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

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-rules@dnso.org On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
|> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 5:32 PM
|> To: dassa@dhs.org
|> Cc: [Ga-Rules]
|> Subject: Re: [ga-rules] RE: [ga] Sorry for the questions
|>
|>
|> 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?

You could but then there would only be a very limited number of people who
would see it and that was not the intention for the use of the list.

|> >
|> > |> 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.

Sorry, your mistake.  I am not posting on this thread at a personal level.
I have not given any thought to your posts with regards to this thread.
However, personal perception unless substantiated is only an opinion.  If
others do not share your opinion then you have a 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.

Under the GA rules, yes.  I make no comment on the validity of the rules,
they are in force however and must be upheld.

|> 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.

Some I do agree with, others I don't.  I am not fond of your style in
writing as it is difficult for me to read and understand but that is an
issue I would deal with by either putting in the effort to read or posts or
ignoring them.  You are free to express your opinions, however, as in life,
there are rules that must be followed.  There are also consequences when
your opinions or the way you state them upset others.  In real life, when a
person is insulted they have a number of options to deal with it.  They can
extract physical punishment or take legal action.  On the GA mailing list,
they can the offenders posting rights withdrawn.

|> >
|> > |> 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.

I see fundamentally flawed reasoning behind your statements above.
Personalities only enter into the equation as a means of easily determining
if the content of the post is worth reading and may contain some useful
data.  Some inference may be used to validate the data also.  I'm not sure
I understand what you mean by b).  I am not aware of any policies that
alienate participants or any attempts to ingratiate the GA with the ICANN
Board or staff.


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

No, I don't care where you post actually.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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