Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 4

Technocrat giving a speech
Is that picture a joke? It's a horrible picture -- someone giving a speech wearing (what looks like) sunglasses? Do you want this to look like more than a death cult? --154.5.41.198 09:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we get consensus here?
I would like to get everyone's opinion(s) on the edits of User:Skipsievert, in order to create a consensus. I'll assume that we all have some familiarity of the edits I am talking about. Now that the protection is down, Skip has continued to put up his edits (on this article and others), I would contend that these qualify as Tendentious editing and Disruptive editing. If there's any confusion as to what edits I'm talking about, well I wont list all his edits but here's my most recent reverts,,  So can we get a consensus here as to what is and isn't acceptable in his edits? I think we already have got informal consensus that his edits are unhelpful, inaccurate, POV, etc. but I would like to make it clear. --Hibernian 15:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * He just doesn't know what wikipedia is about. I did a major reworking of Technocracy Study Course, faithful to his original text, identifying where sources need to be cited, getting rid of all the NPOV and redundant stuff, including duplicate links, etc., and he just reverts it back. I've explained all my edits on the talk page, and I have archived the old talk page which detailed each area of my concern. Is there really a point to me spending a few hours fixing an article, when it can just be reverted back in two seconds by some naive user who doesn't take criticism? --154.5.41.198 19:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As I write this, Skip is already putting is edits up again (is there any firm solution to this?). I would again ask for some concrete, answers to the questions I posed. Do his edit not amount to Tendentious editing and Disruptive editing, and if so, should stronger actions not be taken? This is mainly directed at User:Wafulz, but I would like everyone else to state their thoughts. I would agree with User:154.5.41.198 (or User:77siddhartha) in his attempts to make the Technocracy Study Course article better, and we can see the same pattern of intransigence from Skip, unfortunately both versions of the article are a mess at the moment, hopeful it can be improved with time. --Hibernian 03:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a procedure. See Three-revert rule. Three reverts (in whole or in part) within 24 hours constitutes a possible ban. --77siddhartha 08:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Self serving editing to chat sites
I think you wrong. I also know that a team of people are being employed here to try to control flow to chat sites operated by Kolzene, Hibernian, Isenhand, and others who are personally invested in directed traffic to their original conclusions on their respective sites http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:&amp;quot;War&amp;quot; on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum Isenhand even talks about assembling a 'team' to that purpose on the Net chat site. Also some of the spam links put up here to TechCa in the guise of information are no appropriate. Those all lead in a circle back to chat logs with subjects like, Who is Skip Sievert ? where the people here get into to flame wars about that person. I think it is clear that special interest aspects are trying to control this page. That is a pity because the information deserves to be objective and clear. I would hope that consensus does not mean appropriating less objective and informative aspects of this page given by Editors here who are trying to drive people to their own sites. The gold standard should be the official site now listed. The spam files that lead in a circle to Kolzenes and Hibernian chat site are not appropriate here. If those two gentleman are serious about information they may contain, then why not make separate Pdf. files that are not self serving, and list those as reference point Urls. That would solve the spam link aspect of this. That is easily done. To constantly promote these two sites here TechCa, and Net is self serving special interest that leads mostly to lots of original opinions. Technocracy Inc states in no small way that neither of those sites are viable as to information. Also separate links for the Q&A Ttcd. Faq`s file in external links in not warranted. That file is prominent on the TechInc homepage. That article also is controversial among Technocrats. It has been considered a discredited document by many people in and out of the Technocracy movement. At the very least the link to TechInc more than covers that disputed information. "can we get a consensus here as to what is and isn't acceptable in his edits? I think we already have got informal consensus that his edits are unhelpful, inaccurate, POV, etc. but I would like to make it clear" - I would like to make something clear. I think you are wrong. We differ on what we value as content. (skip sievert 16:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC))


 * It would seriously help if reliable sources were presented for any edits from here onwards- it's hard to judge the legitimacy of edits when I'm essentially being presented with both parties announcing "I am right and you are wrong." This is particularly true for the presentation of opinions, like that the Technocratic Movement is based solely on the Technocracy Study Course, or that the movement is too obscure to attract criticism. By definition, these sources cannot be self-published and should have undergone some sort of editorial overview (with exceptions granted about subjects dealing with themselves, like NET's site stating the goals of the organisation). As an example, technocracy.ca in general is not a good source. For example. stuff like this is linked off of the front page, so adding the website to the External links section might be a bad idea. However, it hosts articles like this, which are very useful because they've been published in a reputable source and have editorial oversight. A graphical explanation of purchasing power is also useful (though I'm not endorsing it at this time- I haven't examined it all). What I'm trying to say is that blindly removing all citations to technocracy.ca or blindly defending the addition of the website to "External links" are both bad ideas- some content is good; some is not. I'm on my way out, and I'll have more comments to add later today or tomorrow.--Wafulz 16:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Any information that TechnocracyCa has, can just as easily be put into and Url of its own as a file and floated on the web without the baggage of TechCa, revolving internal links, which has special interests, and is not an official Technocracy Incorporated site. TechnocracyCa. is a chat site which is run by the two wiki editors here Icarus/Ross Murphy/Hibernian and Bill DesJardin/Kolzene here. All of the perhaps 'useful' pages could be presented without the revolving link that goes to their home page, which specializes in chat info. Icarus is a prodigious poster there, as is Bill DesJardin, or Kolzene, the webmaster there. I would note that I have not linked any personal sites now for several weeks.
 * quote, Andrew Wallace/Isenhand wiki editor here, "The wiki article should present accurate information as it is a public interface to technocracy. Unfortunately we have one user causing trouble so we do need a team to maintain it correctly."

