From: Jean-Louis Couturier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:43:27 -0500At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote:At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to say so. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA)OK then, I disagree. This whole situation is giving me the creeps. Unlike most people, I don't think anyone's actually in the right here, everyone's wrong.
<snip>
IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my objection to his attitude on the list, Jeroen was the very first person to mention nuking Afghanistan. He wasn't advocating that we do so, but instead posted that he assumed that the US would blame, then nuke Afghanistan for the attacks. He not only decided that it was a fait accompli, but denounced us for even considering it. (At the time, not a single US gov't source had mentioned the use of *any* weapons of mass destruction in any way other than to mention that they were *not* being considered.) When I posted an objection to Jeroen's attitude and then asked him for proof (in the form of military or gov't sources) that we were seriously considering nuking Afghanistan as a retaliation, he not only didn't and couldn't provide any, but refused to apologize. He cited past US history as a "justification" for making wild accusations about us on the list and never once apologized for his obvious error. So, I think the pig-headedness that you're commending him for is seriously misplaced, at least on the nuclear front.I left this list a little more than a year ago, after the 9-11 attack because I was reading posts which advocated things like nuclear attacks against Afghanistan and that members who actually voiced their opposition were put down and compared to the terrorists themselves. I remember that it was Jeroen, displaying the same pig-headedness that he shows today, who refused to stop asking the unpopular questions like, where's the proof?
I agree with this. I don't think *any* moderation should be indefinite or for an undefined time-frame. I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp. As I pointed out yesterday, this block is limited to the chello servers. He can still post to the list from work, using his mindef.nl address.Now I'm back, and the dynamics have changed. I am not in a position to tell anyone what to do, but I can say what I believe and this is it. We have a problem which needs to be resolved. Kicking Jeroen out is not a solution which I believe will be beneficial to the list.
Perhaps we need to talk about whether one member be allowed to deliberately cause this much chaos without any consequences being considered or objections being raised? I do think this needs to be resolved, but should we simply ignore the threats and attacks he's making?
By the way, no one has "kicked Jeroen out". He has been asked to change behavior and cease actions that would have been the result of a complete, not temporary ban on many other listservs. AFAIK, he has an open-ended invitation from Nick and Julia to come back when he is willing to stop attacking people. Since he refuses to change his behavior and has in fact been escalating his attacks against Brin-L members, it's listowners and server privately and publicly, you might say he is trying to remove *himself* from the list.
If you didn't see Brin-L.com during the last couple of weeks of November, I have the site's pages saved on my home hard drive and can send them to you offlist if you want. The threats Jeroen made were quite disturbing.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
