dear kari-hans

thank you. i would like to explain why i have become so agitated.

i am truly offended by the posts in the past days that seem to glorify
what ken has done. and seem to dismiss and even criticize violently
those who have spoken against ken's action. ken had apologized, i had
forgiven. we tried to move on and those posts are definitely not helping.

because of those posts, i want the list owners to say it loud and clear
what you have said here.
it is to me very important that the list owners say it loud and clear
because they are the list owners. as ken said, the only power on the
list.

rosan

Kari-Hans Kommonen wrote:
>
> I think that the list owners have said, in their original resolution
> (quote below), that
>
> - they can understand what and how things happened, and they appreciate
> Ken's effort to clean up the mess,
> - but they do not think that this kind of deception is acceptable in
> the future
>
> They have said these things in wise and kind words, in a fashion that
> avoids confrontation and shaming, which I think is necessary for
> healing, which in turn, a community like this needs.
>
> But the list owners position is not ambiguous. There are list members
> who seem to welcome new events of this sort, but that is clearly not
> the list owners' position, and I think they are right.
>
> I also understand why Rosan insists on clarity. I think she deserves a
> lot of credit for her forgiveness and reasonable responses considering
> that she was Cindy's number one target. This was in my opinion the
> worst part of Cindy's story, something I have not seen discussed so
> far, and not brought up by Rosan either, which I find very generous. We
> all know Ken and Rosan have had strong disagreements. Sadly, Cindy
> became his extremely vocal sidekick in this. This was not fair, it was
> wrong.
>
> Many of those who insist that the discussion must just stop, may fail
> to realize that when others (who may not have seen that a violation was
> taking place - maybe they skipped those messages, for example) try to
> explain the violation away, those who were violated are violated again.
>
> The community is, in this sense, also responsible of how it deals with
> the issue. It is not only between Cindy/Ken and those who were affected
> by her/his posts; the whole community will change somehow. If the
> community, or more specifically, its unaffected majority, is oblivious
> to the consequences of the events to some of its members, it will grow
> weaker.
>
> I think Rosan has the right to insist a clear ruling, but I think we
> already have it, in clear words from the list owners: no more
> deception. And I still want to thank Rosan for her as clear and
> unambiguous position of forgiving Ken and being ready to continue the
> work together on this list.
>
> I think both Ken and Rosan are very important members of this social
> system we all have created together. The archives of the list show that
> many of us have made mistakes. I hope the future archives show that we
> emerged from this stronger, without losing members or their faith in
> this.
>
> kh
>
> --------
> At 10:02 +1100 13.12.2004, Keith Russell wrote:
> > In the case of the Cindy/Ken deception we can accept Ken's detailed
> > account of how and why he engaged in the deception (see Archives). Ken
> > has responded publicly in a fullsome and open manner. What the Group
> > cannot accept is the intention to deceive. For the Group to sustain
> > itself as an on-line community we must abide by the highest social
> > standards of group communication.
> >
> > The Cindy/Ken event has become an obstacle (scandal). This obstacle has
> > reminded us all of our common committment and common need for verity.
> > The fact that we can feel deep emotions about this event makes us aware
> > of how much we value the Group and how real the Group has become as a
> > community of designers, scholars and concerned individuals.
> >
> > We move foward based on trust. While we should all question all
> > arguments, including our own, we should be able to respect the members
> > of the Group as people with intentions and identities much like our
> > own. We should expect others to present themselves as we present
> > ourselves.
>
> On 16.12.2004, at 20:13, Rosan Chow wrote:
> > unlike most of us who have spoken, the list owner david durling is not
> > prepared to say what ken has done is right or wrong.
> >
> > might david still answer this question:
> >
> > is it acceptable for people to behave as what ken has done in the
> > future?