RE: Official Statement
At 12:35 12-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: > Such as? I know that Outlook, Eudora and Hotmail show the "From:" header > (name *and* e-mail address), and IIRC so does Netscape. Come to think of > it, it would be rather strange for an e-mail client to not tell you who > sent you a message. Outlook shows the name, not the address, unless there's only an address present. Thus, if the header is like this: Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> all that is displayed is "Jeroen van Baardwijk". You must be using different settings. I checked this with the Outlook version I use at work (Outlook 98, default settings); it displays both the name *and* the e-mail address of the sender. I can send you a screendump if you don't believe me. Jeroen "Defense lawyer" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
Rich wrote: > Marvin said: > > > Thank goodness for flexible mail filters, then. > > I was tricked by my filters several times. I'm used to thinking that > anything in my Brin-L folder is from this list, but I was filtering on > the To: field and ran into problems when Jeroen was sending to the > Brin-L address and BCCing me (and others). Well, I was confused when I started receiving emails from Jeroen at work even though I unsubscribed my work account from Brin-L just after I returned from India. Confused doesn't really cover it. Lal GSV Japanese Revision Night ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Nick Arnett wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of Jon Gabriel > > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:39 AM > > ... > > > Nick, where and why would forging headers be outlawed? I'm not > > exactly up > > on net law, but this is the first I've heard of it? Have there been > > lawsuits or something or are you just loosely referring to TOS > > stipulations? > > Several U.S. states have outlawed it, as an anti-spam and anti-hacking > thing. I don't recall which ones, though. Short answer: The following states have anti-spam legislation which may or may not include the outlawing of forging headers: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin Long answer: Details on each of the above available at http://www.cga.state.ct.us/2002/olrdata/gl/rpt/2002-R-0868.htm Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Marvin said: > Thank goodness for flexible mail filters, then. I was tricked by my filters several times. I'm used to thinking that anything in my Brin-L folder is from this list, but I was filtering on the To: field and ran into problems when Jeroen was sending to the Brin-L address and BCCing me (and others). Rich GCU Totally Confused ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk ... > >Baloney. Setting "Reply-To" to an address for which you don't have > >permission *is* wrong and illegal in those places where forging headers > >has been outlawed. And your supporting argument, that the "From" header > >is visible, is simply untrue for many, many mailers. > > Such as? I know that Outlook, Eudora and Hotmail show the "From:" header > (name *and* e-mail address), and IIRC so does Netscape. Come to think of > it, it would be rather strange for an e-mail client to not tell you who > sent you a message. Outlook shows the name, not the address, unless there's only an address present. Thus, if the header is like this: Jeroen van Baardwijk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> all that is displayed is "Jeroen van Baardwijk". And that's what you did. Your messages also had the forged return address in the "Return Path" header. And no matter what the browser displays, that doesn't excuse the use of a return address that isn't yours to use. That's like saying it's okay for you to use my name as long as people can see that it isn't really yours to use... which would still be impersonation. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
At 13:39 12-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: It's not immediately visible in Hotmail (at least not under the default headers viewer -- there are advanced headers you can read that would say.) You must be using an other Hotmail than the one I use, then (and I use the default settings). For example, when I opened your message in Hotmail, I got the following on my screen: From: "Jon Gabriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Official Statement Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 13:39:00 -0500 Jeroen "Defense lawyer" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
At 05:41 12-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: __ > As for "forging headers" by changing the Reply-To address, I don't > consider that an offense; the return address is clearly visible in the > "From:" field of the incoming message as well as in the "To:" field of > the reply, so the recipient can easily where his reply will be sent. > It may not be *nice* to change the Reply-To address, but it does not > qualify as an offense. Baloney. Setting "Reply-To" to an address for which you don't have permission *is* wrong and illegal in those places where forging headers has been outlawed. And your supporting argument, that the "From" header is visible, is simply untrue for many, many mailers. Such as? I know that Outlook, Eudora and Hotmail show the "From:" header (name *and* e-mail address), and IIRC so does Netscape. Come to think of it, it would be rather strange for an e-mail client to not tell you who sent you a message. But anyway, even if an e-mail client doesn't show the "From:" header, I can't imagine that it would not show the "To:" header if the recipient replies to the message -- which is the only time the return address is of any importance. Jeroen "Defense lawyer" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Jon Gabriel > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 10:39 AM ... > Nick, where and why would forging headers be outlawed? I'm not > exactly up > on net law, but this is the first I've heard of it? Have there been > lawsuits or something or are you just loosely referring to TOS > stipulations? Several U.S. states have outlawed it, as an anti-spam and anti-hacking thing. I don't recall which ones, though. