This site was archived on 24 April 2012. No new content can be posted. The mailing list remains online and the site will stay in this archived state for the forseeable future. If you find any technical errors on the site, please contact Callum.

Scared by OpenCouchSurfing?

I’m sorry to read Doogie posting to be scared of OpenCS. Two short points:

  • Everything you post publicly on the internet will be read by many people. This can be scary, but it’s better to realize this every time you post something. (I don’t even do this myself.)

“I’m sure that if the people behind openCS would visit us for only 1 day they would be so amazed by the work we are doing right now they would  close down their site. I know I would.”

  • Dude, I spent months and months at Collectives. I know how it works and I won’t close down the site. It seems that even people who knew about our critique still become volunteers for CS, and then later quit for the same reasons “we” all quit. This also means that many people don’t even become volunteers for CS because of this site and their effort and time is not wasted on CS.

And I’m sure more points will pop up in the comments…

25 Responses to “Scared by OpenCouchSurfing?”

  • Kasper, I am talking about losing credibility and the absurdity of using extremely subjective information out of its context to discredit couchsurfing. It tells a lot more about the people doing it than about couchsurfing.
    Some of you guys make a joke out of opencs by doing this all the time.

    And ‘dude’, thats exactly my point, right there. Just because you know how it was in past collectives you think you know how it is going right now(as if nothing would ever change). *sigh*. Well, it tells all about your frustrations about Couchsufing in the past and completely nothing about how the collective has evolved in a very positive way learning from its mistakes now.

    Last thought, if I write something good about the collective in my blog would you also post it here?

  • @ Doogy

    4 quick answers:

    “the absurdity of using extremely subjective information out of its context to discredit couchsurfing.”

    Nobody is trying to discredit CS. If you think people here are on the wrong path, fair enough, but “discrediting” feels like the myth of “OCS wants to destroy CS”.
    As OCS is not an organization I by the way often don’t agree with stuff written here; we all have different opinions.

    “Last thought, if I write something good about the collective in my blog would you also post it here?”

    Yes, of course.
    CS should really stop thinking OCS wants to destroy.
    Anyway as said OCS doesn’t exist as an organization, this is an open site where everybody can post his/her opinion.
    So first, I want to draw your attention to Kapar’s post “Casey Fenton needs to stay”, which he wrote to balance more and compare it to the agressive post of zakor. Quite different, huh?
    And secondly you are free to post yourself on this blog, maybe with an introductionary note who you are. You are writing “would you also post it here?”, but there is no “you” you’re adressing to. It’s an open site, feel free to contribute.
    Seriously, stop being paranoid about the OCS site. Of course you can post stuff here and of course we are happy about positive developement- because that’s what this site is seeking: Developement (and not, as said, “discrediting” or even “destroying”).

    If there is positive developement- why doesn’t anybody hear from it? Bewelcome had a blog about their Conference and everybody can take part in the Conference.
    CS doesn’t, except a little newsletter saying “We did great work for you!” once in a while. I don’t see anything in the wiki. The informational public group is half empty. People wanting to take part in a Collective get chosen. There is still this secrecy about everything. How am I supposed to know stuff is getting better? I want transparency.
    If I’m wrong about a fact in this third point, please correct me.

    It lies in the logic of an open critic platform like OCS that sometimes there is bullshit posted or stuff I disagree with. Honestly sorry for that. But what is YOUR solution? Not critic at all? CS volunteers are doing great work, so nobody should critisize them anymore? And please don’t say “people should critisize internally”, because that is exactly what former volunteers posting here did before resigning their job, it’s not like they were listened to a lot. So, as said, your solution? To shut up?

    But as said: Feel free to post on OCS! I’m interested in ANY opinion! :-)

    Best Regards

  • thanks everyone

    and Doogy, thanks to you especially for your awesome blog. i know you mainly are keeping it out there for your family and friends, but I appreciate your sharing it with the rest of us stuck in the gray, cold northern mid-latitudes (just began snowing here!)…I felt a little of the tropics creep in when I saw your photos; thank you.

