Re: [ga] Re: What list forwards to what list

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

Roberto and all,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >
> >To me that intolerable garbage is e-mail that says "censorship is OK".
>
> >To some that intolerable garbage is e-mail that makes references to
> bodily
> >functions.
> >
> >But should the reaction be to gag the speaker or to individually block
> our
> >ears.
> >
> >I chose the latter approach.
>
> You have freedom of choice, and can choose for yourself the approach you
>  wish, but cannot assume that everybody will make the same choice.
> Moreover, you cannot *impose* on everybody to choose your approach.

  I agree with you here Roberto.  So why are you and Harald trying
to impose rules that have no mandate?  Can you answer that?  Don't
you think that a VOTE for the Assembly/DNSO GA list members should
make the choice as to WHAT rules the wish?  Evidently you don't or
you are stalling.  Which is it Roberto?

>
>
> It is clear that we will not have the perfect solution that will make
> everybody happy.

  Of course not.  But we can make or provide for a solution that the
vast majority can adhere and agree to.  You seem to wish to choose
FOR all of the Assembly members.  That is disenfranchising on it's
face, and disingenuous of you or anyone to determine.  I believe this
is Karl's and others point.  You and Harald seem to wish to ignore
this.  Why?  Are you afraid that the choice of rules would be different
to the extent that those rules would not meet with what YOU want?

>
> Either make unhappy the ones who do not want to participate in a list
> that enforces rules, even if only about civil discourse, or make unhappy
>  those who do not want to participate in a list that allows verbal
> aggression by some subscribers to the others.

  Again, define "Civil Discourse".  It can be defined in some context
that is broadly expectable.  This however has not yet been done.  It
needs to be so that everyone understands what is and is not expectable.
Otherwise you create a structure that creates confusion and disruption
by design.  Not a wise thing to do...

>
> I understand your question of principle, but I cannot pretend I don't
> hear the reasons of the others.

  You seem to not hear very well at all allot of the time Roberto.

>
>
> This is a common problem. Abusers are everywhere, and the current
> tendency, in our imperfect world, is to prevent abuse, or punish it, not
>  to turn the head on the other side and pretend you don't see.

 Ignorance is bliss Roberto.  I ignore allot of different types of abuse.
That is just a fact of life.  So it is on the Internet as well.  But first
one must also define "Abuse" in whatever context is expectable to
the vast majority, not a minority.

>
>
> Wanna make a test? Pick the public debate of your choice in the
> democratic country of your choice (in a city hall, on Capitol Hill, in a
>  tribunal, wherever), drop by and start insulting people at random, best
>  if women and with explicit language. Then, try to convince the
> attendees that they should close their ears rather than try to censor
> you limiting your freedom of speech.
>
> Let us know how it ended.

  I have done this on many occasions in my lifetime.  Almost every time
the participants chose to have completely open discourse.

>
>
> Regards
> Roberto

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