Re: FW: [ga] private filters are private blinkers: constructive proposals/peter principle?

[Mark Measday <measday@ibm.net>]

Perhaps Ms Cade, yourself or others in a similar position on the list could be
persuaded to list issues that can then be turned into agenda items.

It would appear unfortunate that the ga should be allowed to fade away
(i) as it could exert considerable influence in a bicameral sense on the DNSO
(ii) as it apparently costs large amounts of money to set up similar membership
groups according to Mr McLaughlin's private posts.

However, Mr Gaetano's gloomy statistical prognosis that it would never reach its
necessary quorum of half the world's population is a little disingenuous.

john.c.lewis@bt.com wrote:

> I have to agree with Marilyn as a significant proportion of the postings on
> ga are currently almost private conversations which add minimal value to the
> resolution of the issues we are meant to be addressing. I eliminate a
> significant level of postings from certain indivduals, their aliases and on
> some message headers. Unfortunately this also has the effect that anything
> worthwhile from those individuals is ignored, but that is what happened to
> the boy cried 'wolf'.People are respected for what they say, when they focus
> on the issues by making constructive proposals.
>
> John C Lewis
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA [SMTP:mcade@att.com]
> > Sent: 26 January 2000 15:45
> > To:   'John B. Reynolds'; Joop Teernstra; Karl Auerbach; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject:      RE: [ga] private filters are private blinkers
> >
> > As of now, I erase more than 90% of the postings without reading them at
> > this point.  I look at the headings, and erase those that have, in the
> > past,
> > led me to believe that it is "only noise" I will find IF I open.  I do
> > randomly read though, in ever potential and optimistic hopefulness.
> >
> > I hope to have a different option in the near future.  And I hope not to
> > have to erase or avoid any communications since if we have rules, and we
> > all
> > follow them, we can have civil and productive discourse -- even when we
> > disagree.
> >
> > It's worthwhile work that we hope to do.
> >
> > Marilyn Cade
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John B. Reynolds [mailto:john@reynolds.chicago.il.us]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:15 AM
> > To: Joop Teernstra; Karl Auerbach; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] private filters are private blinkers
> >
> >
> >
> > If "private filters are private blinkers", then it is equally true that
> > public filters are public blinkers.
> >
> > Without commenting on the substance of your particular dispute, lies
> > posted
> > by someone who is widely privately filtered are undetected only by those
> > who
> > have already determined for themselves that that individual's comments are
> > unworthy of consideration.  The same lies posted by someone who is
> > centrally
> > filtered would be unseen and unrefutable by anyone who subscribes to the
> > "official" list, regardless of whether or not they have reached an opinion
> > regarding the poster's credibility.
> >
> >
>
>   ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Part 1.2    Type: application/ms-tnef
>            Encoding: base64

--
_____________________________________________________________________
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
privileged.  If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not
copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
form whatsoever.  If you have received this e-mail in error please
e-mail the sender by replying to this message.
______________________________________________________________________