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? >