Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

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

Joe and all,

  Joe, you may indeed be right here.  I am not qualified to make such
a distinction, unfortunately.  I have in the past forwarded many of
William Walsh's posts on the IDNO list to a well qualified psychiatrist.
He found many of them to display a very disturbed person in William.
Same was said of Ken Stubbs, BTW.  This I found to be concerning,
but could be dealt with.  It should none the less be pointed out from
time to time so as to keep discussion in a realistic and well understood
light.

  This said though, any mailing list should not be a social experiment,
IMHO.  Others mileage may very of course, as I am gathering.  How in
doing so lends itself to meaningful and useful discussion and debate
is reaching rather to the extreme more than likely.

!Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:

> I actually don't find walsh arrogant.  I am arrogant and quite an expert
> in that area.  Walsh is more a pretender to arrogance.  His is more an
> envy of anger.  I smell fear in him.  But it's unrelated to us - it's his
> life he fears.  And he covers it up with a paint of arrogance - but a very
> shallow display at best.
>
> To be truly arrogant - one must be completely in love with oneself and
> one's position - as i am.  Anger has no business in arrogance - but comedy
> - now that's a walsh of a different colour.
>
> Regards
> Joe Baptista
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > William and all,
> >
> > William X. Walsh wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > I seperated my comments on your post about the list policy. The prior message
> > > was about the posts regarding the GA and NC. This addresses the ontopic porton
> > > about mail list policy.
> >
> >   How interestingly arrogant of you William.  I am sure some find this relevant,
> > but I am not sure if that is a majority.  Given that if a majority is not known,
> > I wonder just how relevant this preamble to your comments here are
> > relevant.
> >
> >   But I digress further...  (See more below William's further comments)
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 13-Jan-2000 Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > >> There exists an open list that can be subscribed to: ga-unfiltered@dnso.org.
> > > >
> > > > The official list of the GA must be totally uncensored.
> > >
> > > This is your opinion.  And an opinion that appears to be vastly a minority
> > > opinion.  Thankfully in my opinion.
> >
> >   What is your documented evidence of this statement at this juncture here
> > William?   Can you produce that for us here?  If not, why not take a vote
> > on this before making such a outlandish statement?  For instance, we [INEGRoup]
> > have yet to officially respond to this proposal that Harald has presented.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > You equate list rules with censorship.  I disagree with that characterization.
> >
> >   As is you right.  But this is YOUR opinion.  It certainly is not a FACT,
> > now is it?
> >
> > >
> > > EVERY forum has rules for participation, and there are means for removal of
> > > people who disrupt the forum.
> >
> >   This is not correct, as you well know William.
> >
> > >  This is true offline and online.  There is
> > > simply no justification for calling that censorship.
> > >
> > > It is running a responsible forum.
> >
> >   Responsible is fine.  A variation of Roberts Rules of Order for online
> > participation such as Mark suggested may be how that should be determined.
> > Blankett false statements are not or should not be.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> The existence of this list will make it possible to have independent
> > > >> verification of what the filtering function does.
> > > >
> > > > No "independent verification" is possible unless the list is fully and
> > > > completely archived.
> > >
> > > You, and anyone else who so chooses, including the poor misunderstood
> > > gentlemen from INEG and PCCF, are free to do just that.
> >
> >   Nice smear attempt of myself or Joe Baptista, but unfortunately not
> > very convincing as is already evident.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > - --
> > > William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
> > > DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
> > > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
> > > GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
> > > Comment: DSo Networks
> > >
> > > iD8DBQE4fT7F8zLmV94Pz+IRAs3TAJwKKqnnwTU2PB07kVjs+GuApsVxIACcCMPj
> > > LUHHx6rVzvDPLO16WscowHw=
> > > =i7jC
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > 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
> >
> >

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