Re: [ga] Free Speech vs. Constructive Debate

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Joe and all,

Joe Kelsey wrote:

> Many posters to this list seems to confuse the concepts of free speech
> with the legitimate right of private groups to limit attendance in order
> to accomplish specific goals within the group.  The personas attempting
> to disrupt this list trumpet their suposed freedom of disruption, loudly
> proclaiming that they are merely using thier inherent right to freedom
> of speech.

  No one is trying to disrupt this or any list that I know of.  Freedom of
speech is a guaranteed right under the US constitution.  No one I know
of is abusing that right by "Loudly" shouting anything here.  This is a
mailing
list not a in person public meeting.  I just can't "Hear" anyone shouting,
as
you profess here Joe.  Can you?  So your comment here seems to be a
bit of an exaggeration....

>
>
> They are simply wrong and are attempting to gain sympathy from the more
> libertarian members of this group by cloaking themselves with this
> deceptive sloganeering.  Please take the time to re-evaluate their
> arguments from the following perspective:

  Sloganeering?  What slogan(s) are your referring ot Joe?  I haven't seen
any.
But lets digress a bit more on your, and what seems to be a developing
unsupported argument...

>
>
> What if these same personas decided that they wanted to disrupt a
> particular religious observance?

  What if the moon was mad of green cheese?  How it such questions relevant?

What church are you referring to?  Just any old church?  Or the "Church of
ICANN?"

>  They would walk freely into the chosen
> church and start yelling obscene and offensive remarks during the
> religous observances.

  Oh?  Really?  And just how do you know this?  Where is the "Church of
ICANN"?
Or the Church to which you seem to refer to here?

>  When the church member politely asked them to
> leave, they loudly trumpet their free speech rights and their personal
> ability to disrupt any private conversation that they disagree with.

  ROFLMAO!  I have never heard such nonsense in quite some time
now.  I don't believe I have ever seen anything quite like this ever
occur in my lifetime.

>
>
> The law in any democracy on this planet would step in and prevent these
> disruptive personas from following their own personal "free speech"
> agendas because they were disrupting a religous observance.  How
> different is that from these same personas walking into a private
> business meeting and doing the same thing?

  Well for one thing, although you example and comparison is not in evidence

here, is that a business is not a religious entity.

>  Anarchy and chaos do not
> contribute to rational discussions.

  Agreed.  So please do us all a favor and discontinue in practicing in
chaotic
behavior as this post of yours seems to indicate.

>  Every monkey in front of a keyboard
> is bound to produce random sequences of characters that someone might
> interpret as cogent thoughts.

  Well I haven't made the mistake in taking your post here a cogent thought.

>  Does that mean that everyone else who is
> trying to carry on a rational debate has to put up with the monkey's
> rantings merely to provide future historians with the ability to look
> back and say, "By god, the rantings of this monkey totally destroyed any
> progress this group of earnest people wanted to achieve.

  Earnest people do no deliberately conduct a fraudulent election as the
DNSO
pNC did here, and twice.

>  However, this
> one sequence of rantings had a slightly meaningful sense.  Too bad none
> of those participating in the list saw it due to the fact that they all
> gave up on being able to achieve their original goals due to this same
> monkey's interference."

  Monkey?  I don't know of any "Monkey's" that are intelligent enough to
operate a Mail client.  So I am a bit pressed to understand what "Monkey"
you are referring to.  Or are you using the name of "Monkey" in a derogatory

manner referring to some one on this list?  If so, how is that productive?
Isn't
that mearly adding to the concern you are improperly but yet strongly trying

to eliminate?

>
>
> Please sit back and really think about what the definition of "free
> speech" really is.  It does not allow someone to yell "Fire!" in a
> croweded auditorium, and neither does it allow someone to employ a
> bullhorn in a private meeting to drown out the business of the meeting.

  What person is yelling anything, none the less "Fire" or anything close to
that
here?  What "Bullhorn", and whom is using one here?  This is a mailing list.

>
>
> This is a private meeting which is open to anyone willing to agree to
> discuss the business of the DNSO.  It is not a forum for personas who
> have proven themselves to be selfishly oriented toward the goal of
> disrupting whatever forum they happen to have stumbled upon.

  And this is also a political forum as well for the DNSO and any
"Interested
Parties" in those issues, or issues that are yet to be revealed or yet
understood
as a part of the business of the DNSO.  Those issues may be defined by
ANY participant, potentially, not dictated by a few.

>
>
> It is simply in our best interest to institute reasonable rules which
> limit the discussion occurring on this list to a specific set of
> topics.  Please let Harald's rules go into effect and let's get on with
> real issues.

  No, this would be both inconsistent and unrealistic to limit the
discussion
as narrowly as you seem to indicate here.  Haralds rules are only a start,
not a solution.

>
>
> /Joe

Regards,

--
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