Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

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

Alex and all,

Alex Kamantauskas wrote:

> >> 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.

  Responding on a mailing list is a normal function and central to a
discussion list isn't it?  I certainly don't want to see this or any public
mailing list censored.  I am sure that Joe does not either.  So I guess
I am not sure what your point is here.  The only "Disruptive" aspect
I see in this point is coming from you Alex.

>
>
>  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.

  A question was ask by Joe to the list and more specifically Harald.  A
fairly normal occurrence on any mailing list I have been on for many years.
What is your REAL beef here Alex?  Do you hold some sort of grudge
towards Joe or myself for some reason?  If so, What is it?  Does Harald
hold some sort of grudge or beef with Joe Baptista?  If so, Harald, what
might that be?  If we bring this stuff out in the open I am quite sure it
could be fairly easily resolved.  If not, than the bickering will likely
continue with only minor interruptions of substitive Discussion.

>
>
> > 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*.

  Why does there need to be two lists at all?  Is the idea to again engage
in SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP?  From your comments here, Alex
it sounds as if that is the case.  How is this productive or legitimate, even
ethical?

>  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.

  No IETF list I know of does this that I am on, and that is several.  Name
one that has two lists used for these purposes?  Or are you just parroting
Harald, Alex??

>
>
> --
> Alex Kamantauskas
> alexk@tugger.net

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