    I agree that some people who post can be a little weirdly invested with the spying, lurking, etc. they give the impression that they would like to dig dirt, no matter how untruthful, and expose CS in a Michael Moore gotcha moment of triumph…and that’s unfortunate because, not only does it make them look like morons….but I’m sure that the vast majority of OCS and CS posters are not so obsessed…just curious…and you’re right: perhaps a little jealous and bored.

    which brings me to my main point: I learned more from your blog about the collective, and felt more reassured by what I saw and read there, than any of the official channels of communication set up by CS. not good. As Michel said, if there are positive developments, why don’t we hear of them? this is really the only complaint that I have about CS…the very poor dialog with general members who, despite your pleas for us to mind our own business, have paid for the collective. I understand that collective participants are taking a financial hit themselves by volunteering (big thanks, truly)….and that they use only their own money for non-work activities…but that is their choice. If the only info we all receive are posted photos of how collective participants spend their free time, with no accompanying explanation…then general CS members cannot be blamed for thinking of the collective as an ongoing party and pleasure trip…which of course is untrue.

    some measure of reporting on progress is very genuinely due to members other than just an outdated newsletter. we have no current way of evaluating the effectiveness of the collective effort other than grapevine insinuation and gossip…all of the dirt-digging would immediately stop with clear communication and publicized lists of target objectives and dates….with honest critique attached. I personally have decided to withhold any donations to CS until this is addressed.

    additionally, I understand the feeling of ‘why in the hell should I communicate with a bunch of people who are endlessly critical of what hard work/effort I put out?’ and I agree: that it becomes very frustrating to keep the positive spirit to confront problem-solving creatively in the face of attacks, both personal and professional. the barrage of negative statements is difficult to take day after day.

    But this is the heart of what many of us are currently asking ourselves: is CS a legitimate organization or not? if yes, then CS leaders have an obligation to answer the questions and critiques of their general members, no matter how farfetched. the temptation to only answer to friends asking polite questions should be avoided…because it looks bad and undercuts the effectiveness of the good work being done for free by volunteers like yourself.

    The ability to deal effectively with difficult members is truly one of the less fun aspects of any management job…but forms the basis for any mature person’s, or legitimate organization’s, sense of purpose and identity…how we handle ourselves when the praise stops.
    Best wishes on a continually productive and fun few months…chok dee! (thai for good luck!)

  • Two more points sprang to my head, I’m go on putting numbers in front of them, makes it easier to anser to the different points ;) :

    You’re blaming this platform to discredit CS and being negative, but…isn’t your blog not the same about OCS, is it not “negative about OCS and trying to discredit it”?
    “No” I would say, as you’re just expressing your opinion and your concern, like people on OCS do. This is fair enough and I respect that.
    But how can you complain about the style of some people on OCS if you write in the same style?
    You write in your blog:
    “On my first visit I saw that subjectiveness, boredom and ignorance where rampant on that site. It exhausted blind destructive negativity towards the couchsurfing team based mostly on misinformation, twisted logic on incomplete knowledge of whats going on or just plain stupidity or jealousy.”
    Isn’t that a very subjective view from you and generalizing about OCS? Isn’t that exactly the style and tone you blame some people on OCS for?
    Man, if you publically set standards, you should live up to them.

    As much as I agree (!!!) with you that the people writing on OCS should also take in account positive stuff happening on CS, as much you should be able to take in account positive stuff happening on OCS, otherwise you make for a pretty nice hypocrite. Neither you nor people on OCS own the truth.

    I want to point out that I don’t “believe” everything I read on OCS; this wouldn’t make sense anyway, as the people posting here sometimes have opinion opposing each other.
    I read the different opinions and point of views and try to make up my own mind; this is why I also appreciate your postings, they make for a more balanced view.
    This is what this site should be in my opinion: A platform.

  • Thank you for this reply guys. I will see what I can do about it. I’ll get back on your comments later and write some more random stuff about the collective in my blog knowing all this. I start to like (some of) you guys :d

  • @ Margaret

    As usual, a fantastic post, right on the point. My posts look shamefully uninteresting next to yours.

  • @ doogy

    Thanks to You for your view.
    There is nothing better than an open and honest discussion.

    And as Margaret said, I do understand your anger if there are things written on OCS you consider untrue. But as said, I see OCS as a critical platform with different opinions, so I’d be happy to see you posting more often (and I will keep an eye on your blog).
    Furthermore, as Margaret said, even if some people posting here might be frustrated a bit, the main line is that we want to improve Couchsurfing (the “how” and the tone depends on the different opinions of the people posting here).
    Even if you disagree I hope you will be able to stop thinking people on OCS want to destroy.