A little scrutiny of this link to NET may shed some light also. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:&amp;quot;War&amp;quot; on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum.(skip sievert 16:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure what the NET link has to do with it- judging from every other comment, they're pretty clearly trying to stay out of the conflict on this article. Some parts of technocracy.ca have issues with them, but that doesn't mean it should be blacklisted completely from even being cited where it has useful material. What would be objectionable about a useful citation like this?




 * In an article that is almost entirely unsourced, it doesn't make sense to tear it apart repeatedly just because a website's forum has recently posted about you. Every time I come back to suggest ways to source things and improve the article, you try to discredit NET and technocracy.ca and every editor you've ran into, even if it's not related. Skip, I think at some point you need to recognize that there are people who disagree with you, and it's not your job to snuff out any mention of their existence.--Wafulz 21:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You do not see my point clearly. That is a useful article by Wilton Ivie. Put it in a Pdf. make a document out of it with its own Url. and then make a link to it. Why self promote Kolzenes site here with information that leads in circles to the other stuff that is purely poison pen.(skip sievert 02:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC))


 * That is an incredibly roundabout and unnecessary measure to avoid linking to a website that you dislike. It's not self-promotion if it's a relevant citation. It's not self-promotion because you dislike the site or the person.--Wafulz 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wafulz, can I take your comments to mean that you do not wish Skip to arbitrarily delete references and links from Tech.ca and NET, etc? That is what I have been arguing for of-course and have been reverting his edits which do this. As I said, I don't want to have to keep making the same reverts ever day (sometimes every hour), there has got to be some kind of final ruling on this behaviour. It's been going on now for, what is it? 2 weeks? Aren’t there processes in place for this sort of thing? --Hibernian 04:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want Skip arbitrarily removing content, nor do I want you arbitrarily adding links to the bottom of the page. The next step might be to go for Requests for comment.--Wafulz 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I don't think I am "arbitrarily" placing them in though. The main reason to have links to Tech.ca, etc. was to give the article some kind of sourcing, before we got into placing in-line citations. I (and others) thought we should at-least link to a source for some of the information, not an ideal solution, but the best we had at the time. Once we've got full citation, it doesn't necessarily need to be there as an external link, however I think we should cross that bridge when we come to it. All I was arguing for was that the good material on that site should not be disallowed, just because one guy has a problem with it (and in my opinion a totally irrational problem, based on personal enmity). Anyway, can you consider giving Skip some kind of official warning not to place those same edits in again? I know you've talked to him about it, but he doesn't seem to be listening, as he is continuing to do it anyway. --Hibernian 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy accounting
This whole section was written under a false idea of what energy accounting is. It is not a credit/debit system. This section was false and misleading as to its comparison of an energy account system to money, and using 'money' terms to discuss and frame this is not really illuminating the concepts. With this basic rewrite perhaps we can link citations to material on Energy Accounting. The term 'energy credit' was repeated over and over previously and is not Technocratic Technocracy Study Course so it is then confusing. The term energy credit should not be used at all. Energy Accounting, energy units, would be a proper term. The energy certificate is an energy accounting system only. There is no such use of it as a CREDIT. If one has credit, then Q must follow P and thus one must also have DEBIT. The energy certificate does not replace Money. It has no value at all. It can not be saved, hoarded, or traded. Its only use in a Technate is as an energy accounting system, and production and distribution accounting of all goods and service produced. The mere attachment to the Energy Certificate to Credit, debt, or money i.e. medium of exchange is totally erroneous and false.(skip sievert 03:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Skip, the Technocracy Study Course does not define the terms 'energy unit', 'energy credit', nor 'energy accounting'. It only defines 'energy certificates' (22.7.1, page 230 of online version). The easiest way to understand an energy certificate is like a cheque book. You get a full energy consumption 'account' at the beginning of a period. There is a finite number of cheques that you can 'cash' in on in a given period. This might be a debit to your account. That is only secondary to the cheque book's primary role though, in keeping track of your consumption. If all consumers were tracked in this way, there would be a pretty good estimate on how much 'stuff' to produce for distribution next period. This is done to minimize waste. Your comments above don't define what an energy certificate is, it only defines what it is not. Instead of wasting your time worrying about what it is called (notice your suggestion isn't present in the Study Course either), just focus on conveying everything in a clear manner. Energy accounting is easily one of the more difficult concepts in Technocracy's library. --77siddhartha 08:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well as Mansel Ismay would say, I would have to agree with you on this one. Energy Certificates probably does a better job and is less confusing. I can not agree though that the subject itself is confusing. It is not. For sure the 'energy credits' is a misnomer that should not be used again here. I try to follow some of your writings on the NET site, but they are always referring to 'E.C.`s there, in reference to Energy credits. There was never any reference to Energy Credits except on some of the dumbed down blogging sites. To bad the Energy Accounting file looks so bad. It contains some good information. Lets see if our man Ross Murphy actually reads here, or justs puts back up 'Energy Credits'. [skip sievert]


 * Skip, I don't know what you're getting so upset about, the term "Energy Credits" does not suggest anything to do with Price system mechanisms. Energy Credits are exactly the same thing as Energy Certificates, the only difference is that Certificates were designed in the 1930's to be pieces of physical paper which would be used in the energy accounting system, whereas Energy Credits are the electronic form, devised when the age of Computers came about. So both are official, it's just that certificates have become a bit archaic. What they are called does not matter, they can be called credits, certificates, units, or joules, etc. they still represent energy. As for the title of the section and the article being Energy credit, well Kolzene suggested some time ago that it should be renamed to Energy accounting (currently a redirect), the reason being that, credits (or certificates) are the units used in the system, but the name of the system itself is Energy Accounting. So I would be in favour of renaming the article, I'm not against that, what I reverted was your bizarre attempt to place your own POV, Unencyclopaedic stuff into it. --Hibernian 15:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Technocracy.ca
I would note that I may fore go taking down links to TechCa if I am allowed to peacefully put up one of my information sites, http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/ technocracy-incorporated » home. It does not contain poison pen references as the TechCa or Net sites, and it is not a blog/chat site. Wiki is not an avenue for advertising and personal promotion, or so it claims.(skip sievert 19:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC))


