[ga-watchdog] Re: Free speech and GA (Re: [ga] Time to put...)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

William and all,

  Well good for you William!  Although your action ignores the well
documented fact that you have a personal grudge towards Joe
Baptista, and have had for some time now.  But this is not unusual
for you is it, William?  Therefore your action is discounted accordingly,
and only reinforces a improper and inappropriate position of SELECTIVE
CENSORSHIP.  Those of good reason and recognize readily that this
sort of approach both solves little if anything, and is categorically and
ethically, if not legally wrong.

  On the other hand, if you believe strongly that Joe's actions are inappropriate
or wrong, you can and should speak out against them and try to purswade
Joe to relent or otherwise modify his stance.  This may not be successful,
but makes your point, and does so in an appropriate manner that is not
disruptive in and of itself.  In other words, William, take the moral high
ground, and leave it at that.

  For myself and myself only here, I feel that Joe Baptista is making a point,
and doing so rather graphically, but yet correctly in that he is showing that the
DNSO NC and the DNSO List Admin has acted improperly and inappropriately
and continues to do so.  As such, they justify Joe's actions, as he readily
indicates
in his posing as other members of the DNSO GA.  This form of protest is both
effective, and disruptive, as it should be.  I would not be so bold to do so myself,

but find it extraordinary that the DNSO NC and the DNSO List Admin. continues
to practice SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP in direct violation of the White Paper
and the NTIA/ICANN MoU, and they, the DNSO initiated this practice.  This
breeds lack of trust and reinforces existing distrust that has existed in this
process from the beginning.

William X. Walsh wrote:

> On 01-Jan-2000 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >
> >> In addition, we have the possibility of using cryptographic
> >> verification of
> >> messages to the list; this requires that the posters have
> >> this technology
> >> available.
> >
> > Actually, this is what I had in mind. The technology is readily available.
> > If we simply knew who posted what and could trust a message to be from
> > whomever it claims to be from, that would go a long way to clean up the
> > garbage around here. Once a post can actually be laid a someone's feet, I
> > believe that the list will self-moderate. I've actually observed this
> > before. The noise level is at its peak when anonymous posters are present,
> > it goes down a bunch when originators are known, it goes down a bunch more
> > when a poster can be verified. This is all without external intervention.
>
> This ignores that the primary offender doesn't mind that people know he isn't
> the person he is post as.
>
> I still support a drop of all connections from vrx.net till they deal with their
> abusive user.  I've done that here already.
>
> --
> William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208