@ Brent: 

Question: Assuming "unilateral" changes will be acceptable to all?  

Answer:  No.  I assumed they would not be.  Which is why a put them in a new camp that is easy to edit.   Turns out someone has already joined in support of that new camp, and.... instead of whining about it.... they already edited it.  You could have done that.

Question:  Assuming "there is no need to edit this camp" makes it true for everyone?

Answer:  No.  I assumed "there is no need to edit this camp" was likely true for those who have already indicated their support, as is... and who have not responded to your suggestion amidst your hypocritical negative judgment (go figure).   

Seems reasonable, since there is no need for anyone to edit this camp to get their alternate view published.  Unless, like in this insidious scenario, one's larger goal is to displace something that shames them and exposes their comparatively inferior ethics and reasoning, so it is harder to find buried unnecessarily under a so called "super camp".   Is that your goal?  Because it is starting to seem that you have far more interest in burying our legitimate view, than publishing your own.... just like in this scenario.

You express concern for the ease of the readers in clearly seeing both views and where they are the same and where they differ.   I think we've made that very easy with cross links.  I also think that is what your concern is really all about.  That it's TOO EASY for readers to discover the comparative difference between the comparative ethics represented.  Yeah, I'd be ashamed too, and want to bury the comparative difference if I were proposing tolerance for reckless disregard for accuracy and fairness in communication, like you are.   

Sadly, in the view of some, the appearance of credibility is best maintained by lowering the standard and obscuring their conduct and proposals.  While for others, actual credibility is best maintained by holding themselves to a higher standard so they can be worthy of the perception (trust) they hope for.

I guess you are presuming these unilateral changes will be acceptable to all, and that your assertion that "there is no need to edit this camp." makes it true for everyone?  Do you care that what you are doing may be frustrating to what others want?

And you see no problem with doing it this way, compared to what I was proposing? (ie, the way it has been done makes it appear that there is less consensus than there really is on certain duplicated doctrines unless readers make significant extra effort to read both versions of the two, trying to figure out what is and isn't duplicated and agreed on?)

There is no need to edit this camp.  Those who support it support it as is.   A Downgraded competing communication camp has been set up here for those whose ethics are not sufficiently refined to support this one.

It’s been over 24 hours since I requested the removal of doctrines I disagree with, and removing things people disagree with in supper camps, and pushing them down to supporting sub camps is common canonizer decency which enables all points of view to be fully represented.  If this is not done, there is no way for people who disagree with only those doctrines to support what they do agree with, in the super camp.  Not pushing such down to lower level sub camps, as requested, prevents one of the most important methods of consensus building which is keeping what people do agree on in the emerging consensus supper camp.  So, I’m going to assume you will not object to me removing the previously mentioned paragraphs.

I also intend on removing the link to the camp forum that was added later.  Everyone knows that there is already a link to the camp forum page, making it redundant.  If you want to ask opinionated questions like: “Canonizer Executive advocates reckless disregard for accuracy in camps?” in reference to this camp forum, you are welcome to add that to your own camp.  It is my belief that most people will see me pointing out that I was not advocating for reckless disregard for accuracy in camps, as was presumptuously asked, and agree with me in my answer to that question in the negative.

Brent, 

Been tied up with other business.  Not ignoring your message (although the disrespectful passive aggressive not-so-plausibly deniable and completely hypocritical and unfounded "negative interpretation" in it certainly deserves to be ignored).  Will get back to you as soon as I can with a more thoughtful and direct response.

Meanwhile, we (a number of us) came to this system having heard some pretty disturbing things about how you people behave.  We came to see for ourselves.  I must say, the passive aggressive disingenuous spirit you demonstrate, amidst feigned "humility" and "charity" is beyond what was described.  

You have completely validated other's observations about your own behavior, and then some... and further validated your own painfully deficient insight into the reality of your own passive aggressive hypocrisy and duplicity.

Thank you for so effectively contributing to our research about you and the Canonizer team.

Back to you later on your proposal related questions.

Hi Maria,

No, I am not advocating reckless disregard for accuracy and fairness.  This is a good example of a negative interpretation of sets of facts (fact: I am asking to have these statements removed).  There are many more positive possible interpretations.  One of which is that I simply don’t value making negative interpretations of facts.  Where possible I seek to find positive interpretations.  In my opinion, it is very rare when someone actually has reckless disregard for accuracy and fairness.  And even when they do, it is usually because of some other mitigating circumstances, like they may be suffering from neural problems.  I see no reason for one to be so negatively judgmental like this, right out of the gate, so this is not a value of mine.

I’m trying to find a better way to interpret this response as something other than you holding what I want (the statements to be removed from a super camp) hostage, in an attempt to force me to get Jim Bennett (my other partner, besides Park) to do something.  It is a fact that had one of the supporters of this camp just made the requested change, progress would have already been achieved.  Is there a better possible interpretation of this lack of progress?  Would you object to me removing them?

Let's just make crystal clear what you are asking and why you are asking it.

So, you are now advocating reckless disregard for accuracy and fairness in camps?

Will you please ask your partner, Jim Bennett to go on record in this forum endorsing such a preposterous position, so we know exactly where he stands on this too?

This is saying much more than I wanted to say in a communication super camp that includes what we can all agree on.  Most of it I can take, but these two lines I can’t support:

“Certainly, the skill and effectiveness with communication will vary and imperfection should be reasonably tolerated and overlooked where such is innocent. However, reckless disregard for accuracy and fairness should never be tolerated.”

And

“The Canonizer loses all credibility and becomes a forum that fosters wasted efforts and disrespect for people's time and attentiveness where reckless inaccuracy or unfairness is encouraged or tolerated, even in proposals or brainstorming.”

Would it be OK, if you guys remove those statements, and push those doctrines down to your sub camp, enabling you to support it in your camp, and so so I can support this camp, containing what we agree on, without that stuff that I don’t agree with?

Then I’d be able to support this camp, and also create a competing sib camp to your camp, containing this and other stuff we disagree on?