  • If casey and the Lt would just publish a blog and be OPEN about the collective .Now one would have to go looking for information about the collective.
    And doogie it does become the business of the member of couchsurfing . The collective is NOT for a selective few .

    What do you mean none of your business? When casey published the figures from the collective we will see how much was spend (like you said on your blog “we spend our own money “) so that would mean the expenditure should be like 0$ ?

    And why are you so secretive about what you did at the collective?
    Did you contribute anything at all to improve couchsurfing?

  • “I’m sure that if the people behind openCS would visit us for only 1 day they would be so amazed by the work we are doing right now they would close down their site. I know I would.”

    Why would all everyone want to spend money on a ticket to thailand to know about the collective?
    If it is so amazing why are you not sharing your experiences about it?

  • @Doogy et al

    I have more than my fair share of CSC experiences. And what I saw there and how progress was not made even though plenty of people were pointing out the most obvious flaws is exactly why I’m writing here now.

    It’s all been said many times before (my goodbye letter might give some insight), so I’ll spare you from another rant. Just that now that it’s all over for me, the bitterness of the aftertaste stems mostly from the feeling of having been deceived (the backroom deals, and being lied to my face, to name some things) – which in my (Finnish ;) ) books is the gravest form of hurting another person.

    As for “you’d know if you were here”: would definitely help trusting this time things are different if the efforts were publicized in a meaningful manner (not per-month newsletters, which are barely more than PR). And guess what: the major goal of many many past CSC folks was to make this happen… yet another thing where the past clearly hasn’t taught anyone anything.

  • @Doogy

    CS Leadership has made three key decisions that stronly influence the way they have to be judged:

    1st. attempt to go for a “proper” 501c3 (when how etc can be ignored now)
    2nd. accept Payments from Members (the claimed purpose can be ignored now aswell)
    3rd. hire full time employees

    these three key items are enough to judge cs on a professional basis. we currently have a bunch of employees who ought to deliver work properly, we currently have a very expensive collective with very clear guidelines on the amounts of hours worked by volunteers on top of the hours worked by professionals.
    at the end of the day, it matters what was achieved in thailand and set in relation to the funds invested.
    in a professional environment, having a good time serves a single purpose: being more productive. whilst cs may well end up being a charity, a NGO itself has to be efficient to be charitable, if it is being a charity only to its employees, its not a charity or charitable organization but a company or, if not legally sound, a racket.

    i am rather convinced that the cs leadership is well aware of the dubious performance of its professional staff at both being productive and maintaing a proactive and supportive staff of volunteers. which is the reason why there is so little communication. the less information is spread to the outside, the less information can be used to dissect and analyze the performance.

  • @Doogy

    First off, thank you for at least taking the time to see what’s going on and communicating openly. (Yes, you’re a big exception.) I hope everyone will try to be correct towards you and I hope that you’ll otherwise be able to differentiate between subjective and objective comments.

    I do have a few questions, which I seriously hope you are willing to answer. You seem to be pro-openness, so I’ll take a chance here (please keep in mind that I’m genuinly interested, there’s no hidden agenda here):
    - How did you end up in the collective? (Were you drafted, did you volunteer, were you selected/interviewed, know anyone beforehand, etc)
    - Were you volunteering in CS before the collective?
    - What is it you do there exactly?
    - Did you sign a contract and/or NDA for the collective?
    - Are you getting payed/reimbursed/…?
    - Is there a difference at the collective between the employees of CS and the rest?

    Other than that I seriously hope you have a good time and that it ends well for you. En dat blauwtje, daar geraak je wel over ;-)


  • Could someone please translate the newest update from the CSC communication boy? It seems to be very informative:


  • @zak0r

    I think that you’re probably correct concerning the stemmed flow of information…if nothing is communicated, then nothing will be publicly scrutinized. And no risk of humiliation or failure is endured.

    I find this all just so endlessly interesting…really beyond the particulars of CS and its management. Since I don’t have any emotional connection to CS or its founders (don’t know them from a hole in the wall) I like observing the decision-making as work-in-progress. I tend to see a shift in thinking that is duplicated in other areas of social and business life…patterns that represent a change in thought from older age-cohorts (like mine). Interesting to see a general reluctance to commit to anything: career, marriage, home-base, authority or leadership roles. People I think value interests and passions, but not responsibility…and prefer to remain infinitely spontaneous….always able to move on on on to the next attractive thing. The old way of working up a corporate ladder with 2 cars in the driveway 2 kids a prescription for prozac and a mortgage is gaggingly restrictive and creatively dead. I was talking to one of my couchsurfers about this and he said: we just don’t have any role models for success in traditional adulthood.

