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

Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

Hash: SHA1

All I can say in response is: "Well said!"

On 13-Jan-2000 Joe Kelsey wrote:
> 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
>  > falsehood.
> 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.
> /Joe

- --
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