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

Re[4]: [IDNO-DISCUSS] RE: [ga] BIND 1999 Survey and ICANN Support (fwd)

Thursday, September 09, 1999, 6:13:19 AM, Jeff Mason <pccf@bigbird.earth-net.net> wrote:

> William Baby - your back.  You told Baptista you had left for good.  We'll
> I'm glad that was not much more then hot gas on your part.  It's good to
> have you back.

Your tone and words are inappropriate.  I am on this list, because I
believe it has some rules to prevent the types of actions you and
certain other parties have taken to make other lists (which I am not
on) ineffective).

The PCCF representatives, paid to disrupt, with the co-operation of
"Jeffrey Williams", have effectively ruined two lists.

I, once an opponent of the rules proposed to eliminate disruption on
this list, now support them.

I would caution you not to attempt your disruption here, I doubt it
will be tolerated.

> Now, Baptista is not interested in responding.  If people have valid
> question he will address them.  But he's not into drag queen fag baiting.
> It's my job to deal with trolls and drag queen.

These are exactly the type of comments that could lead to your being

Can the list manager please elaborate on the rules of civil discourse

> So with that said, I shall provide you with a reply ;-)

> On Thu, 9 Sep 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:

>> That would be the one that was intentionally misleading?

> How?

>> > A list of groups identified as having an interest in our bind99 database
>> > are listed at the following schedule.
>> This sentence implies that those groups have express an "interest" and
>> your implication is that they MUST have an interest, simply because
>> you identity them.

> No, it implies nothing more then an invitation list.  Which has grown
> since we published it.  We were actually asked to add some groups.  We
> also have no problem with removing names.  The parties responsible may do
> so to Baptista via email.

> If any group wanting to run the internet has no interest in petitioning
> the people who control it, then I assure you we'll remove them from the
> list and make that fact known.  There you go Willy, a solution.  Who
> want's to be removed from our list?

>> Fortunately none of the groups on that list see PCCF as anything to
>> take seriously, or you might have found yourself on the receiving end
>> of demands to remove names from your notices unless you make it
>> perfectly clear that those groups have not expressed any interest in ,
>> nor any support for, your project(s).

> I should address this breifly, although Baptista would do a better job.

> I don't think it's our position to really care one way or the other who
> does or does not take us seriously.  Were not being paid for that.

No, you are being paid to disrupt.  You have made that clear.

> That's not at issue.  We hope however that those who wish power take the
> people who we have identified as controlling the internet seriously.  We
> estimate there are about 190,000 of them and PCCF only represents one of
> those 190,000 individuals or business.

> Were not here to run the show William.  But we are here to faciltate and
> empower those who can and will.

No, you are here to disrupt, and to participate in vile discourse in
an attempt to facilitate that disruption.

> I suggest if you want to argue this with Baptista you alter your approach.
> A classical education in philosophy, logic and debate would be good
> starting points.

> Again, welcome back William.  A man who can't keep his word is as valuable
> as one who can't, depending on the application.

I have kept my word, Sir (I use the term loosely, do not assume it
means I hold any respect for you or your organization).

Until the Sexton IFWP list adopts rules to prevent the type of
behavior you engaged in on that list, and the NSI list manager gets
over his fear of being repercussions for enforcing simple rules of
civil discourse, I will not be a participant on those lists.

The disruptors (paid and otherwise) own those lists now.  Serious
discussion in continuing, I assure you, but just no in forums were
such behavior is tolerated.

In any event, since you are now posting here as well, I've added this
list to my filtering of you and Baptista.  I will not waste my time,
or the time of others, with people who endorse, condone, or
participate in the behavior and manner of discourse you have been
engaged in.

William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

Join DNSPolicy.com's discussion list!
<IDNO MEMBER) http://www.idno.org