RE: WG-C RULES was Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Drop it Tony, you have no support for you attempt to otherthrow the
rule with popular support.

On 12-Oct-99 A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> Hi Roeland,
> 
>  >This is exactly why I support the 2-post rule.
> 
> Contemporary email client technology - even that available
> for free - allows extremely easy filtering, channelling,
> and summary display of messages.  There exists a good
> self-indexing system on the website that allows all
> messages to be seen by threads at a glance, or from
> a time perspective at a glance - allowing rejection
> of all messages and simply using that visualization
> tool.
> 
> Whenever governmental legislative bodies have sought
> to impose filtering or other kinds of artificial limits
> on people, those limits have been characteristically
> opposed.  Yet here - in a rule being devised for permanent
> application of ongoing collaborative and policy making
> processes - an artificial limitation is being considered.
> 
> The only thing that an artificial 2-post rule accomplishes
> is to stifle open discussions.  It is ironic that this
> would be considered for an Internet forum, when no other
> known policy making or judicial forum in the world has
> such a stricture.
> 
> 
> --tony

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/