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

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Block vrx.net at the mail server level, and then he will be forced to use ISPs
that aren't necessarily as friendly to his little cause, and will have to pay
the consequences of being removed from each of them as he violates their terms
of service.  He is with a rogue provider now as far as I am concerned, and that
rogue provider should be blocked, forcing him to another, non-rogue provider. 
And if he finds a rogue provider, it is an easy matter to block that one as
well.  Eventually, rather quickly, he will run out of rogue providers, and his
disruptions will be limited by the time it takes the providers abuse dept. to
remove him.

It will force him to spend money as well.

On 01-Jan-2000 Michael wrote:
> 
> 1/1/00
>     Friends:
> 
>         I long to participate in a forum where I can debate the need for
> unlimited gTLDs.        This forum, however, relates to the right of Mr.
> Batista
> to piss in our soup.
> 
>         In my more activist days in college (late 60's early 70's), the
> greatest
> frustration of any protest was the "comrade" who thought that civil
> disobedience
> was for the bourgeoisie, and that uncivil disobedience was the only true
> protest.  Later, of course, we found that the local law enforcement
> authorities
> were using agents provacateur to push our protests over the line so that they
> had the necessary justification for a crack down.
> 
>     Mr. Batista has done an effective job of pushing the domain name issues
> off
> of the listserv and to substitute in its place his indignation at his
> perceived
> powerlessness.  But the results of his efforts could hardly be clearer: the
> domain name 'debate' regresses back into the quieter, more civilized, more
> exclusive haunts from which it came.  This is very much in the interests of
> WIPO, IBM, et al, and is hurting the rest of us.  The void created by Mr.
> Batista's efforts work strongly in favor of the status quo, which is the
> enemy
> of a more robust naming system.
> 
>     There needs to be a forum to discuss this issue!  I have clients that are
> desperate from the lack of available URLs.  When I send them here, however,
> they
> see what one finds in so many corners of the internet: a puerile chatroom
> that
> vacillates between pathos, irrelevance and insanity.
> 
>     I strongly encourage one of the members of the Board to make a motion to
> install a parliamentarian to serve as a moderator.  I also urge that those of
> you who care so deeply about the net _not_ fall into the trap of process and
> procedure.  The goal of the parliamentarian would be to pass through all
> rational discussion of the subject at hand.  It would be a mistake to take
> the
> next six months to write "rules" to implement a moderated listserv.  Take a
> vote!  Get on with this!  We need more names.
> 
> Michael McNulty
> (You may assume the next multiple e-mails from me
> will be forged...)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Roeland M.J. Meyer" wrote:
> 
>> This is Joe Baptista posing as Roeland Meyer.
>>
>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2000, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>>
>> > 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
>>
>> Shame - to call your opponents garbage.  I guess that gives me licence to
>> call you an IBM whore.  Not very nice is it.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>> The list is not nor has it ever been self moderating.  This list is for
>> show.  This list is to serve IBM's self interests and not much more.
>>
>> I say to you roeland - go ahead and make this conference more difficult to
>> post too.  Already we see the result of censorship.  No one is interested
>> in participating anymore.
>>
>> In fact the key participants - the IBM sluts - have been forced into
>> posting anything and everything to get this conference going again.  It's
>> dead in here.  So I say sure - let's make it more difficult to post.  That
>> should put the last nail into the dnso ga coffin.
>>
>> Regards
>> Joe Baptista

--
William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192