    I guess it is scary to engage in hard commitment today…what if it doesn’t work out? You’ll be branded a failure and have to start all over. much easier to just roll along…no strings/no goals/no desire…and react to circumstances as they come up. If something isn’t working…leave it. this attitude is quite sustainable in an affluent culture like ours…and ‘adolescence’ (from my perspective as point of contrast alone…I don’t mean it as a value judgment or cut-down) can be extended indefinitely until the money runs out. This I think is reflected in the CS management and attitudes: as long as the money and sign-ups roll in, we really don’t have any responsibility to communicate with members or sustain relationships with volunteers…and take on the risk of exposure that both entail.

    I think it was Matrixpoint who said that Casey really insists that he is not the true leader of CS…that it is a community of decision makers. this reluctance to embrace his clout perhaps is in-tune with the thinking I describe above and quite recognized by people signing on: no risk=no failure.

    sorry for the length, all

  • “I think it was Matrixpoint who said that Casey really insists that he is not the true leader of CS…”

    Actually, I don’t know that he ever said this. On the contrary, since I first appeared at the Montreal Collective, and during the following year as a volunteer, I found it very difficult to determine the organizational structure of CS and Casey’s role in it.

    Everyone knew that the organizational structure was being revamped as part of CS 2.0, but the only public information I could find was an organizational diagram on the website that showed a central box labeled “Admins and Founders” or the like, months after I left Montreal. I was disturbed to see this for two reasons: 1. the complete lack of detail of the internal structure of this box, and 2. it’s central position, which was in conflict with the agreed upon decentralized organizational structure suggested by the tree model (see the logo of this website) that was created during the Montreal Collective.

    There was no particular mention anywhere that Casey was the supreme, unaccountable head of CS. He was only included among the list of 4 founders prominently featured on the website. There were no by-laws to be found. The only information available about the Admins was a brief statement that they were volunteers who helped with important administrative duties involved in running the website. No information about how they got their positions or whether there was a term of office, etc. No information about performance reviews, etc.

    As someone who had begun volunteering full-time with the intention of working freely on behalf of the hospitality community for years to come, I sought clarification as to who I was actually working for. I made it clear that my intent was to work for the Community, not for Casey and the Admins unless they were in some way accountable to the Community. Why in the world would I (or anyone) work full time so that Casey and his hand-picked buddies could live it up in exotic locations, unless the Community who provided the support for that had some say in it?

    I got no meaningful response to two lengthy requests for information from the Admins beginning in December, 2006. That’s when I started reconsidering my commitment to CS and paying attention to such matters as the NDA (another whole story in itself).

    It wasn’t until the following year (in the spring I think) that Casey finally revealed to the developers that he was the sole member of the Board of Directors. (According to Pickwick, Casey’s told a different story to NH government officials).

    So, you see, Casey’s style was very indirect. CS 2.0 was supposed to be about members participating in the operation and evolution of CS, and the emphasis was **decentralized** participation. It was “The CouchSurfing Project”, not “Couchsurfing International, Inc., Casey Fenton CEO and sole member of the Board of Directors”. “Do-ocracy” was promoted by at least one of the Admins, and another Admin was generating most of the communication which included a call for member involvement.” No where was it mentioned that these Admins derived all their power from Casey and that he quietly controlled everything with absolute authority. He rarely took a public stand one way or the other, but rather allowed people to form impressions, whether they agreed with his personal agenda or not, that he did nothing to correct.

    An example of his indirect style was when he made Chris Burley the new Tech Team leader near the end of the New Zealand Collective. Chris obviously was functioning as Casey’s tool, being used by Casey to shake up the development team (probably due to issues with Joe and Kasper). Chris had very little familiarity with the code or with ongoing initiatives. He only had Casey’s authority backing him up and used it to rule with an iron fist, announcing that no “personal ideologies” would be tolerated and all developer-initiated projects would be put on indefinite hold. (Developers were clearly now to be thought of as order-following employees, but without the pay, not co-participants in a project to make the world a better place.) Casey remained quietly in the background while Chris took most of the heat for Casey’s “house-cleaning”. Chris quietly dropped off the radar by the end of last summer, as if his usefulness as a tool had expired.

