Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options

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

Judyth and all,

  Yes you did Judyth.  You stated that you had contacted Thomas
to have me personally banned from the Discuss list/this list forum.
That did occur.  Hence you are in favor of CENSORSHIP and
stated such.  If you like I will pull the Archived post to which
you made those remarks.

  Let me be succinct here.  I also support individual restraint
when and where each individual believes it applies to them.
That is after all, the very nature of said self restraint.

  So in the future, please try to be completely honest in your
remarks at least, Judyth..

  Hence again I cannot abide by such an individual or person that
espouses such ugly and disruptive positions in any Atlarge representation
for this or any other similar organization.

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> >Jeff Williams wrote:
> >>   I am in agreement with Judyth's comments/remarks below.  I am
> >> also puzzled that Judyth on the one hand supports publicly
> >> CENSORSHIP, yet on the other says that members are members
> >> and have a right to vote and that we have a duty to notify the
> >>members
> >> of upcoming votes/polls.  To me these two positions are juxtaposed,
> >> and therefore inconsistent.  As such, I again state clearly and
> >>without
> >> reservation that I do not support Judyth as a watchdog for any
> >> election unless or until a recant of the CENSORSHIP position
> >> from Judyth is made publicaly.
> >>
> >>   I humbely and kindly await such a  recant...
>
> Dear all,
>
> I cannot recant what I never said in the first place.
>
> I have never supported censorship -- just self-restraint
> by each member and, where one chooses not to exercise it
> and interferes with the good of the organization, a process
> whereby the organization's credibility can be protected
> while that member can be taught better manners.
>
> Eric <eric@hi-tek.com> wrote:
> >Censorship is wrong, self filtering is good for the individuals.
> >No watchdog should be able or even in favor of censorship.
>
> and I agree completely, whether Jeff believes me or not.
>
> In fact, I have been quite determined to point out that NO
> individual within this group should be in a position to
> censor another or to control the flow of information between
> the organization and its members and vice versa. Where
> calls for self-restraint and discretion fail, there must be
> a mechanism by which the collective good of the organization
> is safeguarded and that process should be applied impartially
> by the elected directors of the organization sitting as a
> Panel or Board, after a majority vote on the appropriate
> action for the case.
>
> This is one of my major issues with the notion that Joop
> should not only administer votes via the Polling Booth but
> also decide on the timing, content and distribution of
> information to the membership. Democracies work best when
> there is a separation of powers and a process for collective
> decision-making. They don't work at all when any individual
> can act as prosecutor, judge and jury.
>
> The other major issue for me (although secondary to the above)
> is that this organization will achieve little or nothing if
> its public relations -- consisting primarily of its Web site
> and mailing lists -- are marred by ad hominem attacks,
> self-aggrandizing at the expense of others, incoherent
> demands, inappropriate language, "bot" postings, etc. A
> recreational newsgroup can carry on despite these things
> but they are no help in building a democracy or inviting
> others to join it.
>
> To a lesser extent than those things, I think badly-worded or
> unapproved poll questions and unathorized communications sent
> to members are also a problem. Joop, I'm sorry if this hurts
> your feelings but, though your English is good for a non-native
> speaker, I don't think it's good enough to be used unedited and
> I think it does the group harm when you do something that seems
> like a good idea to you but then draws objections from other
> members that you've violated their privacy or made decisions
> without consulting others in advance. There **really** need to
> be rules about these things, especially since you're by no
> means the only member to have committed such offenses. Our
> best protection from such mistakes is a process for collective
> consideration and prior approval of the materials by which the
> group represents itself to the public.
>
> If somebody on this list were posting spam here (as somebody is
> already doing with the WG-Web list), I do not believe it constitutes
> advocacy of censorship to want the spam deleted from the list's
> public archives. Personally, I would count the recurrent postings
> of the "who is Jeff Williams" stuff and any other messages whose
> sole intent is to damage the reputation of another member as
> deserving of deletion, too, but I wouldn't want any one person
> to be making that decision and I would want there to be some
> clear and explicit criteria to guide the Panel or Board on
> what kinds of messages should be filtered out in advance -- e.g.,
> computer viruses, promotions for pornography sites and such -- or
> deleted from the archives if they manage to get past the
> spam-and-virus filter.
>
> If it's "censorship" to want to keep the list clean, virus-free,
> respectful of individual rights and suitable to its purpose, then
> your definition is a lot broader than mine. Ultimately, it's up
> to the group to make a collective decision about that sort of
> thing, and I'll abide by its decision.
>
> Regards,
>
> Judyth
>
> P.S. Jeff Williams responded to Stephen Waters on the subject of
> filibusters:
> >  Interesting tact.  Unfortunately it is incorrectly applied.  A
> >Filibuster is quite opposite of your attributation Stephen.
> >In fact a filibuster is a celebration of speech in contention
> >to a particular position held by a potential opposition.
>
> Obviously this point is debatable. The classic filibuster is
> a tactic by which the opposition party stalls a vote by
> deliberately using their right of free speech to block the
> exercise of the right of speech or vote on the part of others.
> For those of us in parliamentary democracies or other non-
> American forms of government, there is no "right to filibuster".
> When a speaker diverges too far from the subject on the
> agenda, he or she is called to order.
>
> During the debate on a measure, the elected representatives
> are normally given the opportunity to speak **to the matter
> at hand** regardless of which party they belong to; however,
> if somebody decides to read the telephone book or declaim for
> hours on some other subject, the Speaker rules that person
> out of order and lets somebody else take the floor to have his
> or her say on the subject of the debate. Eventually, whether
> everyone is willing to let the vote take place or not,
> somebody calls for a vote and when the majority agrees, the
> issue is voted upon.
>
> That one person should tie up the work of an entire
> government with an hours-long "celebration of speech" so as
> to prevent his fellow-members from exercising their franchise
> is not unique to the U.S. Congress but it's not a practice
> favoured by most democracies and I certainly don't wamt to
> see it practiced within this group.
>
> P.P.S. What the heck have you got against Jan, Jeff? I can
> understand why you'd loathe me but J.S. has been a model of
> discretion, tact and good sense...
>
> My two cents Canadian,
>
> J.M.
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> "Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
> ##########################################################
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de