Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Complaint Against William X. Walsh
Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
That I abuse my position as Alternate Chair.
"Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved in
it."

I will not attempt to defend myself against personal attacks any further.  I
simply note that Mr Walsh has slandered me in the following post.  Mr Walsh
is free to submit a complaint should I exceed the cross-posting limit (with
or without the titles).

With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person who
is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all lists.

The list members can decide for themselves whether they wish to achieve
anything constructive on this forum.  Meanwhile the list monitors can
adjudicate my complaint.  Of course, I will not be involved in the process.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss
(personal posting)


----- Original Message -----
From: William X. Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
Cc: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>; [ga] <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse


> Hello Patrick,
>
> Saturday, May 26, 2001, 10:17:42 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > length and free of personal attacks.  There is also a no cross-posting
rule.
> > This is all summarised as "respect for other participants".
>
> Hold it.  The "no cross-posting rule" is not in fact a no cross
> posting "rule" but a policy setup WITHOUT CONSULTATION with this
> assembly by the list administrator, and enforced by rules that the
> list administrator sets up that filter out messages CC'd to particular
> addresses.
>
> There is in fact no sanction-able rule on cross posting.
>
> > This system favours people who are suspended.  It is not unfair, quite
the
> > contrary.  Those who do not wish to be suspended merely need to comply
with
> > the simple rules outlined above.
>
> Except of course for you, because you feel that by putting "List
> Admin" in your from address you can somehow exempt yourself from the
> posting limits because the posts you send using that name are posts
> you think are important, even though they are not related to this
> fictional title of "List admin" you have created for yourself.
>
> I just want to point out that the current moderators feel there is one
> standard for everyone else, and another for themselves.  Or more
> directly, let me simply limit that criticism to Mr Corliss, who
> offered to stop using the List Admin title if I would not object to
> his posting reposts from other lists/news articles/other stuff he
> thinks the GA should see, but without having those posts take away
> from his posting limits (which from any other GA member would of
> course count towards their posting limits) because he wanted those
> counted as "official business."
>
> Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved
> in it.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh
> mailto:william@userfriendly.com
> Owner, Userfriendly.com
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>


--
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