[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - Thank you Randy! and followup...
Randy and all,
I thank you for you vote of support. I don't however think that removing
yourself or anyone else doing so is a reasonable method of protest or
adequately addresses the problem. The Internet is very flexible, we
can route around nearly any improperly imposed "Rules" that would limit
free speech and circumvent the US Constitution, as there are also legal
methods of redress as well in this situation.
Randy Canis wrote:
> William and everyone else,
> I am not arguing that their shouldn't be rules. I can and am willing to operate within jointly decided rules. I am arguing and objecting to "the rules" --how they are to "govern" us, how they are currently be implemented, and how they will might interpreted. I think you've missed the ball William.
> Based on my readings of this list, I think there are people on the list whose mission is to pass rules so that the list can be selectively censored (without fair and valid rules of behavior in place), most likely against Jeff Williams and Joe Baptista. This is wrong. Both have spent countless hours participating in this list. People like Elen, Karl, and myself are not going to stand for unjustified and unfair censorship.
> So, I too will join Karl in removing myself from this discussion if we can't get a meaningful discussion going on a sole unmoderated list.
> Randy Canis
> >>> "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com> 01/25 4:02 PM >>>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 25-Jan-2000 Ellen Rony wrote:
> > William Walsh wrote:
> >>The people who can only be seen on the filtered list have given up their
> >>to participate for a period of time by not acting with the rules for proper
> > Another example of confusion based on the terminology.
> > Roberto has explained that the "filtered" list would be for good
> > participants, (although one normally "filters" out troublemakers). I
> > suppose you could call it what it really is: a moderated list, e.g.,
> > firstname.lastname@example.org.
> > I'll join Karl in removing myself from this discussion if you can't get a
> > meaningful discussion going on a sole unmoderated list. One of the
> > freedoms of the Internet is the removal of gatekeepers to information and
> > communication. Now here is a group inserting a new set of gatekeepers.
> I'm not sympathetic to this position at all. The fact is that ANY forum has
> the right to set rules of civil participation. Just like the ORSC has its
> rules, this forum has its own rules. If you can't operate within those rules,
> then you do not have a right to participate.
> If you don't like that, then by all means, go somewhere like the IFWP where
> anarchy reigns supreme. I expect better from the DNSO-GA, and I'm glad to see
> we were getting it. An body who can't set rules for itself to enforce civil
> behavior amongst its participants, who can't set minimum qualifications for
> joining (being a real person), is a body who can't function.
> Why the heck would you want that?
> - --
> William X. Walsh <email@example.com>
> 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
> -----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.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208