[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy
I actually don't find walsh arrogant. I am arrogant and quite an expert
in that area. Walsh is more a pretender to arrogance. His is more an
envy of anger. I smell fear in him. But it's unrelated to us - it's his
life he fears. And he covers it up with a paint of arrogance - but a very
shallow display at best.
To be truly arrogant - one must be completely in love with oneself and
one's position - as i am. Anger has no business in arrogance - but comedy
- now that's a walsh of a different colour.
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> William and all,
> William X. Walsh wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > 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: email@example.com.
> > >
> > > 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > DSo Networks http://dso.net/
> > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> > GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> > Comment: DSo Networks
> > iD8DBQE4fT7F8zLmV94Pz+IRAs3TAJwKKqnnwTU2PB07kVjs+GuApsVxIACcCMPj
> > LUHHx6rVzvDPLO16WscowHw=
> > =i7jC
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 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 email@example.com
> Contact Number: 972-447-1894
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208