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

Re: [ga] Message too long (>40000 chars)

On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 03:16:52PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > So we are not chosing between "moderation" and "no moderation".  We are
> > instead chosing between "conscious visible accountable moderation by
> > good guys" vs "stochastic malicious moderation by bad guys".  As things
> > currently stand, the "bad guys" are filtering "good guys" off the list. 
> Nonesense.

Sorry.  This is fact.  I have, for example, a personal email from a
woman who would not post to the list because she did not want to be a
target of one of Baptista's little pornographic poems.  That is,
Baptista is censoring her comments from the list through his threats and

> You are asserting that your sargeants can muzzle those who say
> things you don't like to hear.
> You have the power to cover your own ears.

That would do no good for the case of the woman I mentioned.  She is
embarassed by the thought of others reading pornographic descriptions of
her, and sensitive to how it might affect how others think about her --
the whole sexual harassment scene in a nutshell. 

In other words, just because you revel in having your name scribbled on
bathroom walls doesn't mean that other people do. 

> > This is acceptable to you, Karl, and others, but it is not acceptable
> > for ICANN.  It contradicts the very openness of which you are so fond. 
> You sounds like Kafka - white is black, up is down, censorship is free
> speech.   Next you will be saying "We had to kill the mail list in order
> to save it."
> By-the-way, I object to your technique of asserting that you know what is
> and what is not acceptable to me.

You are absolutely pathetic.  YOUR WHOLE POINT is that you can filter my
posts if you don't like them.  Please do so.

> > It discriminates in favor of those who have been on the net for a long
> > time, who are familiar with email filters and other things.  It
> > discriminates in favor of those who have a high tolerance for verbal
> > abuse.  It discriminates in favor of those who don't care what they do or 
> > say.   It discriminates in favor of those who speak thoughtlessly.
> If anyone out there needs help setting up their e-mail filters, they are
> free to ask for help, and I'm sure it will be provided.
> As for tolerance of abuse, I have a low tolerance for those people who
> insist on silencing others because it musses up their Martha Stewart
> lives.

Precisely -- you are willing to eliminate such people from the list. 
You have no interest whatsoever in hearing the opinions of such people,
despite the fact that marthastewart.com is a thriving internet business
and has every right to be here.  You have no interest in having an
*actual* open forum, where people can intelligently discuss topics
germane to ICANN's mandate.  You want to swagger around a bad-ass old
boys club, where those who can't cut the mustard are driven out by
verbal abuse. 

> ICANN can not afford to further distance itself from those who are
> affected by the Internet.

Precisely.  But *you* are are willing to eliminate such people from the

Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain