[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy
Karl Auerbach writes:
> > I also disagree completely with every criticism that Karl Auerbach came
> > up with. His objections are completely without support and his method
> > of running a list would result in complete chaos. If he wants that kind
> > of list, he can just subscribe to (and archive) the ga-unfiltered list.
> Our disagreement is about which list is the "official" one.
No. You wish to wallow in the childish and disruptive behavior of
things like the so-called jeff williams multiple-personality disorder
and I do not.
> The all encompassing one, the one without filters, the one with
> submissions from all parties, ought to be the full record.
What purpose does is serve to archive the obscene ranting of the insane
canadian joe baptista? His libelous and slanderous postings have served
no purpose other than to inhibit productive discussions from occuring.
> Those who wish to create private universes and cover their sensitive ears
> and eyes can do so and receive the partial feed of information. But
> that's their own private matter.
> Censorship is censorship. The GA can't claim to be open while censoring
> comment. Well, it can claim to be open, but it would be an overt
Censorship in the United States is defined by the government restricting
the rights of free expression. When a private company (e.g., ICANN)
wishes to carry on a productive discussion, it has every right to insist
on minimum rules for civility and decorum. I, for one, do not wish to
be subjected to the childish and unproductive antics of such entities as
those who identify themselves as the so-called jeff williams and joe
baptista, whether or not these entities are real persons or merely
pranksters pulling our legs. They have nothing productive to add and
want only to draw attention to themselves.
Censorship in most of the rest of the world is fairly close to the US
model. In any case, ICANN is a priovate US corporation, thus limiting
discussion list membership is in no way censorship.
> The power to limit what you read is in your own hands, use the tools that
> procmail, Eudora, or your favorite tool has provided you. Don't impose
> your choices on the rest of us and attempt to call it "open" and
> "official" when it is really "closed" and "selective".
So many people rant and rave about these "open" ideals without taking
the true responsibility to define how to actually accomplish productive
work in these so-called "open" (really chaotic) fora. It is all well
and good to carry on and on endlessly about your desire for "openness"
without taking the responsibility to really get work done. You are
quite welcome to your chaotic discussions in IFWP or whatever other
forum you wish to participate in where you allow whatever childish
behavior you want to occur, but I prefer a forum which enforces civil
rules of behavior.
The so-called "official" record of all government bodies has always been
edited after the fact to correspond to rules of civil behavior (striking
remarks from the record, etc.) There is nothing unofficial about the
proposed ga archived list being closed in any sense. Anyone who has a
desire to participate in an open, spirited, productive debate is welcome
to join in. Anyone who wishes to act childishly and disruptive is asked
to take their grandstanding and tantrum-throwing elsewhere.