Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings
Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 3:15:06 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>>Wednesday, April 18, 2001, 1:22:11 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>> > where the List Monitor explicitely waived the 5-post-limit *for the
>> > candidates to GA Chair* and *during the election week*.
>> > Why would there be any need for waiving a limit, if the limit did not
>>I was wondering the same thing. I thought it was rather redundant of
>>you, personally, since the limit was not in place.
>>Had you issued a call for limits, that would be one thing.
>>You never issued such as a call.
> Please see http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html.
> The call was issued and never revoked.
> (or maybe you can provide us with a pointer that proves the contrary)
It is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to believe that such a call
was still in effect. Over 14 months have passed since then, and the
list has seen numerous lulls in the list activity during that time,
when the list was practically dead. There is no way that anyone could
make a reasonable argument that a 14 month old call is still in
Futher, YOU NEVER MADE THE CALL, even in that email.
> I am recommending the list administrator to limit the maximum number of
> messages that any subscriber can send per day to 5.
You were instead RECOMMENDING to Elizabeth that you come up with a way
to limit the number of posts.
YOU NEVER asked the list members to confine themselves, and further,
there is no reasonable way at all for this call to still in effect
even if it did exist. How can ANY reasonable person believe that a
call 14 months ago, LONG before many of the current participants were
even on this list, would be in effect today? It was brought up to
address the CURRENT SITUATION in Feb 2000. That situation changed,
repeatedly, over the last 14 months.
You know it, I know it.
You know that you and Harald were grasping at straws, ANY STRAWS, and
had to go back 14 months to find anything EVEN CLOSE, because you knew
that in fact you did not comply with the rules in enforcing any
limitations any time recently that could possibly be construed as
being still in effect.
You might get more respect for just admitting that the rule was not
properly in effect, and apologizing for that.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html