 * The one link that you keep taking down (About Technocracy) is probably not a bad edit, but you are doing so for the wrong reasons. That page itself has nothing to do with 'poison pen' references and is not a blog/chat article. It is, however, not sourced and has no author, so I'm not sure how valid of reference it really is. --77siddhartha 19:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Skip, you're missing the point- it doesn't matter where material is hosted. If the material linked is reliable (such as the magazine article citation I made above), then it can be left in. If it isn't reliable (such as the one 77sid just provided) it can be taken out. Your Wiki is not any more reliable or any less promotional than technocracy.ca, and it makes no sense to say that useful material on the NET/technocracy.ca websites should be hosted on your Wiki.--Wafulz 20:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? I never said that, those are your words. I never suggested that that file should be hosted on my wiki, as you say. What I did say was that a pdf of the Wilton Ivie piece could be easily made as google document or wiki document or whatever host, and used here instead of a site that is loaded with circular 'buttons' to push that all lead to wiki editors Kolzene and Hibernians site.(skip sievert 20:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC))


 * My point still stands- just replace "your Wiki" with "somewhere else." I think you're becoming too paranoid about technocracy.ca being linked to from anywhere on this article. It's an unnecessary roundabout method.--Wafulz 21:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that calling people paranoid wafulz is not a good idea. That could promote conflict here, with that statement. That suits no purpose. Not only is it not an 'unnecessary roundabout method', it is a method that does not get into controversy here. It is a simple matter to make a file and this one looks about 5 times easier to read than the TechCa. one http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_29n46jr9
 * A Place To Live In. Wilton Ivie Technocracy Digest Nov.1955. - Google Docs & Spreadsheets
 * So go ahead and link it siddhartha or any one here. This file is not going to go anywhere. It is hosted by google and presents the same information exactly, without wiki editors Kolzene and Hibernians unofficial chat site, and also the formatting is a lot better. This might make a good, altogether separate link on external links also because apparently, according to Kolzene this material was not readily available before. Now it is readily available to everyone on the Net from only a file objective perspective. (skip sievert 22:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC))


 * That would be a good solution in a world where copyright doesn't exist- we can't just take material from somewhere else and re-host it, particularly when there is no good reason to do so. The formatting is also significantly worse on the Google page- all of the spacing was lost, and the article is now one giant blob of text.--Wafulz 22:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the original file copy of this material. I can tell you who originally made that file if that interests you. It was not taken from 'somewhere else'. Also this is open source material besides. All Technocracy material is. You can`t be serious about the file not being attractive. It is ten times better and easier to read than the other. It also now has the original html layout that it should have had.(skip sievert 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC))


 * What original HTML layout? It's an essay. It's text. All you did was get rid of all of the spacing and add a Monad to the top left- it's effectively unreadable, particularly for people with poor eyesight. Also, I'm unsure about your claim that all technocracy material is open source- you should always double-check with a webmaster/author before going and re-hosting material. This is all getting off track anyway- there is no good reason to go through this process. It was fine on technocracy.ca.--Wafulz 22:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's find out what the source of the article is and if it's copyrighted or not. It's probably good form to ask for permission to use the article if it's not explicitly written. Although the technocracy.ca site does have a forum and chat room, I don't think it invalidates the entire site. However, look, this article is desperate for sources, let's tidy up the formating on the A Place To Live piece and host it third party if that makes people happy. Personally, I don't care if the article is hosted on a kiddie porn site, if the article itself is decent and doesn't have any direct links on the page itself to questionable content, then for God's sake, cite it! --77siddhartha 02:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have 'cleaned up' the before mention google based file as suggested by Sidd, and spaced it and ditched the monad. It is now 'third party hosted'. For some reason it did not translate from the floppy I have it on well. Now it looks good. http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_29n46jr9

A Place To Live In. Wilton Ivie Technocracy Digest Nov.1955. This 'Clean' and now easy to read file should be fine now to link, here and elsewhere. This now is only 'official' Technocracy Incorporated material.(skip sievert 17:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Energy certificates or energy accounting - not 'credit'
Really at odds with Technocracy ideas that someone is putting up the phrase energy credits multiple times in the energy accounting section. There are no 'credits' or 'debits' in the Technocracy system. Making reference to false economic terms will confuse any one who wants accurate info. There is no such thing as an energy credit in Technocracy. (skip sievert 21:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC))


 * More discussion on this topic is at Talk:Energy_Accounting. --77siddhartha 00:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

TTS(C)D - very confused
Technocracy: Technological Social/Continental Design -- what's the controversy? When I walked into a technocracy building many years ago, the first book on the brochure shelf was the TTSD. I hear from skip that now that book is controversial and not 'official' technocracy. What's going on here and why is there a reverting war of a link to this book in this article? Can we agree on the following points:


 * This article is in need of more sources
 * The Technocracy Study Course (TSC) was written near the beginning of the movement
 * The TTS(C)D was written more recently, sometime in the second half of the last century
 * There is considerable overlap between the TSC and TTSD
 * Movements can change through time (e.g. undergo splits, change directions, add content to their philosophy, remove content, etc.)
 * This article should document the Technocracy movement as a whole from conception to current day
 * This article should have as many sources as possible to Technocracy, even ones written later on in the movement, and any that maintain the original spirit of Technocracy

If, however, we cannot agree to this and the TTSD keeps on being taken down, what's the difference between me putting the TTSD back up and taking the TSC down because it doesn't represent the 'true', 'modern' view of the movement? I don't know what's going on in the article now, but HOLY SWEET EFFIN JESUS why is there so much controversy? --77siddhartha 00:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this seems like a confusing issue. It has confused many people including my self for a while until I had it explained to me by a member. I am sorry for the length of this rundown but this is a very important point and must be made here.

