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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options



Eric and all,

  Exactly right here Eric.  Those that wish to individually censor
another member may certainly do so deploying their own filters
individually.  None the less, doing so is still wrong.  But
acting individually wrongly is fine with me.

CENSORSHIP IN ANY OF IT'S UGLY FORMS IS WRONG!

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.
> e
>
> 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

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