[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

William and all,

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hash: SHA1
> I seperated my comments on your post about the list policy. The prior message
> was about the posts regarding the GA and NC. This addresses the ontopic porton
> about mail list policy.

  How interestingly arrogant of you William.  I am sure some find this relevant,
but I am not sure if that is a majority.  Given that if a majority is not known,
I wonder just how relevant this preamble to your comments here are

  But I digress further...  (See more below William's further comments)

> On 13-Jan-2000 Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> There exists an open list that can be subscribed to: ga-unfiltered@dnso.org.
> >
> > The official list of the GA must be totally uncensored.
> This is your opinion.  And an opinion that appears to be vastly a minority
> opinion.  Thankfully in my opinion.

  What is your documented evidence of this statement at this juncture here
William?   Can you produce that for us here?  If not, why not take a vote
on this before making such a outlandish statement?  For instance, we [INEGRoup]
have yet to officially respond to this proposal that Harald has presented.

> You equate list rules with censorship.  I disagree with that characterization.

  As is you right.  But this is YOUR opinion.  It certainly is not a FACT,
now is it?

> EVERY forum has rules for participation, and there are means for removal of
> people who disrupt the forum.

  This is not correct, as you well know William.

>  This is true offline and online.  There is
> simply no justification for calling that censorship.
> It is running a responsible forum.

  Responsible is fine.  A variation of Roberts Rules of Order for online
participation such as Mark suggested may be how that should be determined.
Blankett false statements are not or should not be.

> >> The existence of this list will make it possible to have independent
> >> verification of what the filtering function does.
> >
> > No "independent verification" is possible unless the list is fully and
> > completely archived.
> You, and anyone else who so chooses, including the poor misunderstood
> gentlemen from INEG and PCCF, are free to do just that.

  Nice smear attempt of myself or Joe Baptista, but unfortunately not
very convincing as is already evident.

> - --
> William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: DSo Networks
> iD8DBQE4fT7F8zLmV94Pz+IRAs3TAJwKKqnnwTU2PB07kVjs+GuApsVxIACcCMPj
> LUHHx6rVzvDPLO16WscowHw=
> =i7jC

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208