Here is a rundown of the Q&A,T.T.C.D.-Faq`s material, and why it should have never become a part of Technocracy literature. This material was written in 1975 and added to in 2004, both times by people that did not understand basic Technocracy concepts, and the reasons for the design ideas.

That discredited information has an appendix 1., where something called the Faq`s or frequently asked questions is a part of that material. That information which has been discredited as to its part in the Technocracy movement, now presents itself as an indictment against people promoting it as a part of the Design of Technocracy, which it is not.

That information is featured prominently on TechincWashingtons website, and also TecincCa`s website, and also some other splinter groups that are not connected to Technocracy ideas, but have a presence on the internet. That material has nothing to do with the Design of the North American Technate, or Technocracy concepts, or ideas. Instead it is Price System material in its origin, and not connected to the 'high' concept of Technocracy, as given in the Technocracy Study Course.

Putting this material out again, is attempting to introduce religious/belief issues and other disinformation, into the affairs of the organization, and that is against the by-laws of Technocracy, which are written very specifically as to introducing religious principle into the organization. Our by-laws forbid that. That was done to a purpose.

On page 58 of this material it asks, "What will become of children in a Technate?" answer, "Actually technocracy does not propose sweeping changes in the institutions of North American life" Technocracy does propose sweeping changes. That is obvious isn`t it? It is a scientific redesign of culture. Also on page 58, "Will there be divorce in a Technate?" This is an odd question to ask. Marriage is a contract, Divorce is the breaking of a contract. There are no contracts in a Technate. Contracts are pure Price System control mechanisms. What kind of a question then is this.? One that is purely confusing for anyone trying to understand the design, and why the design was formulated as it was, to insure against Price System controls.

Page 62, "What is Technocracy`s attitude toward religion and the church?

It says, " There is nothing in the program of Technocracy that would prevent people from joining together in a common project such as the erection of a place of worship. Whoever they might choose as their religious leader would probably be released from other functions to perform full time in that capacity." This is the disinformation aspect of this Q&A,T.T.C.D.-Faq`s material. Religions are a special interest belief system. If it cannot be measured, it does not exist , as far as functional governance. This information of church building in a Technate is like poison candy. Someone decided that this sounded good, and added it to the material. That was a mistake. Now that mistake is once again compounded. This Church building in a Technate concept has spawned a whole false branch of Technocracy issues that has had a negative effect, and brought many splinter groups into Technocracy that are really Political and Special Interest, Price System/belief oriented, and base much of their thinking on Sociological concepts and not Science. Sociology is considered akin to witchcraft or voodoo in the Study Course and mocked. Anthropological concepts on the other hand are given great treatment in Technocracy, and especially in the Study Course.

Special interests whether Political or Religious always deprive citizens of the rights and benefits of the resource base. Also Special Interests always aim at providing some group, more control over some other group of people, using the whip of abstract concepts of belief or sociological 'beliefs'.

Sidd, That material written after the death of Scott in 1970 would not have been allowed under his supervision. That material has 'ruined' Technocracy, and caused many older members to walk away from the organization. It is best not used here. It was written by a Scientologist and a few others that were trying to get power after Scott died and recently edited by people that do not understand basic Technocracy Concepts. Special Interest groups are specifically not allowed in a Technate to gain power. Science only is the standard. It is fact based. Although Wiki editors here endorse and promote this document it is way to controversial to post here, and actually detracts from the good material here. -Also it is not Technocracy material, but written to 'promote' or try to mainstream Technocracy. It has had the opposite, very negative effect of splintering Technocracy. It should be deleted forever. It is hoped that Techinc Washington will do that (skip sievert 05:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Okay, I have two questions regarding this:
 * Is this your personal argument or can it be sourced to documentation other than you own writings?
 * If it can, how can the issue be resolved given disagreement on the facts?
 * I have no problem if there is substantial group that holds your views, and as a compromise, I would include it in the article as a separate 'branch' of Technocracy. If, however, there are no other sources, being that the TTCD is published by Technocracy, I think that it should be left in. Either way, it should be left in, whether or not there needs to be a critique of it with respect to the original views of Technocracy, I will leave that for the editors to decide. I just don't want a bunch of material in the article disputing a document from Technocracy just because a few people disagree with it. --77siddhartha 05:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It has caused a whole separate group to divorce themselves from TechInc. That group is incorporated in the State of Minnesota, as Technocracy Incorporated CHQ 44.94 -93.29. We are a legal corporation. We are as legal as Techinc Washington. I am an agent of that group. I did not incorporate it. This was done in reaction to the TTCD Faq`s Q&A material. You can go here to get the email address of our headquarters if you are serious about your questions. http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/

