" which it clearly is not. For that statement
with regard to c) above I apologized and did not do it again!

Exhibit C - The discrepany Fred alleges is due to doctoring (forgery):

Don Johnson clipped a couple of sentences from what was item "2)" of a July
25, 1997 e-mail message allegedly sent by me -- and I believe it probably
was, although it could easily have been doctored as you will see.

Note that Fred indicates in Exhibit B that he was not admitting that he was
wrong. Enter Smoking Gun #2.

Exhibit D - from Fred's email of 7/27/97 to Harold with copy to fire:

the ammendment [sic] to the constitution. I acknowledged my error in regard
to what I came to believe was your more valid reading. I have
implemented that interpretation. Now, what else

I have found the pertinent clips for Exhibit A on msgs titled "Re: Editor
stands corrected and Popping bubbles" dated 7/25/97 (mine) and 7/24/97
(Fred's)(so look for Fred's original msg dated 7/24/97 or before), but I do
have the entire email for Exhibit D. To avoid accusation of taking things
out of context, all of this email, including header, is pasted at the end
of this msg.

Hmmmmmmmm.

> I can't fucking remember the context of the message to tell you the truth

Those with an archive will know who is telling the truth since I supply
dates. Computers are so nifty. By accessing your archive, some of you
will know, whether you are willing to say so or not, whether we have a
forger amongst us or someone who makes false charges precisely at the time
of balloting. There is a lot more to this, but it will have to go on
theft_of_fire as I expect to find myself booted off this list for my
response. Despite its unattractiveness, I prefer the world of reality to
one of make-believe, however intellectual and enjoyable it may be. I also
prefer honorable people as officers. The real world is very short on such
people.

I tippy toe back out.

Don Johnson

**************************************
Fred indeed admitted error. Here is the entirety of Fred's message to
Harold and the list (Exhibit D).
***************************************

Date: Sun, 27 Jul 1997 22:39:35 -0700
From: "R. Fred Vaughan" <rvaughan@gte.net>
Reply-To: editor.gift.of.fire@pobox.com
To: NickL9@aol.com
CC: prometheus@interglobe.com, cardano@intergate.bc.ca
Subject: Re: For Publication in the Journal
References: <970727152842_-357449457@emout11.mail.aol.com>
Content-Length: 4086

NickL9@aol.com wrote:
>
> To: the members of Prometheus
> From: Harold Nickel
> Re: Statement of Non-Candidacy
>
> I hereby remove my name from the candidacy for Ombudsman.

Since that time is long since past, you evidently mean you would resign
if elected?

> I wish to
> apologize to and thank anyone who voted for me. We all have a limited
number
> of hours in our life and must choose where to spend them. I hope you
> understand and I'll see you in the funny papers.
>
> I would leave you all with a puzzle, though.
>
> Can you identify the following person?
>
> 1) A forceful, charismatic, ruthless personality.
> 2) Gained political office.
> 3) Established control over the media.
> 4) Took advantage of poor conditions to gain popularity.
> 5) Slanted news to his advantage.
> 6) Discredited officials to usurp power.
> 7) Disregarded the constitution.
> 8) Created the belief in a superior group.
> 9) Created a hated minority.
> 10) Denounced all other views.
> 11) Fostered contempt of democratic process.

Let me guess. Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, ...? Did you have someone
else in mind? I would strongly resent it for many obvious reasons if
you intended to imply it was I.

In another E-mail you indicated:

"I believe you are acting unconstituionally and assuming power your
office does not have. (Of course, that's what you say of me.)"

I have stated specifically what I felt was unconstitutional about your
actions. You have not even acknowledged these statements.

The only thread of a thought of where you could really believe that I
might be acting unconstitutional would be concerning my misreading of
the ammendment to the constitution. I acknowledged my error in regard
to what I came to believe was your more valid reading. I have
implemented that interpretation. Now, what else -- specifically -- do
you consider unconstitutional? I assure you my goal is to remain
completely within my constitutionally-defined role! I have no desire
whatsoever of usurping more or other authority. Carl Sandburg's Lincoln
says it for me: "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a
master! Whatever differs from that, to the extent of the difference, is
NO democracy!"

