Strange... every now and then I see on this list a reply from someone
to one Adam's message: isn't he on this list, or does he just not
want to talk to the rest of us? ;)

Adam (if you read this,) your input/comments to the LSE survey sound
really interesting. Could you share a copy with your junior
councillor? this would be a work of public health/salubrity from your
part!

Mawaki

--- Milton Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I've just reviewed the report and in fact what I saw contains all
> the
> data and text. So presumably they only want me to question or
> discuss
> ncuc-related stuff, which I did. But really I could (and did)
> address
> anything. Based on what I read, they have some useful data and
> interpret
> it in a relatively balanced way, although there are instances where
> one
> can  infer that pressure has been placed on them to interpret
> certain
> things in certain ways, especially in cases related to the BC.
> You'll
> see what I mean when the report comes out.
> 
> >>> Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 9/4/2006 6:05 AM >>>
> 
> 
> At 5:29 AM -0400 9/4/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >A well-done summary of the situation, Adam. You are one smart guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks prof.
> 
> I hope LSE's raw research data and some kind of fuller/background 
> report will be made available.  It's not that I don't trust anyone,
> 
> and I don't believe a group from a place like LSE could be bought
> off 
> (anymore than a reputable US university located in a chilly part of
> 
> upstate NY could), but this stuff does sound like it's getting a 
> little narrowed. Person(s) controlling the TOR have a great
> influence 
> on the output.
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >No, to be less cynical, I presume that the constituency will
> "request"
> >that the changes be made and the LSE group will decide whether to
> make
> >the requested changes. The issue is whether that decision comes
> after
> a
> >few beatings and trips to Guantanamo.
> >
> >>>>  Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 9/2/2006 4:08 AM >>>
> >So.  Let's say I think a particular constituency is completely
> >useless: captured, undemocratic, not transparent ...  basically a
> >sham of what a constituency should be.  I've responded to the LSE
> >survey, sent comments, etc.  Tried to provide good clear
> criticism.
> >
> >Now my comments, and perhaps many many similar comments, will be
> >"corrected" by a single person from that constituency?
>