    What was most disturbing to me about this incident was that not long before this Casey had finally talked with me on the phone (after a 3 month wait) for a few hours and we seemed to have reached a meeting of minds. I explained to him that I would begin no new projects until the NDA was fixed (as he had promised some nine months before). I told him that it was outrageous as it stood. He said nothing in response. But he actually invited me to participate in the formulation of the organizational structure that was in its final stages. I said, yes, I would very much like to be involved. The result of this call was that I felt Casey had heard my concerns and that I now was getting some respect as a full-time volunteer (of more than half a year).

    So I was very shocked that Casey appointed Chris, without even consulting me or any of the Tech Team about it, especially since he had the opportunity to discuss it with me on the phone and had given me the impression that he wanted me to be in the loop when it came to organizational issues.

    I was even more shocked when I sent him an email saying that although Chris might be a good choice based on his past general contributions (this was before his new personality as a “leader” emerged) but that he didn’t have enough technical knowledge to lead the team, and a least another co-leader who did was needed. Casey never responded to my email.

    I was even more shocked when the new organizational structure was announced (completely done in secret), and that what little apparent accountability it seemed to include amounted to nothing.

    I was ultimately shocked when the proposed NDA came out (after a year) that was supposed to be the “fixed” version, but it was 10 times worse than the original. It had the feel of the Patriot Act to me. I was utterly uppalled by the mindset that produced it, and by the way this whole drawn-out fiasco was conducted by Casey and his appointed elite.

    I certainly felt the trust I had put in Casey as a result of the phone call completely betrayed, and I took the NDA as an indirect message to me that I was no longer wanted as a developer, since I had publicly announced I would no longer begin any new projects if the NDA wasn’t sufficiently fixed.

    I would have much preferred that Casey had told me this directly, as I would have preferred that he shake-up the Tech Team himself instead of having a henchman do his dirty work for him.

    This is Casey’s style: indirect, manipulative, pulling strings from behind the scenes, while giving a casual, no-worries, laid-back, often non-committal impression in public: a fun guy to party with.

    In case any one is wondering whether Casey might have been justified in “cleaning house”, I can say that the 4 core developers made a huge contribution to CS, much more so than Casey, at least in the technical area, for most of the year following the Montreal Collective. (I suspect it was our very success that scared Casey, and threatened his absolute control.) Speaking for myself, the greatest problems I encountered as a volunteer developer were all caused either directly or indirectly by Casey or the Admins due to their arbitrary assertions of power without understanding the situation, extremely poor communication, and poor judgment. Working with the Community, on the other hand, was delightful and I still have those good memories.


  • Continuing the discussion on the sociological aspects of CS (after a diversion). I’m especially interested in the corrupting influence of power.

    I believe all humans are vulnerable to this. Those who have developed a strong moral character, and would seem to be incorruptible, tend to be the most insistent that checks and balances are needed on themselves.

    The way they developed their character was through a thorough understanding of themselves (“Know Thyself”), which inevitably means an acute knowledge of their weaknesses and limitations. Through this they would know that no human is ever entirely beyond the seductive influence of power, and an endless internal vigil is required.

    They would never accept a position of power with no accountability or checks and balances on their power, because even if they felt they could handle it, they would know that sooner or later one of their successors would succumb, and therefore the precedent should never be set.

    An interesting article appeared recently in the Washington Post, “With Power Comes a Selfish Point of View”:

    A few excerpts:

    “For as far back as historical records go, people in power have told astonishingly bald-faced lies, saying they are acting in the public interest when they are really acting in their own.”

    A scientific study revealed, literally, the change in perspective of people who assume a powerful position. They were asked to draw the letter “E” on their forehead.

    “People who feel powerful draw the letter E from their internal perspective, while those who feel powerless draw it so others can read it.”

    Prior to this study:

    “The standard explanation for why those in power act in self-interested, venal and authoritarian ways is that they are bad apples to begin with. Indeed, many people believe that such men and women are the ones most likely to rise to power.

    But the study revealed something else:

    “…volunteers made to feel powerful, even in a trivial laboratory experiment, almost instantly lose the ability to see things from other people’s points of view.”

    “People in organizations and in hierarchies and in informal groups like college dorms want leaders to be socially intelligent…They will sacrifice all manner of things to have leaders who are thoughtful and engaged and give other people voice.

    “But once socially gifted people rise to power…the paradox is that power simplifies our thinking. We tend to see things in terms of our own self-interest, and it makes us more impulsive. We forget our audience in service of gratifying our own impulses.