Technocracy - The Design of the North American Technate. We are in the process of building our server currently, and expect to have a site up before long. That site will present our archived material which we possess, and also be based on the original document of the movement. (skip sievert 05:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Hi 77siddhartha, if I can, I'll try to make things a bit more clear. Some years ago, Skip Sievert was expelled from Technocracy Incorporated, and his membership revoked, I don't know all the details of it, but from what I can gather it was to do with his harassment of other members (similar, no-doubt to the type we've heard from him today). Skip's response to this was to go on an all out attack against Technocracy Incorporated, whilst still claiming to speak for it (or in his opinion, "Real Technocracy"...). Skip has become increasingly dogmatic in his beliefs about Technocracy, and now goes around the internet accusing anyone who disagrees with his interpretation, of being evil, corrupt, discredited (his favourite), scheming, dastardly, etc...(as you can see from his personal attacks of many people here and elsewhere). Skip's particular bend seems to be a complete rejection of any and all Technocracy material made after the 1934 edition of the study course, combined with several of his own personal ideas, such as a burning hatred for religion, etc.
 * Now, he has a personal enmity against Kolzene, the Webmaster of Technocracy.ca, for various reasons relating to his expulsion from the movement, as well as, apparently detesting him for his beliefs. This is of-course the main reason for his wish to see that site stripped from the article. As for NET, Skip hung out on their forums for a while, but was recently banned for endless trollish behaviour. Hence his hatred of them, and his attempts to eliminate NET from the page entirely. As for the TTCD, there is only one person in existence that is opposed to it, Skip Sievert. I've tried to explain this several times, the TTCD was created by Tech Inc. and is still used by them, it is one of there primary official documents and is accepted by all Technocrats, with the exception of Skip. This supposed discrediting or critiquing of it is entirely of his own invention.
 * I've been hearing Skip's rants for some time now, but I must say, the stuff that comes out of his mouth never ceases to amaze me. Now this latest attack against Tech Inc., calling them "TechincWashington", etc, is almost beyond belief, a rouge ex-member who is trying to set himself up as leader of a rival organization. Bizarre. These are just some of the reasons why I believe that Skip is incapable of making any valuable contribution to Wikipedia or to Technocracy. He is just far too biased to be credible, and I think his actions here speak to that. --Hibernian 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that skip seems to be a minority, unless he can present figures and facts about the membership of 'his' form of Technocracy, what weight should his view be given in accordance with WP:UNDUE? My vote is no weight. --77siddhartha 00:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Article name: proper grammar
I think the article name should be Technocracy movement instead of Technocratic movement. The movement itself was not technocratic -- i.e. 'technocratic' is an adjective. The same improper grammar is used when describing nutrition facts panels on food: should it be Nutritional Information or Nutrition Information. The information itself isn't nutritious, so the latter is proper grammar. --77siddhartha 00:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree 100% with you here sidd. The article is misnamed, and I suggest that we take your suggestion of Technocracy movement immediately. Please change it now. There is no question that the current name is improper, and I was going to make the same suggestion.(skip sievert 04:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Before I do, I would like at least one more response from a current editor of the article. --77siddhartha 05:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article can certainly be renamed "Technocracy movement", for the same reasons you cited. Indeed when I created a Category for all this stuff some time ago I named it | Category:Technocracy movement, in anticipation of changing the name of the article, just never got round to it. So sure change away, but remember you'll have to alter all the links to the article and make sure there aren't any double redirects, etc. (Like I did yesterday on Energy Accounting). --Hibernian 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, guys, looks like my account is too new to rename the page. I've tried changing my skin to get the quickbar to appear, but it doesn't :( Hibernian, since you have experience, would you be able to? Otherwise I can just post a move request. Thanks. --77siddhartha 00:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I found the document that sums everything up
Here it is. Skip, George Wright has done more for the Technocracy movement than perhaps any other member in the latter half of the 20th century. The man has been putting out the Northwest Technocrat publication for years and frequently would travel for hours from Washington to Aldergrove to participate in meetings. For you to assault him like that is absolutely unacceptable. The movement has simply been 'modernized' over time. Even if you disagree to that, information like the TTCD should be in this article anyways because this article is about the Technocracy movement, which is a movement that is currently going on today! If you want to create another article, like, the 'Technocracy fundamentalist movement', please go ahead. Let's PLEASE just focus on citations, facts, history, and clarity. If there is a controversy, let's build a section in the article about it. --77siddhartha 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You 'think' you have 'found' the publicly posted file, that I posted on your discussion page
 * And also the one that is posted all over the internet? That is a fine piece of non-detective work. Well I suggest you read that file again and turn your thinking cap on this time. I do not need a lecture about the 'meaning' of George Wrights actions from you. George Wright has destroyed the organization along with a couple of editors here, and others at Techinc Washing. I also think that your use of the term 'Technocracy fundamentalist movement' is ignorant and demeaning. I posit that you being a 'self styled expert' that bit off the whole thing, and has instantly digested it is a little comical. You are dead wrong in your appraisal. If anything those people are the ones that are more in the genre you are suggesting. Building church`s in a Technate ? Special Interest groups in a Technate. Kolzene wrote parts, and edited much of the Q&A, and according to wiki that is self generated, original conclusion stuff then, that is a form of 'advertising' and blog 'driving' to original conclusions. To say what they are doing is a movement is sad. There are two people there that self publish stuff, and have sucked in the unwary, who do not stay long.


 * Further more you imply that movement has made 'progress' over time and become more interesting and more representative of the current status of things. That is not true. Technocracy was thought out originally to a purpose by a handful of brilliant scientists. Your implication of fundamentalism is just plain 'stupid'. You say that you have not read the book for a while ?


 * Well I suggest you read the last two chapters with a view to opening your mind a little, and with a view to thinking about the design. I do not like self styled 'experts' that are not knowledgeable as to the information, except by pushing wiki buttons.


 * http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Technocracy%2520study%2520guide.pdf There were 200 to 300,000 people for a while that thought this was not only the way to go, but worked toward that end. Now there are 4 people on the NET site and Two people on the TechCa site that 'claim' they and their 'belief system', reward and punishment, 'contract', and church building, and referendum Democracy voting voting is 'smart', and should be 'believed'. That is not the design idea which guarded against special interest groups. That is what Democracy is. Special Interest control.


