Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

>  > > I also disagree completely with every criticism that Karl Auerbach came
>  > > up with.  His objections are completely without support and his method
>  > > of running a list would result in complete chaos.  If he wants that kind
>  > > of list, he can just subscribe to (and archive) the ga-unfiltered list.
>  > 
>  > Our disagreement is about which list is the "official" one.
> 
> No.  You wish to wallow in the childish and disruptive behavior of
> things like the so-called jeff williams multiple-personality disorder
> and I do not.

If you don't like somebody's postings then you can filter them yourself.

What you are doing is imposing your censorship on others.

You have the power to keep Jeff W. and Joe B. out of your mailbox.  If you
need the procmail filters to do this, just ask, several of us have 'em.

You fail to use the tools that have been provided and, instead, want to
impose your choices on the rest of us.

>  > The all encompassing one, the one without filters, the one with
>  > submissions from all parties, ought to be the full record.
> 
> What purpose does is serve to archive the obscene ranting of the insane
> canadian joe baptista?  His libelous and slanderous postings have served
> no purpose other than to inhibit productive discussions from occuring.

There's no disagreement that their postings are usually pretty awful,
but not always.  The discussion here is whether those of us who wish
to see those postings can do so.

If you believe that the postings are defamatory, then I suggest to you
that there are laws on defamation available to those who feel wronged.
If you fail to use the tools that have been made available to you to
redress wrongs, you won't get any sympathy from me when you whine
about your pain.

>  > Censorship is censorship.  The GA can't claim to be open while censoring
>  > comment.  Well, it can claim to be open, but it would be an overt
>  > falsehood.
> 
> Censorship in the United States is defined by the government restricting
> the rights of free expression.  When a private company (e.g., ICANN)
> wishes to carry on a productive discussion, it has every right to insist
> on minimum rules for civility and decorum.

Two points:

1. ICANN is not completely private, it operates as a California Public
Benefit corporation, notice the word "public".  ICANN also obtains its
power over DNS by virtue of a contract from the US Department of
Commerce.  As such ICANN is constrained.

2. Even in private contexts, censorship is censorship, discrimination
is discrimination, a wrong is still a wrong.


> I, for one, do not wish to
> be subjected to the childish and unproductive antics of such entities as
> those who identify themselves as the so-called jeff williams and joe
> baptista

You have the power to filter those people your self.  Here's a snippet
from my .procmailrc file - it sends things from Jeff Williams into a
special mailbox that I can read or not read.

Don't use your own inability to apply tools as an argument to force
the rest of us to wear your own blinders.

:0:
* ^From:.*Jeff Williams
IN.jw

:0:
* ^From:.*jwkckid1@IX.NETCOM.COM
IN.jw


> ... but I prefer a forum which enforces civil
> rules of behavior.

Then you ought to create your own derivative list that filters out the
dirt and grime of real life.  You have the ability to do that; if you
don't know how, just ask, several of us can help you do it.


> The so-called "official" record of all government bodies has always been
> edited after the fact to correspond to rules of civil behavior (striking
> remarks from the record, etc.)

You have an odd notion of a "record" and a perception that seems more
in accord with the practices of a Stalinst era Soviet than with an
Internet regulatory body.


> There is nothing unofficial about the
> proposed ga archived list being closed in any sense.  Anyone who has a
> desire to participate in an open, spirited, productive debate is welcome
> to join in.  Anyone who wishes to act childishly and disruptive is asked
> to take their grandstanding and tantrum-throwing elsewhere.

And you are saying that you get to make the choice about who fits in which category.

Sorry, but I flatly reject you or anybody else telling me what material is
constructive and what is disruptive.  You make your own choice, I'll make mine.

And when you use censorship to manipulate the record so that a
subsequent reviewer or historian can not find all the statements, then
what you have done is nothing but creation of an approved official
history.

		--karl--