Re: [projectvrm] Time to go

[Doc Searls < >]

Apologies for missing this thread, so far. As I said in my last post, there's 
a somewhere keeping mail to this list from reaching my mail clients.

Obviously, Peter, you are welcome to stay.

And thanks to everybody for weighing in. Good stuff.

Doc

>       • From: Graham Hill < 
> 
 >
>       • To: Peter Cranstone < 
> 
 >
>       • Cc: 'ProjectVRM list' < 
> 
 >
>       • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Time to go
>       • Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:31:18 +0000
> Hi Peter
> 
> I am writing this short email to you to ask you not to leave the VRMProject 
> list. 
> 
> I find your opinions insightful, challenging and valuable. The VRMProject 
> does at times seem too much like an inflexible, libertarian echo-chamber 
> with too many repetitive messages reinforcing previous writers without 
> adding anything substantive or original. But there are a few dissenting 
> voices like yourself, who add valuable new perspectives and thus, 
> significantly increase the quality of discussion. The Hegelian dialectic is 
> all about presenting a thesis, rebutting it with an antithesis and adapting 
> these through synthesis. It is not just about more of the same tired old 
> theses. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that your contrarian 
> position does all of us - those who believe in VRM and those who do not - 
> an invaluable service. The discussion on the VRM Project would be all the 
> poorer without your contribution.
> 
> Please stay.
> 
> Best regards from Edinburgh, Graham
> 
>       • From: Dan Blum < 
> 
 >
>       • To: "T.Rob" < 
> 
 >
>       • Cc: Peter Cranstone < 
> 
 >,
>  Kevin Cox < 
> 
 >,
>  Guy Higgins < 
> 
 >,
>  Jake Parent < 
> 
 >,
>  ProjectVRM list < 
> 
 >,
>  Michael Zeuthen < 
> 
 >
>       • Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Time to go
>       • Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:57:29 -0500
> +1 and +1 T.Rob - that was some awesome writing on the "Saving the Net" 
> thread. In an ideal world I'll mine that for one or more great blog posts 
> someday!
> 
> If it took a gadfly to produce that writing from you, than gadflies have 
> done some good! While I'm decidedly with the pro-privacy and the 
> privacy-is-possible camp, I feel there's a huge need for middle ground. 
> Often, juxtaposing extreme positions is the best catechism for gaining 
> insight!
> 
> That being said, I'm headed back to the "saving the net" thread to stake 
> out that middle ground.
> Best regards,
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:55 AM, T.Rob < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
>  wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> �
> 
> I have to pipe in here to clarify that when I said one of us was on the 
> wrong list, I wasn't inviting you to leave (or me, for that matter) but 
> rather trying to say I believe your dismissal of privacy as a foundational 
> requirement to be profoundly calf-cow rather than VRM.� I find myself 
> utterly unable to reconcile your position with the core concepts of VRM.� 
> Be that as it may, I do not feel any right of privilege to be here, to act 
> as moderator, and certainly not to boot people from the list.� I hope my 
> comment wasn't taken as such.
> 
> �
> 
> I do wonder at times whether you are serious or trolling, but whatever else 
> you've contributed to this list the most valuable for me has been to push 
> me to further refine my ideas and to do some of my best writing.� ;-)�
> 
> �
> 
> -- T.Rob
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> From: Peter Cranstone [mailto: " target="_blank"> 
> 
 ]
>  
> Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 23:33 PM
> To: Kevin Cox; Guy Higgins
> Cc: Jake Parent; ProjectVRM list; Michael Zeuthen
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Time to go
> �
> 
> Sounds good - I�ll stick around awhile longer.
> 
> �
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> From: Kevin Cox < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 6:56 PM
> To: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Cc: "Peter J. Cranstone" < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >,
>  Jake Parent < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >,
>  ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Time to go
> 
> �
> 
> Stay around Peter.
> 
> �
> 
> Kevin
> 
> �
> 
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Guy Higgins < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> Peter,
> 
> �
> 
> I think you should. �Your position is well thought out and reflects aspects 
> of VRM that must be dealt with (at least that�s my opinion).
> 
> �
> 
> Guy
> 
> �
> 
> From: Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 00:57:58 +0000
> To: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >,
>  Jake Parent < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> 
> 
> Cc: ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Time to go
> 
> �
> 
> I�m happy to stick around and ask the tough questions if that�s the 
> consensus.�
> 
> �
> 
> Just let me know.
> 
> �
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> Peter
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> From: Guy Higgins < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Date: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 at 4:27 PM
> To: Jake Parent < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Cc: ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Time to go
> 
> �
> 
> I think that Jake has an excellent point. �Cognitive diversity and the 
> willingness to openly discuss different perspectives and approaches is a 
> proven way to arrive at improved insights, positions, and solutions. �I 
> think that Peter�s roiling the waters is a good thing. �Not always fun, but 
> good. �If everyone thinks alike, then there is need for only one thinker.
> 
> �
> 
> Guy
> 
> �
> 
> From: Jake Parent < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 17:34:35 -0500
> Cc: ProjectVRM list < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
> Subject: Re: [projectvrm] Time to go
> 
> �
> 
> I haven't been on this list long, but I find the debate to be quite 
> insightful. �I come from the marketing side so the technology aspects are 
> something I learn a lot about by reading the back and forth.
> 
> �
> 
> As a grander point.... Changing the world is hard. To get there, tough 
> questions need to be asked and positions defended. We can't arrive at any 
> solutions by surrounding ourselves by people who all think alike.
> 
> �
> 
> Anyways, none of you know me from a hole in the wall, so take it for what 
> it's worth. :)
> 
> �
> 
> Jake Parent
> 
> www.learntobeheard.com
> 
> �
> 
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 5:02 PM, Peter Cranstone < " target="_blank"> 
> 
 >
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi Doc,
> 
> �
> 
> What�s the procedure for unsubscribing from this list? My comments only 
> seem to inflame rather than help the process so it�s a good time to move 
> on. If all it takes is a simple delete from your end I would be grateful if 
> you could take care of that.
> 
> �
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> �
> 
> �
> 
> 
> 
>       • [projectvrm] Time to go, Peter Cranstone
>               • Re: [projectvrm] Time to go, Jake Parent
>                       • Re: [projectvrm] Time to go, Guy Higgins
>                               • Re: [projectvrm] Time to go, Peter Cranstone
>                                       • Re: [projectvrm] Time to go, Guy 
> Higgins
>                                               • Re: [projectvrm] Time to 
> go, Kevin Cox
>                                                       • Re: [projectvrm] 
> Time to go, Peter Cranstone
>                                                               • RE: 
> [projectvrm] Time to go, T.Rob
>                                                               • Re: 
> [projectvrm] Time to go, Dan Blum
>               • Re: [projectvrm] Time to go, Graham Hill
>               • <Possible follow-ups>
>               • Re: [projectvrm] Time to go, Nathan Schor