 * These people are ignorant. You sound ignorant now also. That is not a crime though.


 * Technocracy is important. It deserves to be fairly brought out. As to your suggestion about what I can do,... you suck, and so does the horse you road in on. Oh and I did not 'assault' anyone, I told the truth about George, and since when do you decide what is unacceptable ? You are an ignorant person, or perhaps a believer like them. You now lack credibility. (skip sievert 17:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Yup, you are dead right, 77siddhartha. As for the above tirade... Hehe, need I say more? --Hibernian 17:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tirade ? It is accurate information based on fact. How does it feel to be leading a 'movement' that involves one other person ? Another wiki editor who is your webmaster on TechCa Kolzene.(skip sievert 17:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Skip. Fundamentalism: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles. I can't take you seriously anymore; you are denouncing an entire body of work simply because of a couple extraneous questions in a brief Q&A. Does that not occur to you to be a tad irrational? (BTW, the whole NET thing is not affiliated with Technocracy, this is clear from official Technocracy sites, but I don't think that means it should be shed from the article as they are simply modifying the movement to make it work with Europe's resources.) --77siddhartha 19:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

On 'church building'
This 'church building' phrase has come up before. Does it mean something different than "constructing a church"? Am I missing some colloquialism here? Should we really care that *gasp* people can construct churches in a Technate?! Holy crap, we're talking about changing the fabric of society and the last few thousand years of habituation and someone wants to grind it to a halt because of a cross or a statue? --77siddhartha 09:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Its interesting to note that the idea of people clubbing together and putting their energy credits towards building churches is mentioned in Harold Loeb’s book ”Life in a Technocracy” published in 1933, so its not a new idea and has been around since Tech Inc started. Isenhand 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Church building in a Technate and other things. Sorry about the length of this but it is important.

If you are really interested in this page Sidd I suggest you do more research. You are missing the finer points of the design, and why the ideas were used the way they were used originally, and why those ideas must still be used. Otherwise we are talking about creating just another price system.

By the way in answer to Kolzene/Bill DesJardin the TTCD was never meant as a replacement or handy thing to use instead of the Study Course. The Study Course was going to be slightly edited and republished in about 1970/71. That is the reason they allowed the copyright to expire in the mid 60`s. Unfortunately Scott died and the project lost its focus, and a group of infighters managed to publish the TTCD. That is the true history of it. It has been a bane and divided the movement since.

Here is a rundown of the Q&A,T.T.C.D.-Faq`s material, and why it should have never become a part of Technocracy literature. This material was written in 1975 and added to in 2004/5, both times by people that did not understand basic Technocracy concepts, and the reasons for the design ideas. Those reasons were the prevention of special interest belief or political systems from capturing a future Technate. Technocracy is based on Science. Technocracy does not use abstract sociological concepts. Technocracy does not allow special interests of belief of say Church`s, Mosques, Wiccan meeting houses etc. to have a voice. None of those things are 'real' in terms of a good society. What people do in their own homes, or in the field, out the way is there business. If special interest groups begin building structures, then where would that end ?

A copy of the Technocracy-Washington's, Technological Continental Design has been discussed here. That discredited information has an appendix 1., where something called the Faq`s or frequently asked questions is a part of that material.

That information which has been discredited as to its part in the Technoracy movement, now presents itself as an indictment against people promoting it as a part of the Design of Technocracy, which it is not. That information is featured prominently on TechincWashingtons website, and also TecincCa`s website, and also some other splinter groups that are not connected to Technocracy ideas, but have a presence on the internet. (NET). That material has nothing to do with the Design of the North American Technate, or Technocracy concepts, or ideas. Instead it is Price System material in its origin, and not connected to the 'high' concept of Technocracy, as given in the Technocracy Study Course. Putting this material out again, is attempting to introduce religious/belief issues and other disinformation, into the affairs of the organization. That is against the by-laws. On page 58 of this material it asks, "What will become of children in a Technate?" answer, "Actually technocracy does not propose sweeping changes in the institutions of North American life"

Technocracy does propose sweeping changes. That is obvious isn`t it? It is a scientific redesign of culture.

Also on page 58, "Will there be divorce in a Technate?" This is an odd question to ask. Marriage is a contract, Divorce is the breaking of a contract. There are no contracts in a Technate. People are free to do as they please without a contract of enslavement by some 'authority'. Contracts are pure Price System control mechanisms. What kind of a question then is this.? One that is purely confusing for anyone trying to understand the design, and why the design was formulated as it was, to insure against Price System controls.

Page 62, "What is Technocracy`s attitude toward religion and the church?

It says, " There is nothing in the program of Technocracy that would prevent people from joining together in a common project such as the erection of a place of worship. Whoever they might choose as their religious leader would probably be released from other functions to perform full time in that capacity."

This is the disinformation aspect of this Q&A,T.T.C.D.-Faq`s material.

Religions are a special interest belief system. If it cannot be measured, it does not exist , as far as functional governance. This information of church building in a Technate is like poison candy. Someone decided that this sounded good, and added it to the material. That was a mistake. Now that mistake is once again compounded. This Church building in a Technate concept has spawned a whole false branch of Technocracy issues that has had a negative effect, and brought many splinter groups into Technocracy that are really Political and Special Interest, Price System/belief oriented. Special interests whether Political or Religious always deprive citizens of the rights and benefits of the resource base. Also Special Interests always aim at providing some group, more control over some other group of people, using the whip of abstract concepts of belief. - Different subject, but why can not people here get it through their heads that Energy Credits is a misnomer in regard to Technocracy ? Perhaps the only reason is the writings of Ross Murphy who wrote such long articles on the subject without understanding much about it ? He is not a member of the movement, and acts as Kolzene`s lieutenant and question answerer on their website ?