    “People who lack power turn out to be more accurate in guessing the opinions of those around them, whereas those in power tend to be inaccurate. Because subordinates are also hesitant to tell superiors things they do not want to hear, the problem gets worse, with powerful people having even less input and perspective about how others think and feel.”

    So, the very people who, when powerless, seemed to have good leadership qualities, tend to loose them and put their own self-interest first when they acquire power.

    I believe this is what happened to Casey Fenton, who is socially gifted. He’s not a bad person, but he probably had no experience to prepare him for the corrupting influence of power. And he didn’t get much help from those he gathered around him, who tend to worship him rather than keep him honest.

    This is a universal phenomenon, and we are seeing it play out in CS. Hopefully, we can learn from this ways to deal with this aspect of human nature. The best solution I have seen (forgive my bias) is the US constitution, which is all about restraining the power of government and leaders by providing elaborate checks and balances. But even this approach is failing in the US now, so I’m not sure what the solution might be.

  • so interesting…and yes, agreed

    I actually had read that article when it was published…and made my kids read it too so we could talk it over. thanks for giving it a wider audience.

    I find it fascinating too that the call for loyalty is again being played in the other threads on this website…as though the request for accurate information and clarity is threatening to the group. the leaders are certainly subject to corruption thro their hold on power…as the followers are subject to their loss of valuing and protecting independent thought…just don’t offend our charismatic leader. I’d hoped most people had taken out that hook…apparently not everyone.

    I also was interested in how simply requesting information can get you characterized as someone who wants to bring down cs the organization…when, in practical and historical terms, the opposite is true. so sad to see someone branded as a ‘hater’ for agitating for better standards of communication and info-flow.

    My kids also try this illogic on me to hide their laziness when I ask them to clean their rooms….my son says: “Mom don’t be hatin’”. Who’s hating? I’m only asking them to organize their belongings…which benefits them in the end.

    I’m now reading “Collapse” by Jared Diamond (of Guns Germs and Steel fame…also great). The thesis of this book is that communities fail because they choose to do so. They deliberately ignore, or delude themselves from addressing, problems that signal a warning to adapt to new conditions. Frequently leaders, as you say, begin to make decisions benefiting themselves and friends…so adaptation is threatening to their power. Community members often back their loved leaders without complaint…and marginalize those that do complain…and they all go merrily down the toilet.

    I genuinely like couchsurfing and appreciate the volunteers’ hard work…I really do not want the organization to become a victim of its own denial (or credit Zak0r: “good intentions”) and fail to adapt to changes in its membership size and configuration. thanks for all of your really great commentary John.

  • “Could someone please translate the newest update from the CSC communication boy? It seems to be very informative”

    @ radiotonix

    Communication boy? haha
    Well first of all, personal information and names about my friends I censored because of you guys. Whatever I say about them it will be twisted used against them if possible.
    Second, if you want to be objective, post some good stuff I write about the collective on this forum too.

  • @Doogie: “if you want to be objective, post some good stuff I write about the collective on this forum too.”

    To be fair, this site has (accurately) never claimed any objectivity.

  • @Doogy and Doogie:
    Sorry, that Doogie was put in position of being the only communication channel about the Thailand collective. I “feel” it is more or less solved with the new newsletter and the collective website.

    “personal information and names about my friends I censored because of you guys”
    Sounds reasonable, be careful with personal informations. There are all sort of people on OpenCS, CS and on the internet in general.
    Have a look at the thread in the CS-Berne group, where it is described very well how a careless dealing with such information can be risky.

  • It’s a shame that nothing came of this post. It looked like Doogy might start communicating about the collective. Doogy said most recently:

    Well first of all, personal information and names about my friends I censored because of you guys. Whatever I say about them it will be twisted used against them if possible.

    Censored seems like the right word. I wonder if somebody at the collective saw this thread and “had a word” with Doogy.

  • Doogie (Douglas Deleu ) is cs Tech :) . So doogie did you really fix those servers in candle light ?
    And if you are cs tech then you really really know what is going on at the collective ;)

  • Looks like our ol buddy Mr Naz has posted his collective album
    blog entry about his time in Thailand

    as posted on the csc-t group

  • Mr Naz CouchSurfing was nice enough to pay for a collective outing to go bamboo rafting and elephant riding. It was great fun,

Comments are currently closed.