[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Missive statements by the Illegitimate "Chair" to:Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules
Roberto and all,
Roberto, I have changed the subject line on this thread. The reason
for me doing this shall become easily understandable to you and other
Assembly members in my comments below in response to yours.
(See more below)
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> My opinion is that Michael raises a matter of principle.
> The question basically is:
> "Is the GA-list now 'monitored' or is the GA-list unmonitored, and the
> 'monitored' list provided as an additional service?'
> To correctly answer this question, the details underlined by Michael are
> The answer is:
> "The GA-list is now 'monitored', and the 'unmonitored' list is provided
> as an additional service, with added value vs. the past of allowing
> posting from non-members (therefore, more open than before), and
> including also posts otherwise rejected (with the exception of what may
> happen for strictly technical reasons)"
The DNSO GA list email@example.com has been monitored for some time
as you well know Roberto, at least sense August '99. Trying to mislead
or apply some form of "Spin" here is a pointless and untruthful nonsense.
In doing so you are only damaging your and the DNSO's creditability,
please discontinue this line of political falsehoods.
> Personally, I have also problems with this approach, but I feel I have
> to choose between the "perfect" theoretical solutionm and an acceptable
> "least evil" that will guarantee better participation.
Well this remains to be seen at the very least.
> In a perfect world, we should be able to deal with what you call "people
> who aspire to be disruptive assholes" without the need to invest
> resources for monitoring. But I just have to acknowledge that this world
> is not perfect.
No this world is not perfect, far from it. Actions and false statements
that you made above are good examples as to why it is and cannot ever
be a perfect world. But in your continuing false claims and statements,
you only move things in the wrong of bad direction. This sort of
action is part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.
> Note that, IMHO, in a perfect world, you would need no laws, because
> people would act nicely independently from the fear of sanctions, which
> are in itself a thing that makes this world "imperfect".
Laws are much different than sanctions. Laws are decided at least in part
by legal and legitimate representation or directly by those that are
by those laws. Sanctions are not necessarily. These "Haralds Proposed
are and example of "Sanctions" that have no mandate. This even you said
on this very list yourself.
> >On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 12:23:32PM -0500, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
> School of Law wrote:
> >> As you well know, the issue is not posting rights, it what feed
> >> get as a matter of default. Arranging posting addresses is a trivial
> >> computing matter.
> >Sorry -- I misunderstood your point. I understand now -- you want it
> >be the case that people who aspire to be disruptive assholes don't have
> >to do anything, but that those who prefer politeness and decorum must
> >something special. Is that correct?
> >Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> >firstname.lastname@example.org lonesome." -- Mark Twain
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