Debit follows Credit in logic. Economic terms do not apply in Technocracy. Energy credits have NO 'value'. (skip sievert 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Hello. *tap* *tap* *tap* Is this record broken? I think I have read your copy-and-pasted brain dumps now far too many times. You won't fool me now. I can see through your phony finger-pointing. You have zero argument here. You aren't even responding to what I wrote about. What the rabbits do energy credits have to do with church building? What does any of what you just wrote have to do with church building? Are you really attempting to present cogent material in your posts? This is total nonsense! Your only response is: "This information of church building in a Technate is like poison candy. Someone decided that this sounded good, and added it to the material." What is poisonous about it? How does it sound good? If it's added to the material, does that invalidate everything else? If I put a "Jesus loves you" bumper sticker on your car, are you going to torch it, drive it off a cliff, and never speak about your car again? Do you have any comprehension of logic? Are you actually going to write something different in response to this, or are you going to cut and paste something from your blog? --77siddhartha 06:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who still doesn’t understand Skip's motives

 * Ok, Wow, I've just seen this... Skip has gone and created this blog http://network-of-european-technocrats.blogspot.com/
 * I should first obviously state that everything on there was written by Skip (including the "comments" which appear in my name).
 * At the moment I'm still kind of in Shock that he would actually go this far, and now that I've recovered from laughing, I thought I'd show it to everyone here. (I was informed about it from the forums here )
 * This has got to be the most demented, childish, and bizarre attack on people I've ever seen. And this I hope will now prove, beyond any doubt, to everyone here what I've been saying all along, Skip is here because his is on a manic personal crusade against a few people (of which I'm apparently one now), he cannot be taken seriously by anyone, on Wikipedia or elsewhere.
 * As for the actual content, I don't know if making this sort of crazy attack is considered a personal attack on Wikipedia (since it's being made off-site), but if is obviously directly related to what's going on here and is blatantly a personal attack of the worst kind (not to mention the fact that it probably breaks several laws). I would say this has got to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, Skip has got to go, and go now. --Hibernian 02:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That page is far to well designed and thought out to be created by skip. --77siddhartha 06:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hibernian, don’t bother. The world as it is today faces a number of challenges from Peak oil to Global Warming to population pressure and  ecofoot print resulting from our unsustainable socioeconomic system. The technocracy movement both in the US and Europe offers an alternative socioeconomic system. One that balances societies needs with those of the ecosystem and builds a  sustainable system thought the application of science and  rational thought. Given the seriousness of the problem we face and the potential of a better society that technocracy offers, do we really want to waste time with irrelevances? We have far more important things to do to be bothered. Isenhand 08:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should a page be taken over by a cabal?
You know Sidd for someone that does not know much about the design ideas, you certainly have some strong opinions. Opinions do not go far though in a discussion of issues that were fact based, as Technocracy is.


 * My opinions are about your irrationality. Besides, you define a fact and give an example of an irrefutable fact (in a sociological context) and I'll be impressed. --77siddhartha 00:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sidd I do not jump through peoples performance hoops. In case you have not been listening Technocracy is based on Anthropological concepts and Science. Not Sociology. (skip sievert 02:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Actually, Technocracy is based on thermodynamics (physics), and sociology is a branch of science, not that that really applies here anyway. Please stop setting up strawmen. And how is providing facts jumping through "performance hoops"? It's how logic and Wikipedia work (not to mention Technocracy, as even you have pointed out). --Kolzene 05:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Kolzene, and you are misrepresenting the concept of Strawman here, or rather you are actually making a strawman argument your self, because you 'believe' in church building in a Technate, referendum voting in a Technate, Contracts in a Technate, etc. All sociological concepts, that do not apply to the real world of Technocracy and its ideas. These odd 'concepts' are sociological in nature. Sociology is the study of people being brainwashed a certain way, by aspects of the culture they happen to be born in.

Here is a direct quote from the Technocracy Study Course. The Technocracy Study Course is not the 'bible' as you have mistakenly referred to it. It does however make a series of points for a reason, and was written by the founders of Technocracy the way it was written for specific reasons. I suggest that you read the Technocracy Study Course, and I suggest the other posters that 'think' they understand the concepts in it also read it. This is an excerpt from page 213.