You continued:

"While I am sorry that so many of the members would be inconvenienced,
I consider it part of an ombudsman's obligation to care for the rights of all
the members, not just 90%."

I agree that the ombudsman's role is to care and empathize for each
individual who comes to him. But he is NOT authorized to disrupt the
majority who have spoken by constitutional means on that account and
particularly when it is a "hypothetical" member to whom you keep
referring.

A democracy should not be overthrown because a person might
"hypothetically" be disenfranchised by a majority vote. If you feel as
strongly as you seem to, then you should be an advocate in support of
proposals of a "real" person's choosing who represents that hypothesis
but still abiding by the constitution win or lose. If you succeed in
destroying the vehicle of democracy for this Society even as you resign,
you will have done an evil thing. We are not a utopia nor philosopher
kings! We are a democracy with all the good and bad that goes with it!

When the constitutionally-allotted time has come, our valid ballots will
be sent to the Treasurer because I believe it is my obligation. I hope
you will encourage the Treasurer and other officers to fulfill their
constitutionally- specified obligations in accepting our ballots as the
voice of the members which they legitimately represent. I do not
express this hope because you are contitutionally-empowered to enforce
any such compliance but because you suggested another alternative to
them that they might somehow believe to be constitutional only because
of their respect for you. Although it may be difficult, please help us
through this trying time as a legacy of your years of service to the
members of this Society who, I have no doubt, have again overwhelmingly
supported your re-election as ombudsman.

Fred

*************************

Note: It is a real chore to find these old msgs but I have found others as
well which I can pull out as the need arises. My crash crippled Windows
but I can still sift through DOS and I keep finding old diskettes.

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 19:44:06 -0800
To: Prometheus <fire@wwwh.com>, Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Re: Invalid Ballot

At 06:57 PM 1/28/99 -0800, Fred Vaughan wrote:

> Today I received the first *invalid* ballot. It is invalid in two ways:

> 1) There is no signature on the *outer* envelope.

> 2) There is no sealed *inner* envelope.

> I realize that it might be a "marker" since it may be a photo copy
> rather than the product of my printer and it could have been sent to
> see if I would invalidate a vote cast for me. I have no problem with
> that -- it's invalid!

Speculation aside, I appreciate the Editor's attempt to ensure that no
one is disenfranchised on a technicality.

> However, if the individual who sent it is on the "fire" list, please
> read the voting procedure instructions and submit another ballot
> (hand copied if necessary). There's plenty of time since this one
> evidently only took 3 days.

> Clue: "?? RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGION"

> If this clue has meaning to anyone you might notify the member to
> send another ballot.

> Fred Vaughan

If the person who sent the ballot happens to be on theft_of_fire and
not on fire, Fred's message has now been passed on.

I also want to announce that I have withdrawn my objection to the
use of receipt, as opposed to postmark, deadlines. Someone pointed
out a point that was convincing to me: that a high proportion of
mail arrives with illegible postmarks. I'd still like to see a somewhat
longer voting period. The voting period, from *GoF* postmark to
receipt by the Editor, is now 23 days. What do you all think would
be a reasonable figure for this period?

Kevin Langdon

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:11:21 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Re: Invalid Ballot and List Status

At 11:11 PM 1/28/99 EST, Harold Nickel wrote:

> In a message dated 1/28/99 10:27:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com writes:

>> At 06:57 PM 1/28/99 -0800, Fred Vaughan wrote:

>>> Today I received the first *invalid* ballot. It is invalid in two ways:
>>>
>>> 1) There is no signature on the *outer* envelope.
>>>
>>> 2) There is no sealed *inner* envelope.
>>>
>>> I realize that it might be a "marker" since it may be a photo copy
>>> rather than the product of my printer and it could have been sent to
>>> see if I would invalidate a vote cast for me. I have no problem with
>>> that -- it's invalid!

>> Speculation aside, I appreciate the Editor's attempt to ensure that no
>> one is disenfranchised on a technicality.

>>> However, if the individual who sent it is on the "fire" list, please
>>> read the voting procedure instructions and submit another ballot
>>> (hand copied if necessary). There's plenty of time since this one
>>> evidently only took 3 days.
>>>
>>> Clue: "?? RESEARCH TRIANGLE REGION"
>>>
>>> If this clue has meaning to anyone you might notify the member to
>>> send another ballot.
>>>
>>> Fred Vaughan

> Kevin,

> I did not receive the message from Fred to which you refer above.
> Was this not to the full fire list? Any clues?

