Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

["Ramesh Kumar Nadarajah" <ramesh@mimos.my>]

For a long time now, I have been a lurker as I saw nothing in the GA
discussion list worth commenting on - just discussions going round and round
on censorship versus free speech. But with all the noise, I did learn quite
a bit about the personalities that post frequently and who makes sense (at
least to me) and who doesn't - now I at least know who to vote or not vote
for the next time around! I also learned that the noise sometimes has value
as it teaches you so much about opposing viewpoints.

What I'm trying to say is that I agree with Karl Auerbach - we can use
filters if we want to. A censored discussion is pointless. If you think
someone is making noise, and the filters won't keep him out, ignore him and
focus on the real issues that the GA should be addressing.

- ramesh -


----- Original Message -----
From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 5:08 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy


> >  > > 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--
>
>
>
>