" So today the operation of our control mechanism, the control measures that must and will be adopted are those that most nearly conform to the technological operating requirements of that mechanism. These requirements can only be known by those who are intimately familiar with the technical details of that mechanism, our technically trained personnel ; though prior to there being a general recognition of this fact we expect to witness performances on the part of our educators, economist's, and sociologists, lawyers, politicians, and businessmen that will parallel the performances of all the witch doctors of preceding ages." end quote. Technocracy Study Course. I can easily mention some more quotes like this in regard to 'Sociology' in the Study Course. Sociology a Science ? Ha ha. Margaret Mead who was intimately involved in the Technical Alliance would get a good laugh at that. I do not think so. Again the Study Course was designed to make certain points for certain reasons, those being functional governance, without Price System Attributes. These points... are what Technocracy is. The watered down and ridiculously subjective stuff written in the TTCD is not related to Technocracy. (skip sievert 14:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Almighty power who knows all of Technocracy, but who cannot read our comments: you have constructed yet another strawman. I never said that Technocracy was based on sociology, neither did Kolzene. I simply wanted a fact that was something over and above "everyone dies" or something to that effect. Anyway, moot point. Kolzene pointed out that sociology was based on science, which is consistent with Technocracy 1) being based on science and 2) not being based on sociology. Maybe you don't understand what science is though... making hypothesis and then performing experiments to increase the likely hood of that hypothesis being true? That's what social sciences do too. If you study any sort of philosophy of science or epistemology, you will learn that science doesn't ever come close to uncovering facts and that it is all approximations. If you also study philosophy, you will also understand the concepts of logic and reasoning. I suggest you get studying. --77siddhartha 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sid I am not impressed. You are obviously working for Kolzene and gang. You can chew up and spit out that kind of nonsense all day, no doubt. (skip sievert 02:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I'm not working for them, although maybe I'm just under the witch's spell. Oh no! Perhaps I too should be creating a website to shame them. Philosophy is nonsense! Rationality is a bunch of crap! The TTCD should be burned! --77siddhartha 07:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your words betray you, to not be a serious person. (skip sievert 15:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Well said Isenhand. Except for the part of the Technocracy movement in Europe. A good starting place would be the rejection of the TTCD document, since that pretty much torpedoes any real Technocracy issues. That promotes values that are only thinly disguised Price System values. For some odd reason people here do not seem to get that Technocracy is not about twisted Sociological concepts. The design was made to a purpose.(skip sievert 17:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Skip vandalism
Unbelievable! Skip comes back from being blocked and what is the first thing he does? Commits vandalism, but deleting entire sections of the article, as well as continuing to put up the same idiotic edits which have been roundly condemned here. Needless to say I've reverted it, though I doubt that will be the last of it, unfortunately. --Hibernian 06:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this really must stop. I think we have exhausted all means at this point. --77siddhartha 06:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Skip
Just because the group of you have formed a team, and keep putting up the same stuff that has been written better by myself does not mean that you are 'right'. It just means that you have overwhelming numbers. I can understand that. Sometimes that is what is known as consensus at wikipedia. It does not matter really what I have pointed out due to that concept. My rewrite of the Energy accounting energy certificate section is accurate and reflects the actual concept. Hibernian has repeated the phrase energy credits in that section he wrote probably a half dozen times. Why ? I don`t know. It has nothing to do with the basic Technocracy ideas which are trying to be related here. It is a misnomer that clouds the concept of what energy certificates are. Also I took down the link to the TTCD. That is a redundant link. It is featured now prominently on the TechInc website with its own box to click on. I have explained in my edits why I took it off. NO one seems to care because a team of people is managing this article. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=63&func=view&catid=7&id=853#1399 Network of European Technocrats - Re:&amp;quot;War&amp;quot; on Wikipedia over Technocracy I - N.E.T. Forum I would have to say that this cabal has enlisted the service of Sidd, who also relates somehow to them. It is noted that a difference of opinion of appropriate material brings a rather strong accusatory response. Double standard ? I now posit again that the Net material is self published and self serving and does not really belong on the article page. I also wonder why the reference I have put up to Howard Scott, etc. have been taken down in deference to Techno Utopia type stuff. I could see someone tweaking my editing as Sidd did on the Technocracy Study Course page. What is happening on this page is wholesale control and censorship by a group of determined people who have special interests to promote. (skip sievert 16:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC))


 * I have no relation to any of these editors. I'm not a member of Technocracy nor its forums. I haven't been 'enlisted'. If you look at my edits in the article, you can see that they are trivial and don't touch anything controversial. I don't see why calling them certificates instead of credits is such a big deal, personally -- the terms are interchangeable as I have argued previously. I do think that the TTCD should have a direct link. I think that the NET stuff is valuable to mention in passing, and should be referenced with their own site (as Wafulz agrees). I also don't see how any of what I just wrote is controversial. --77siddhartha 18:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Skip, you realize that every serious reply in that thread is basically saying "don't bother editing the article we have better things to do"?--Wafulz 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The NET website can be used as a source to describe itself, but not much else. It does that in the snippet provided with a link to its main article. It does not need the external link to do that. People can click on the given article to NET.

Might does not make right. I have suggested that the TTCD written by Kolzene is not appropriate for a link here. It also has a special box on the TechInc site all to its self. To link it here in external links then is self promotion, and pointless. Its already linked. That is one example of the not-objective way this page is going (skip sievert 01:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Skip, as I have already posted here, I did not write the TTCD; it was first written before I could even read! My contributions since then have been relatively small and largely cosmetic. Please stop taking out your grudge against me on that document just because you dislike a very small portion of it. --Kolzene 07:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Kolzene, I do have a problem with the information presented in the TTCD. Word twisting is not of value here. I am not taking out a grudge on you. I have pointed out that the material that you edited is not appropriately a part of Technocracy material. That material is 'high concept'. The reason that the organization splintered is the TTCD. It promotes contracts divorce/marriage, it promotes referendum voting other than voting in a Technate, it promotes Church building in a Technate. That information spawned NET. It is sociological in nature and not anthropological.(skip sievert 04:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC))


 * The point is: even if the TTCD goes against the original Technocracy material with respect to small points (which I think those you mentioned are), should it be excluded entirely? Even if the TTCD went against a major point in the original Technocracy material (e.g. Continental Hydrology, which, by the way never considered salmon stock runs), should the TTCD be excluded entirely? I certainly hope not! As we have said time and time again, this article is lacking sources. The TTCD might not be the best source in the world, but it is certainly adequate in an article that is in dire need of validity. --77siddhartha 09:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And what exactly Skip, of what I have added to the TTCD, is inappropriate? The section on Urbanates? I believe that we already tackled that one. Or was it the "How to use this book?" Does that somehow go against "high concept technocracy", whatever that means? All you have been complaining about is the Q&A section which I made no additions to. Since I already pointed this out, it would seem that your claim to not be taking a grudge against me is spurious at best (to say nothing of the personal attacks you have made earlier). If you could provide any evidence at all for your claims that these "discredited" notions contradict Technocratic analysis or design, then please do. Use specific references please. --Kolzene 07:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)