> Harold

I received Fred's message quoted above through the fire list. It is
possible that something you wrote has been interpreted by Fred
as "rancorous" and you have been removed from the list (Don
Johnson reports that he is no longer receiving fire messages).

Fred has announced that he will carry out such removals without
notice. Given his insistence on making such decisions unilaterally,
outside the democratic processes of the society (such as they are),
this kind of game-playing strikes me as adding insult to injury.

Kevin Langdon

Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 05:40:14 -0500
From: "Robert J. Dick" <rdick@IDT.NET>
To: fire@wwwh.com
CC: theft_of_fire@egroups.com
Subject: [theft_of_fire] Boycott

It has come to my attention that Fred Vaughan has declared the "fire"
list an official Prometheus resource, while reserving to himself the
"right" to bounce anyone he considers insulting.

I find this private rulemaking over public property unacceptable. We
Americans fought a bitter war of independence against King George III
over just this kind of issue.

Fred, you--monarch! I renounce sending material to your list. Those
wishing to obtain my views, subscribe to "theft" or request personal
Email from me.

Bob Dick

Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 12:20:46 -0800
To: Prometheus <theft_of_fire@egroups.com>
From: Kevin Langdon <kevin.langdon@polymath-systems.com>
Subject: [theft_of_fire] E-mail Lists: Are They Good for Anything?

Dave Slater wrote:

> Could we not agree to use FIRE for calm 'intellectual' discussions and
> Theft_of_Fire for the more contentious issues? People could then choose
> what they want to get involved with.

That sounds so simple . . . but it's not.

First of all, there is nothing intrinsically less "intellectual" about the
organizational affairs of these societies than any other subject. It's a question
of how the subject is approached. I am interested in the theory of democratic
institutions and in advocating those solutions which conduce to stubstantive
participatory decision-making.

In addition to that, I've noticed that people get really hot under the collar
about purely "intellectual" subjects, characterize others' positions (and
sometimes these others themselves) as "stupid" or worse, and generally
behave in ways that our Fearless Leader could be expected to describe as
"rancorous." Censorship is unacceptable no matter what the subject matter
(and doubly so when it is imposed by "the list serve provider") and thus I
do not consider the fire list, as presently constituted, to be a suitable
vehicle for discussions on any subject.

Don Johnson wrote:

> A number of people lately have expressed strong criticism of the level of
> discussions in Hi-IQ societies. Some people seem even to characterize the
> vast majority of us (not including themselves of course) as dumbbells,
> ignoramuses, and the mentally deranged. Though an unagreed-on few do
> appear to fall in these categories, the people who paint with such a broad
> brush seem to be ones who have apparently not been around these societies
> very much. This makes sense because those who find little or no value in
> these societies generally don't stick around long. Certainly it is
> appropriate for them to leave any association which they find not
> worthwhile, and, if when they go out the door they hurtle scathing remarks
> to those who remain, that is fine with me because I like to know people's
> candid thoughts. Such thoughts can be instructive, even if in a negative
> sort of way.

I agree with Don that those who are dissatisfied are welcome to leave, with
or without expressing their opinons of the exchange here, but I find that
there *are* people in these societies with worthwhile things to say.

> I myself have no expectations of finding stimulating learned discussion in
> the same sense that one finds in academic circles. There people have gone
> through a similar filtering process which sifts out those not fitting the
> desired profile. Like-minded (relatively) people with a similar background
> in a common specialty often gain great satisfaction in their association
> with one another. The quality of course varies from those contributing
> substantially to academic and social progress all the way down those whose
> lifes are futile and empty and who never escape their delusions regarding
> their capabilities. People in this latter group are often quite eager to
> characterize others with that which really applies to themselves.

It should be added that academic discussions are often frustratingly narrow.

Fred Vaughan wrote:

> David H Slater wrote:

>> All I ever seem to read in the various high-IQ society, journals,
>> publications, mailing lists and so on is a load of silly arguments over
>> things that people know virtually nothing about, ridiculous childish
>> disputes such as the nonsense in Noesis - or all the playground bickering
>> going on over GoF - and supposedly-witty "I'm cleverer than you are"
>> messages. I'm sick and tired of it all.
>>
>> Paul makes a good point here.

