Re: Re[4]: [IFWP] Re: INEGroup membership issues.....

[Planet Communications Computing Facility]

On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Wednesday, August 25, 1999, 6:40:30 PM, Planet Communications Computing Facility 
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Wed, 25 Aug 1999, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> >> >>
> >> >> To what cause, Jeff?  To obstruct the process by disruption?
> >> 
> >> > No - the bigger picture - he has the right to belong.
> >> 
> >> To join in and participate, yes, to disrupt and sabotage?  No.
> 
> > If Jeff were the only one here sabatoging then hurray.  There are many
> > more.  The question I see is can we overlook it and move on.  Why don't
> > you filter JeffW.
> 
> Yes, I know you are actively in support of efforts to sabatoge, but
> don't expect others to support it.  As Mark so correctly points out,
> with the right to participate comes responsibility.

Completely untrue.  We in fact have contributed in such a short time to
exposing the process for increased public participation - just ask Twomey
whats happening in his parliament these days ;-)

> 
> Participation is a civil medium, and there are certain things that
> participants have a right to expect from one another.

Never expect anything from people william - look at ICANN.

> 
> As to the rest of your post, I will avoid the response that appiles
> the same analysis to your own propensity to support Jeff's activities
> and the motivation behind them.  Up until this point you have not
> crossed the line Jeff as.

Look William.  A skinner reaction is normal.  Alot of people have them,
conditioning starts at birth.  It's either that or your a fag like my
ol'uncle walt.  He says it's a fag's business to be a busy body - and i've
givin up arguing with him on that score.  He's like you, he's gotta get in
there and nibble at every bone he see's.  We love uncle Walt anyway.  I've
never seen a heterosexual exibit these degrees of afliction.

most people don't have the time for it, and you only give him rope.

> 
> I would suggest that if it bothers you so much, you stop trying to
> stick up for him.  You do not do much for your cause in doing so,
> except associate your support of Jeff's activities with your own
> efforts, something that will only further degrade their credibility.
> You only make our points more salient when you respond to them,
> because they end up getting made with even more clarity and
> conciseness.

Our cause is based on fact.  I'll stick up for JeffW any day.  Freedom of
speech I find is a great thing in everyones books, until it comes time to
apply it.  Your version of freedom of speech is simular to that of
germanies 1930-1940's.  There was alot of freedom of speech back then -
provided you were singing the right song.

Freedom and rights exist not only for people we like, but also for those
we don't.  If you don't support that, then any support for freedom and
rights is bullshit.

 > 
> I notice you carefully avoid the salient points made about the reasons
> why his activities are inappropriate.  You know perfectly well there
> is no justification for them.

It's not necessary to deal with them.  The issue here is a right
inviolate, not personal opinion.

Regards
Jeff Mason

--
Planet Communication & Computing Facility           [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Public Access Internet Research Publisher           1 (212) 894-3704 ext. 1033