just for reference... http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0212/msg00103.html --- MOTION #D003: TEMPORARY BAN OF JEFF WILLIAMS Approved YES (4): Edmundo Valenti, Vivek Durai, YJ Park, Vittorio Bertola NO (3): Jefsey Morfin, Richard Henderson, Bruce Young ABSTAIN (2): Hans Klein, Michael Geist "The panel approves to ban temporarily Jeff Williams from all icannatlarge.org mailing lists, for having posted with a bot. The ban will not be lifted before Sunday December 15, 2002." --- On Mon, 2003-03-03 at 16:23, Jeff Williams wrote: > 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 >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part