> He does indeed. But I assume what galls him the most is what galls me
> the most, i. e., the contentiousness. I too am very tired of that.

Those who are tired of the bullshit should stop feeding the bull.

>> A HIQ is an attribute akin to long legs - it is something you have and
>> you can do little about it. But long legs do not make you a fast runner,
>> though they may give you the *potential* to become a faster runner than
>> a person with short legs. It is important that we remember the distinction
>> between knowledge/experience and intelligence. A moderately intelligent
>> person with a lot of knowledge/experience to share on a subject will
>> almost certainly have better things to say than a highly intelligent person
>> with no specialised knowledge.

> I tend to agree with this although it depends very much on what you mean
> by "better." If you mean more accurately reflecting current views and
> atune with current knowledge, you are certainly correct, but if you mean
> more-likely to be innovative and end up being what is the accepted view
> two hundred years from now, I doubt it.

I'm strongly in agreement with Fred on this point.

<snip>

>> If we are all generalists, albeit highly intelligent generalists, then have we
>> got anything new and of value to say? Probably not.

> There is an abundance of information that would deny that highly
> intelligent persons are generalists. On page 13 of our MC Report we
> quoted Matarazzo: "IQ's of 150 or more may have some discriminative
> value in certain fields, such as professional aptitude, however, it is
> only partially related to general intelligence. Exceptional intellectual
> ability is itself a kind of special ability."

That's an interesting quotation, but it's incomplete. There is a special need
to understand things in general above a certain level of intelligence, which
I place somewhere between the one-in-100,000 and the one-in-a-million
level, and people with this need tend to recognize one another, even in the
absence of scores on psychometric instruments.

>> To put pseudo-scientific papers into our journals is probably a mistake.

> I suspect you mean to imply that scientific papers in our journals *are*
> pseudo-scientific. Of course, to the extent that you are correct in the
> implication, your statement is correct. "Pseudo-" anything is a "mistake"
> by definition! Certainly we have a lot of pseudo-religious crap in our
> journals and on our list serves as well. We have pseudo-political,
> -artistic, -literary, etc. material that is probably unworthy of publication
> anywhere other than as descriptive of the variations in how very
> intelligent people think. What we have is a bunch of very non-
> traditional, non-coffee-table type information in our journals.

There's a problem here. Who is going to decide what is "pseudo" and
what is real? As Editor of *Noesis*, I regularly include material that I
don't agree with or consider to be a contribution to human knowledge.
I don't publish material that is poorly-written, highly repetitive, or does
not take into account the state of knowledge in the field it addresses. I
try to include all sides of controversial subjects. We need to be careful
not to create an intellectual orthodoxy excluding other views.

>> DO NOT read this as suggesting that I support Paul in all that he has
>> said - I do not. This particular point caught my attention as being
>> worthy of serious consideration.

> It probably is. I suspect that Spearman's Law comes into play here in
> explaining why as we get more and more exclusive IQ organizations,
> we do not converge on a "type" and rather than more and more
> agreement we tend to get more and more contention.

Those who've been around these groups for a while know that the
level of contention fluctuates.

Paul Johns wrote:

> Subject: [theft_of_fire] Re: hmm... have you tried Vidya anytime in
> the last year?

> Heather,

> No, I haven't ever tried Vidya and I was never a subscriber to "fire".

With all due respect to Heather, who edits *Vidya*, the intellectual quality
of *Vidya* is far below that of *Gift of Fire*. This is not Heather's fault;
an editor can only work with the material sent in by society members.

> I tend to have an obsessional personality and I'm a "sucker" for arguments
> on these lists, yet I really don't have the time to waste. My girlfriend is
> always telling me off for wasting time e-mailing people who don't want to
> be "enlightened" anyway.

This may be part of the problem. Those who are only interested in
"enlightening" others are likely to be frustrated.

<snip>

> Anyway, enough of that: I'll be staying on the Mega List for the moment,
> but I'm letting my membership to Noesis lapse.

Strange. The Mega_List has been dominated by discussions of religion--
exactly what Paul says he finds of no value.

Kevin Langdon