Newsmedianews | Ecademy "networking"?

The page cannot be displayed
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be experiencing
technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser settings.
It might also be that someone in their infinite wisdom has decided to censor the Ecademy
website for practicing discriminate censorship.
If you really wish to visit the site, you will have to type http://www.ecademy.com
into a browser window.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

Click the Refresh button, or try again later. Give up and feed the dog.

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

To check your connection settings, click the Tools menu, and then
click Internet Options. On the Connections tab, click Settings. The
settings should match those provided by your local area network (LAN)
administrator or Internet service provider (ISP).
See if your Internet connection settings are being detected. You can set
Microsoft Windows to examine your network and automatically discover
network connection settings (if your network administrator has enabled this setting).
Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options.
On the Connections tab, click LAN Settings.
Select Automatically detect settings, and then click OK.
Some sites require 128-bit connection security. Click the Help menu and then click
About Internet Explorer to determine what strength security you have installed.
If you are trying to reach a secure site, make sure your Security settings can support it.
Click the Tools menu, and then click Internet Options. On the Advanced tab, scroll to
the Security section and check settings for SSL 2.0, SSL 3.0, TLS 1.0, PCT 1.0.
Click the Back button to try another link.

Cannot find server or DNS Error
Internet Explorer

go back

Separating the brains from the business ostriches and internet vultures
Published Monday, 24 April, 2006 — updated Tuesday, 23 February, 2016 4:57 AM
by site editor Keith Harris

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for the good people to do nothing!”

Ecademy.com describes itself as “a Social Business Network founded in 1998 with over 70,000 members worldwide. Our cause is cause to build the world's premier Trusted Network, connecting business people to share knowledge, contacts, support and transactions”.

The description continues: “We are not building a "chat-room" or a social club; we are building a serious business network. However, to build a strong business relationship, you must first gain trust from one another through having a personal relationship, this is critical before you can expect to move onto a relationship where a transaction or a referral can take place. Networking is not selling or personal promotion, it is about building a group of people whom you understand and help and in turn they may one day help you.”

It is necessary here to identify the meaning of the above words. Is building a relationship something that is open ended, or it is building a relationship that by dictate must adhere to someone else‘s expressed views of what they consider such a relationship should consist of?

If one thing is clear, unless of course you are the equivalent of a human ostrich or an internet vulture, is that surely an attack of any nature that destroys one of the world's foremost business centres, such as the New York World Trade Centre, whether it be by terrorist or any other malevolent human action, has and will have by direct implication an impact on all and every business and non-business person on the planet.

To deny that is simply to bury one’s head in the sand.

With this ethos to mind, a native German speaking member of Ecademy who joined the web-based organisation in 2003 and who currently resides in the UK posted a question on the Ecademy website blog pages. His post concerned an article I had published here on this site on the events of 9/11 and matters related to 9/11 since. He sought the open-minded views of fellow networkers regarding the many unanswered questions and doubts now surrounding the events of 9/11, in the main probably spurred by the highly dubious official explanations of the crash of flight 77 into the Pentagon, the mysterious collapse of WTC building 7 and the Twin Towers themselves.

Within a short space of time, his post solicited more responses and views than the majority of posts ever submitted to Ecademy. Sadly, a number of the responses degenerated into petty snide remarks directed against the author of the post, who then made several genuine but unsuccessful attempts to respond to such facetiousness.

As a result, instead of welcoming open and honest debate, the operators of Ecademy decided to berate the author of the post for submitting something they deemed “ill fitting” to their website and contrary to the “interests of their members”, to which I add the point that he was himself then a paid member of an organisation that requests members pay the princely sum of up to £2,500 [post-editing addendum] to be a lifelong ‘gold star’ member of what to some viewpoints appears to be nothing grander than a self appointed clique elite operated by selfish, financially motivated individuals at the helm.

The Internet is a free open resource, barring the ability to pay your connection costs. Building any relationship of trust requires that it be worked upon. To pursue a pathway that essentially means devolving as broad a network as the world wide web into a cost-for-entry clique that to all intents shuns those who cannot afford the entry fee is strange, to say the least.

However there are some matters that now require greater clarification. This issue appears to have become confused and distorted by those who chose not to focus their attentions on the issues raised by the ecademy posts, but instead chose to vent their ill-feeling and prejudice against the poster. Perhaps those who run Ecademy should turn their attention to this, which lies at the crux of this issue, and not to the topic of the post itself. Controversy is not subversive, as many appear to believe it is. It is simply another point of view, one that differs from the common held view. It is a “discussion in which opposing views are expressed”.

Interestingly, Wikipedia states: “A controversy is a contentious dispute, a disagreement in opinions over which parties are actively arguing. Controversies can range from private disputes between two individuals to large-scale social upheavals. Controversies in mathematics and the sciences are generally eventually solved. It is the nature of controversies in the humanities that they cannot generally be conclusively settled and may be accompanied by the disruption of peace and even quarreling. ...”

The issue here in the question of Ecademy and its actions against Herr Schenkelberg is that the issue has effectively been reversed after the outbreak of quarrelling and argument by those who decided not to tackle an issue but to attack the person and the integrity of the poster. Perhaps Ecademy should now be honest enough to reappraise its own stand in these matters.

There are I am certain those who will be annoyed by my observations. There may be those who are offended. I make no apology nor any retraction for these observations, for what I have seen has likewise offended me.

In publishing this article, I have been accused of being someone who holds a grudge. To such accusations, I throw a grin to the wind.

There is a matter of free speech at the crux of this issue. Business interests are important, yes. However, they necessarily revolve on the fulcrum of the presence of the very freedom to do business. Once we turn our backs on the ethics of freedom, we pave the way towards fascism.

So be it Ecademy. You called the shots, you must now reap the flak. It is a disappointment that such an impasse has been reached. We await any further development with interest.

As I began this article, so shall I end it.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for the good people to do nothing!”

Bõrhd Hooligan comments on the arguments Previous Page

r

Separating the brains from the business ostriches and internet vultures Published Monday, 24 April, 2006 — updated Tuesday, 23 February, 2016 4:57 AM by site editor Keith Harris

Separating the brains from the business ostriches and internet vultures
Published Monday, 24 April, 2006 — updated Tuesday, 23 February, 2016 4:57 AM
by site editor Keith Harris