Re[2]: [ga] Re: (6) What's In It For Me? - Jeff Williams

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Eric,

Saturday, March 31, 2001, 12:18:24 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Members (you know I hate that all remaining members deal)

> No Mr. Walsh's post was not good enough and neither is summary execution.

> In response to DPF I, as a non candidate will state my position on the Idea of
> Censorship.
> 1.    Outside Inside
> 2.    Inherant rights
> 3    Due Process

>     1.    If we are not very careful we look very bad from the outside, and that is
> very bad.
>     2.    One man, to date has been Harald decides what is wrong or right on freedom
> of speech issues?  No this is not good and looks bad.

It looks just fine.  No it does not look bad.  We have rules, they are
enforced, and if someone has a problem, they can appeal that decision
to the chair.

The rules are there to prevent people participating under various
pseudonyms, but they do NOT prevent anonymous participation.  Jeff's
real identity is not known, but that alone isn't reason, under the
rules, to ban him from the list.  When he was unable to provide any
evidence that he was not distinct from the many personalities commonly
known be other aliases of his, those aliases were removed.

The other rule is there to protect civil discourse.

>     Here is a real problem that we should all take note of;  Mr. Corliss's posts that
> should have been private were a horrible lack of decorum.  I believe it was an
> accident that he GAed all those privates but nonetheless he did it.

It was not an accident, but no action was taken against him.  What are
you complaining about with regard to this?

>     3.      I do not need to tell anyone involved here that an Alternative chair
> should not be given the power to dispose of one man's opinion, Especially if for his
> livelihood he is hired by someone like Hi-Tek or Cisco. That makes us look really bad,
> i mean really bad.

And you can provide evidence that this is how the rules are being
used?

I didn't think so.

The rules are in place.  If, by some very unlikely turn of events, you
are elected to chair or alternate chair, it is your duty to enforce
those rules, as adopted by the GA.  If you are indicating you would
refuse to do so, then you should go ahead and recuse yourself.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html