I have to agree here with James. I too wonder what Kent
interested in hiding or seeing the DNSO GA list admin and illegitimate
Chair and Co Chair ware wanting to hide? Is that the rational for
SELECTIVELY CENSORING General Assembly members?
Afraid of the truth?
James Touton wrote:
Kent and all Assembly members,Bob Davis...
No you are correct that by looking at the archives one will not be
able to determine whether anyone has been SELECTIVELY CENSORED
except what is already in the DNSO archives at this time. But the DNSO
list members will know one way or another. Other list archives will also
carry this information as well.
You seem to be VERY interested in hiding something Kent.... Why is that?
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 01:00:59PM -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> > I find it interesting and ironic that some of the loudest proponents of
> > removing JW from this list are the same people who encourage his drivel (and
> > expose those of us who filter him to it) by replying to it. If he and JB
> > were uniformly shunned, they would give up and go away, thereby making
> > discussion of measures to filter them moot.
> "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride." One can't base realistic
> policy on idealistic hypotheticals. In fact, of course, empirical
> evidence demonstrates quite conclusively that JW is not going away.
> Moreover, from first principles it is clear that there will always be
> enough new people, or people who find JW/JB interesting, to keep them
> going. Finally, the fact that you posted your comment demonstrates
> quite conclusively that JW/JB have an impact on your experience of the
> list whether you filter them or not.
> And of course, anyone coming to the archives to do research will not be
> able to tell who is being shunned and who isn't.
> Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,