At 15:04 27.05.2000 +0000, Mark Measday wrote:To the list? Surely it has to be a public complaint to the list?
>I haven't read Mr William's original post, so don't know what he said
>other than the below. A couple of procedural points:
>(i) It was my understanding that suspension from the list is subsequent to
>a complaint. Then it is up to the list monitor to take action if deemed
>necessary. Did someone complain?
Someone complained. I did, too.
>(ii) Slander may or may not be a criminal offence in various differentExactly. I do not believe from what you say that any slander was proven, although I don't know the circumstances. As an offence, surely someone has to be judged guilty by a appropriate court (unless you are yourself constituting yourself as court?) for you to act. This is not the case, from what you say. Therefore you should reinstate Mr. Williams until such time as he has been adjudged culpable.
>jurisdictions. Similarly the mischievious allegation of slander may or may
>not be actionable in the same manner. Is there proof of slander? If not,
>you are playing into the hands of your detractors. List etiquette and law
>should be separate.
Slander is specifically listed on the mailing list rules at
>- The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:Yes, I agree. And this would have been a perfectly good reason for throwing Jeff off the list. But you didn't say that. You said that he had slandered some third party, which is unproven. Should that third party provide adequate proof of slander, then, I assume you could exercise the articles you refer to, which I have not seen. I doubt whether Yokohama will be bothered to sue Jeff for slander, should that even be an offence in Japan.
> - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> - Not using offensive language
I agree; the list etiquette and law are separate.You should reinstate him until such time as you are either able to substantiate your accusations or to give him appropriate apology
>(iii) The penalty for misbehaviour on the list was deeemed to be two weeks
>suspension in previous list corespondence. How is eight weeks justified?
>You would seem to be exceeding the brief.
This is Jeff Williams' third suspension.
Listing rules again:
>Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2
>weeks), and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may get
>correspondingly longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a second
>offense, 8 weeks for a third).
>The period is decided by the sergeant-at-arms.
>(iv) It would appear that, were Mr Williams to hire a competent advocate,You are wilfully misunderstanding me, Harald.
>you would be putting other list members at considerable risk.
I assume you mean "lawyer" or "attorney"?
I don't see what the risk to other list members would be; I stand ready toI assume if the list members have severally authorised you to incur liability, they may also incur it.
defend my actions.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
Josmarian SA (Switzerland) Josmarian (UK) Ltd
UK tel/fax: 0044.1218.104.22.168 UK mobile: 0044.370.947.420
French tel/fax: 0033.422.214.171.124
'Tragedy inheres in all choice' : Isaiah Berlin