Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

[Alex Kamantauskas <alexk@tugger.net>]

>> 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.
> 

 I have to step in and agree here.  The only reason that I ever even see a
 single word posted by Baptista or Williams is in the responses that
 people are posting back to them.  Ironically, these are also the people
 that seem to want to censor the list to stop the disruptive behavior.

 So far I've been reading a one-sided conversation between Harald and
 Baptista about "straight" answers ("one-sided" in that I only see
 Harald's responses to the !Dr).  It's fascinating, but I question why the
 conversation is taking place at all?  Are you not participating in the
 disruption?  Please take no offense, I'm not attempting to imply that you
 are intending to disrupt the list.

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

 Why can't there be two (or more) lists?  The uncensored list, which would
 be the "official" record, and a "filtered" list (or more than one), where
 everyone who uses that list agrees to the filter rules *by the very act
 of subscribing to the list*.  That way you can have a Williams/Baptista
 free list for those who don't wish to use personal filters, and an open
 list for those of us who choose to filter using to our own particular
 idiosyncracies (which may or may not be the same as general opinion).


 Just set these up, and let's get the ball rolling.  It's done with IETF,
 it works.

--
Alex Kamantauskas
alexk@tugger.net