Re: [ga] List moderation

[<idno@tallship.net>]

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Please excuse me that I refute some of Bradley's falsehoods here.
> Some of this is relevant to the problem at hand.
> 
> At 02:53 PM 10/11/1999 -0800, idno@tallship.net wrote:
> 
 > 
> >You are guilty of attempted censorship yourself! You demanded on the
> >IDNO's SC list that Joe Abley remove Crisp and Crock and JW on no one's
> >authority but your own - and you have never even been a member of the SC
> >YOU HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!!
> 
> That is right. And that is why it never happened. That is why Joe, who
> really has the control over the list did not follow my suggestion (and not
> only mine!) on JW .

Joe actually threw out the caveat, but said it was just as easyfrom and
administrative point of view to whack someone form a list as it was to
keep them. to him it was not an issue of personality, but function. He did
warn that it might not be appropriate though, and then all of the active
SC members got involved and most came to the conclusion that even though
they didn't want crispy-crocketts on the list the only fair thing was
(correctly so) to keep them. You almost forced the SC to a formal vote on
that, but this was before things got hot inside the IDNO.

Will miracles never cease? That's mighty big of you Joop, Thank you for
owning up to at least some of your shenanigans.

> Your accusation (of twisting the polling booth text) is false.It was agreed
> that both camps would have their viewpoints represented. Even members who
> preferred your option testified that it was a fair representation of both

Stop. Look. And Listen... Red light.

It was not "My Option" regardless of any support inferred or how I may or
may not have voted. you presume too much and make reference to only a
single initiative that was a virtual"Battle of Britain", where we all
offered our "Blood, Toil, Tears, and Sweat" over a two week period just to
force you into Allowing  the election.

Green light... Go.

> After that, the re-railing proposal (a compromise) was adopted by
> overwhelming majority.

The re-railing Proposal could not be a compromise. A compromise was what
you wanted - Option C - Which failed miserably. You declared that this was
what we were going to have since you refused to hold a runnoff between A
and B. That is when Peter Hyde proposed the rerailing proposal, Which
effectively prevented you from summarily enacting the option that lost by
a two to one margin by both of the tied options.