[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel Mandate options and responsibilities to members
Eric and all,
Well said Eric. And of course, quite right.
eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> If censorship and denial of freedom of speech is forced upon this list, then there is
> not a list.
> My children in the dumps on the outside of Mexico city DF, the Saigon Delta, and
> Somalia require nothing less and we should deliver nothing less.
>
> Manipulators views are nothing compared to our obligation to speak truth. And if the
> truth is said poorly or hurts so damn be it.
> My Son asked me about a filibuster, and I told him it was the worst crime our nation
> commits.
> e
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all,
> >
> > All good and nobel men. Men that should be emulated, but often
> > are not or not even well known for their magnificence.
> >
> > "Any person that upholds any form of Censorship should be held
> > themselves in disdain." Abraham Lincoln
> >
> > eric@hi-tek.com wrote:
> >
> > > I believe it was Justice Codroba, and Marshal both that coined "censorship leads
> > > to prior restraint and prior restraint leads to self censorship which destroys
> > > ideas being shared" (that is paraphrased)
> > > Dalai Lama asserts that the restraint of a man's mind is the worst crime against
> > > all mankind.
> > > Juarez in Mexico declared "That freedom is dependent upon truth being spoken and
> > > the only method for that is complete freedom of speech"
> > > Ho Chi Minh (un beknownst to most) declared "Liberty, Independence and Happiness
> > > were contingent upon an open forum of views and exchange"
> > > enough said about Lincoln, Washington and DeGaulle.
> > > Stifling of voices creates ignorance.
> > > e
> > >
> > > Jeff Williams wrote:
> > >
> > > > 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
> >
> > 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