Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 2

message: Is Skinner's Walden Two "technocratic like" science fiction? --florkle 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: cool. --florkle 04:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  walden two 

message: Skip was a member of Technocracy Incorporated in year 2003-2006, and was later on ostracised because of his anti-religious zeal and his equally fanatic adherence to every letter in the TSC, while lamenting everything newer than 1934. After his ostracism, he started a blog where he promoted his book (which by 80% is not his book). Everyone who is dissenting with him, he is trying to overrun. If the admin takes the patience to analyse Skip's edits, one could clearly see that for example his entries on NET (14-16th of May) was a pure and full vandalisation. Skip claims that he is the "rightful  successor" to Howard Scott, almost in a theological sense, but offers no arguments or even evidence, and that he is representing Technocracy Inc, when in truth, he is just a pundit with a blog. Either, he is a cunning manipulator, or suffer from delusions. I am sorry for saying this so harshly, but you will be able to observe that.Luxaquitaine 13:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Skip Sievert? 

message: This section was filled with information that is provided with the link that goes to that page, European movement. That is redundant.  It is noted also that the Technocracy Study Course states that membership in Technocracy, or Technocracy Incorporated which is what the movement is, which was designed only for North America, is not open to other than North Americans. It says that in the preface of the Technocracy Study Course, and it is arguable that this section should even be here, and I may end up pressing that point later. What the Europeans are doing is not connected to the original ideas of Technocracy. They say themselves on their blog, that they are an independent, group with a very different philosophy. Mention of a Skype conference is uncalled for. Product placement it would seem. Is this section really viable at all, and should it not be just a reference point as a link to their site, and the other article ? It is information that is repeated at the link here at the section top. Also the members that operate the NET site are all editors here, and this information is self generated to drive traffic to their blogging site TechEU the NET chat site. This section still contains way to much detail for a parent article. It should be pared down further.  (skip sievert 05:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If another organization used as their basis, the information from the Technocracy Study Course then I would agree. If they do not, then I would disagree. There are many groups now that use energy accounting as a basis for their ideas. Books based on ideas from material by Buckminster Fuller for instance mention energy accounting. Technocracy however is based on the material from the Study Course, and in that sense, it may be an issue to even have a European Movement section on this page at all, as that movement is a separate group from the original group that still exists, and has not splintered. (skip sievert 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Isen, you're asking a bit of a two-pronged question. The sub-section on the NET is long enough as it is- the movement is roughly 70 or 80 years old, and this organization was founded in 2005. Any information about the NET should go in its own article. As for the movement in general in Europe: if there is documentation about it, feel free to add it. If you feel there is a substantial amount of material documenting a movement in Europe based on Technocracy, you could probably create a subsection in "History" called "Movement in Europe" or something similar. --Wafulz 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not my "ruling"- I'm not some God-king. It's just what I (from my experience) think the external links should look like. Anyway, they don't need to be blocked or anything like that. I can just put a polite hidden comment in the source of this page. Also skip, stop using horizontal lines to separate your comment. Indents are much easier to follow in most cases. --Wafulz 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I will try to remember to stop that. Any and all please remind me if I do it. (skip sievert 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  European Movement 

message: Technocracy.ca is an excellent resource and more pedagogic than Tech.org. 
And NET is an officially registered technocratic movement. Our official site and our forum is one and the same. To refer to them as chat pages are ignorant, since the pages contain very much information whereas the official tech.inc page do not contain much.80.244.71.246 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just pared down this article again into this edit. I would suggest this is probably an ok version. I would prefer this section would no longer exist, as it is not really pertinent here to the Techncracy movement...The user above has not read your previous edit apparently wafulz (skip sievert 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NET and Tech.ca 

message: This is a comment by Isenhand and a response by myself, on wafulz discussion page, and reflects back to issues on this article page. 
:You also appear to have some confusion on what the technocracy movement actually is. The technocracy movement predates Technocracy Inc. and the study course. During the 1930s there was a number of technocratic organisations in the US and in Europe all promoting one form or another of “rule of the skilled” (which is the central characteristic which defines something technocracy). The only one to survive that time was Technocracy Inc. which is still around in the US and NET represents a new part of the movement in Europe, although it is not part of Tech Inc. not formal associated with it. You might find it interesting to read some of the early books on technocracy mentioned on the technocracy movement page to gain a better understanding of technocracy and realise that technocracy is not confined to one organisation and one document. Isenhand 07:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isenhand I do not need a lecture from you about your rhetorical perceptions. Also a discussion like this would be better put on the page discussion page in question. I will say that your statement above is wholly inaccurate and not credible. The Technocracy movement is obviously based on the Technocracy Study Course and the information from the Technical Alliance Your mention of 'rule of the skilled' also does not jive with the definition of Technocracy, except on your blogging site NET. Your opinion is not a definition of something. No one 'rules' in a Technocratic society. It is 'administration by science'. I read the books in question you mention. There is no connection to the claims you are making. (skip sievert 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I am posting both comments here (skip sievert 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would appeal a restoration of the previous edits by myself. The user above is a vandal that has not payed attention to the debate here. Also a smack bot is being employed to vandal the page. 
I appeal directly to Wafulz to stop the group that is doing the vandal attack here on my edits. I had nearly gotten the page up to date except for the Critisisms of the Movement section which I was going to work on today. Now I see all my editing has been dumped by the anon user above that has not paid any attention what so ever to previous suggestions and changes by the administrator.(skip sievert 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have remade previous edits. The section on Criticism of the movement still needs to be redone. It is the worse thing on the page now. I will work on that today or tomorrow.
It is noted again that the user 130.239.156.94 is a vandal in my estimation and should be stopped from further damaging this page again. This person has disregarded the page discussion as to the expansion of the NET article. This person added wiki articles also that have no bearing on Technocracy movement in the suggested section. Jacques Fresco and Venus project for instance. That group states very loudly that they are not a part of Technocracy movement in their information. I also think the urbanate article created by Hibernian , or Ross who is Icarus on the TechCa blogging site and a editor here has no business being a wiki link, or even article here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. That article is unsourced , written by him, and what sourcing it does have comes from a blogging site that he and Kolzene run in. I have rewritten that area to conform with mainstream ideas about urban planning that are considered mainstream technocracy concepts from the material by Techinc. That material has been around for 40 years.  I gave detailed explanation for the changes I have made and why they were made in all of my edits, previously. (skip sievert 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A content dispute is not vandalism. I've reverted the pertinent information on the NET. It briefly and clearly states the foundation, goals, and differences. --Wafulz 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well you've argued yourself that the two organizations are completely distinct- it doesn't make sense to simply say "these two are different" and then leave it at that. --Wafulz 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. I have just reedited your edit a little to try to make it more objective. It was worded just slightly like Net has made some remarkable improvement to ecology thinking somehow. That is not true and left the perception that the people they got the basis of their ideas from were lax in that dept. Reality is the original group were and are at the forefront of the ecological movement. You can check our briefs as to multiple articles on every aspect of ecology. So this claimed distinction is not true. That is what I meant. 
Check articles from archived materials. http://www.Technocracyinc.org/ look under archived articles, which talk extensively on ecological issues. 
I have just changed a sentence here to reflect that a little. Tell me what you think. I am only trying to be neutral here, and present things that way. (skip sievert 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  response to comment by Isenhand