Re: [ga-rules] RE: [ga] Sorry for the questions

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

below,

Dassa wrote:

>                       i wrote
> |>
> |> thank you dassa as your are obviously right from your point of
> |> view.  I was not referring to swear words and pornography as I do not
> know what
> |> that is until I see it.
>
> Your reference was to be able to post R-rated like material.  The main
> criteria for R-rated criteria are adult concepts, bad language, sexual
> references and violence.  Adult concepts are acceptable, the others are
> not.
>

I like your term bad language it connotes improper grammer and yes that is what
I was banned for along with personal attacks. (all within the rules-that is my
banning of course, sorry again) But you are also right about adult concepts. So
my question was can I just post certain rants on the full-without boundaries?

>
> |> I was referring to calling a spade a spade even if it may be seen as a
> personal attack.
>
> Why should personal attacks be acceptable on any list?  If what someone has
> posted is incorrect we are free to post the correct information and point
> out the other person was not correct in their post.  There is no need for
> personal attacks, we are only interested in the messages, not the
> messenger.
>

You are mistaken here.  Tell me one example of where in my posts I did not post
my perception of the truth. Therein lies your fundamental problem. I say
someone lied or deceived and I am banned, I say they act like bad assed
intellectuals and I am banned.[note that one I insulted stood up for my right
to insult him]  Sorry but that is my considered opine. So should I be banned
from saying it- yes from your invited dinner table, not from a GA.

I believe we see eye to eye here it is just that you do not like my opinions.
which is totally cool just please don't deny me from expressing them.

>
> |> I would not sit at your family dinner table
> |> and proclaim the outright thievery I have seen committed as it is
> distasteful to
> |> many.  But I would not hesitate to call a liar a liar in an adult and
> proper
> |> setting. on the GA we cannot do so, it is a personal attack.  The GA
> full is
> |> without rules of such interpretation.
>
> The GA is not interested in the personalities or shouldn't be.  The content
> and the outcomes are what is important.

There again lies a truly fundamentally flawed reasoning in the GA. It is a
really techno-politically correct to way that we do not care about peronalities
but the truth rings true in two opposite directions.  a) we ban people for
personal attacks and b) we care so little about other person(alities) that we
alienate while the BOD and Staff engraciate.

>
>
> |> Would you please cite the restriction you refer to and perhaps
> |> I can find my answer.  Prof. Froomkin subscribes only to the full I
> believe
> |> and so he posts there, he is by no means suspended, so I think you may
> only be
> |> half correct.
>
> I am also subscribed to GA-FULL and not the main GA mailing list although
> they are linked.  All my posts go through the normal channels.  If you do a
> search through the archives you will find plenty of references to see why
> the GA-FULL list was set up.  It is not an alternative list for posters to
> make use of as they like.
>
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

Then I am sure you would like to see me post only to the GA full.

Thank you for this discussion which many will consider noise.
Eric,

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