[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options



Having structured discussion on a working list with specific, known
rules is not censorship anymore than a chair calling a meeting to order
when two parties get wildly off-topic or speak at length to the
detriment of others. Jeff Williams' definition of any repression of
speech as "censorship" is not the standard definition. I doubt the U.S.
Senate opposition considers it censorship when the effective DoS of a
filibuster is in progress... and a filibuster is most certainly a
repression of speech.

-s

On Fri, 2003-02-28 at 15:57, Jeff Williams wrote:
> Judyth and all,
> 
>   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...
> 
> espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
> 
> > At 16:44 +1300 2003/02/28, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > >...
> > >However the members list is not the exact voters' list. There are up
> > >to 25
> > >addresses that bounce, so these people cannot be considered "voters".
> > >There
> > >is also the matter of the 169 "no messages please" members, who I will
> > >include only after they opt-in. They have 3 days to do this and one
> > >day has
> > >passed. So far 16 have opted in.
> > >
> > >This process will result in a final voters' list (for this Poll!)
> > >that I
> > >will send to the watchers.
> > >
> > >You have expressed reservations about such an opt-in and if Jan wants
> > >me to
> > >use the full list too, this would put me under pressure to do as you
> > >wish.
> > >Shared responsibility.  Walt is O.K. with the opt-in.
> > >
> > >But I must say that such a decision goes a  beyond mere watching.
> >
> > This puzzles me a bit.
> >
> > For one thing, within any group or organization I've ever
> > dealt with, members are members and they have the *right* to vote.
> >
> > Telling them when and where they can exercise that right isn't spam
> > --it's the *duty* of the organization to tell them. Of course,
> > a member can choose not to exercise the right, but it's not for
> > us to say that because they chose not to get a mailing list or
> > announcements of meetings of other organizations taking place in
> > other countries, they should be disenfranchised.
> >
> > "Bounces" are a different matter. An organization can only
> > use the contact information it was given by the member. It
> > can't do anything about the members whose mailboxes are
> > full or changed ISPs without notifying it. Bylaws, like laws,
> > usually contain something to the effect that notices sent
> > to the last address provided by the person will be
> > considered to have been delivered. All we can really do
> > about making sure people tell us about address changes is
> > to make sure there's a reminder on the Web site and maybe
> > a form for the purpose.
> >
> > For another, I don't really understand why it puts pressure
> > on you or goes beyond a scrutineer's role to suggest that
> > all members should be sent a notice, while your personal
> > decision to send an opt-in message to the 169 on behalf
> > of the group (which wasn't asked to approve this decision)
> > should be seen as more legitimate or impartial.
> >
> > I don't know whether you want me to be a watcher or not.
> > Thus far, only Jeff has formally objected to my serving as
> > one; Richard, Vittorio and Bruce seem to want me to. I
> > rather hope others will come out and say what they want as
> > soon as possible so I can know where I stand on this task.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Judyth
> >
> > ##########################################################
> > 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
> 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part