Re: Secrecy?

["Peter Nicol - VRL / BroomStick Productions" <nicol@highway1.com.au>]

> >Hmmmm . . .
> 
> >After following this list for a while I offer the following  observation:
> 
> >"Would it be better to DEMAND the full disclosure of the governments 
> >secrets rather than scramble around trying to keep ours."
> 
> >I am prepared to allow governments full access to my 
> >communications when they allow me full access to theirs.
> 
> Well I for one am not.
> 
> What the government does is our business as they work for us. We have
> every right to DEMAND full acess to what they are doing.
> 
> The government does not have the right to access to what it's citizens are
> doing.
> 

Hmmm . . . "The Govenment" or "GovernmentS" . . . perhaps a fine 
point.

> This is a simple boss-employee relationship and the government is *NOT*
> the boss.

Ugly!  I do not enter into boss-employee relationships as either the 
boss or the employee.  I work/play WITH people FOR people as a node 
in the network, not a part of the heirarchy.  Ummm . . . You seem to 
have missed/not quoted the other part of my post.





Peter Nicol
Global Media Magnet
nicol@iap.net.au
019 111 943 (OZ)

"Nonlinear models differ form linear ones in a number of ways.  
Rather than trying to figure out all the chains of causality, 
the modeler looks for nodes where feedback loops join and tries 
to capture as many of the important loops as possible in the 
system's "picture."  Rather than shaping the model to make a 
forecast about future events or to exercise some central 
control, the nonlinear modeller is content to perturb 
the model, trying out different variations in order to 
learn about the system's critical points and its homeostasis 
(resitance to change).  The modeler is not seeking to 
control the complex system by quantifying it and mastering 
its causality; she wants to increase her "intuitions" 
about how the system works so she can interact with 
it more harmoniously." 
- Turblulent Mirror