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Official Statement Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2002 05:41:45 -0800 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... > As for "forging headers" by changing the Reply-To address, I > don't consider > that an offense; the return address is clearly visible in the > "From:" field > of the incoming message as well as in the "To:" field of the reply, so the > recipient can easily see where his reply will be sent. It may not > be *nice* > to change the Reply-To address, but it does not qualify as an offense. Baloney. Setting "Reply-To" to an address for which you don't have permission *is* wrong and illegal in those places where forging headers has been outlawed. And your supporting argument, that the "From" header is visible, is simply untrue for many, many mailers. It's not immediately visible in Hotmail (at least not under the default headers viewer -- there are advanced headers you can read that would say.) Outlook makes it visible (but not obvious) when I'm reading my Hotmail account. Makes no difference: there's an intent to deceive and that's wrong. Nick, where and why would forging headers be outlawed? I'm not exactly up on net law, but this is the first I've heard of it? Have there been lawsuits or something or are you just loosely referring to TOS stipulations? Just curious, Jon _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > One still needs to consider whether the off-list activity would constitute > an offense. FREX, sending messages off-list because one is not allowed to > post on-list would not necessarily be an offense (IMO, that would depend > more on the content than on the delivery method); it can also be considered > a perfectly justified way to circumvent the blocking. > > As for "forging headers" by changing the Reply-To address, I don't consider > that an offense; the return address is clearly visible in the "From:" field > of the incoming message as well as in the "To:" field of the reply, so the > recipient can easily see where his reply will be sent. It may not be *nice* > to change the Reply-To address, but it does not qualify as an offense. Thank goodness for flexible mail filters, then. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... > As for "forging headers" by changing the Reply-To address, I > don't consider > that an offense; the return address is clearly visible in the > "From:" field > of the incoming message as well as in the "To:" field of the reply, so the > recipient can easily see where his reply will be sent. It may not > be *nice* > to change the Reply-To address, but it does not qualify as an offense. Baloney. Setting "Reply-To" to an address for which you don't have permission *is* wrong and illegal in those places where forging headers has been outlawed. And your supporting argument, that the "From" header is visible, is simply untrue for many, many mailers. When you did that, you tricked people into replying to an address *you* intended, not them. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> -Oorspronkelijk bericht-
> Van: Marvin Long, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Verzonden: Geen
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: Official Statement
> IMO, an offlist offense that a) targets the server itself, or b) targets
> the membership of the list via bcc and/or forged headers, etc.,
> constitutes an "on-list" (or perhaps "list-related") offense in the
> sense that it is perpetrated against the list itself ("the list" being
> congruent with its membership, as facilitated by a given server). So,
> "off-list" cannot be assumed to imply "unrelated to the list."
One still needs to consider whether the off-list activity would constitute
an offense. FREX, sending messages off-list because one is not allowed to
post on-list would not necessarily be an offense (IMO, that would depend
more on the content than on the delivery method); it can also be considered
a perfectly justified way to circumvent the blocking.
As for "forging headers" by changing the Reply-To address, I don't consider
that an offense; the return address is clearly visible in the "From:" field
of the incoming message as well as in the "To:" field of the reply, so the
recipient can easily see where his reply will be sent. It may not be *nice*
to change the Reply-To address, but it does not qualify as an offense.
Jeroen "Defense lawyer" van Baardwijk
LEGAL NOTICE:
By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies
(both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form,
and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative
consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Consequences of off-list attacks, spam, etc.? (was RE: Official Statement)
At 06:43 PM 12/10/02 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk > Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:46 AM ... > I must disagree with this. Off-list offenses are a private matter between > the sender and the recipient, and therefore it is for the recipient (and > only the recipient) to decide how to deal with it (kill-filing, flaming > back, filing an abuse report with the offender's ISP). As an off-list > offense by definition does not take place on-list, it is not for the > listowners or the community as a whole to punish the offender. This is a difficult area. The list managers certainly can't become the Internet Police for anybody who participates in the list. On the other hand, if list members respond to list messages with off-line personal attacks or spam, is that something that should lead to restrictions? Or is it between them (and their ISPs, presumably) at that point? Perhaps it should be perfectly acceptable to forward spam or personal attacks, sent off-list but related to the list, to the list managers for publication on the list. Thus, there'd be a double-check that it's really an offense, but takes away the sender's ability to privately hassle list members over list-related things. Goodness, this is complicated. I think I have a simpler solution: "Don't send anything (either on-list or off-list) that you would find offensive if it were directed towards you." GSV Luke 6:31 (Golden Rule class) --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, J. van Baardwijk wrote:
> At 18:57 09-12-2002 -0600, Marvin Long wrote:
>
> >Formal statements of apology or reformed intent should not be required for
> >mere on-list etiquette offenses, at least not for first or second offenses.
> >(Off-list offenses that go beyond breaches of etiquette may be quite another
> >matter, however.)
>
> I must disagree with this. Off-list offenses are a private matter between
> the sender and the recipient, and therefore it is for the recipient (and
> only the recipient) to decide how to deal with it (kill-filing, flaming
> back, filing an abuse report with the offender's ISP). As an off-list
> offense by definition does not take place on-list, it is not for the
> listowners or the community as a whole to punish the offender.
IMO, an offlist offense that a) targets the server itself, or b) targets
the membership of the list via bcc and/or forged headers, etc.,
constitutes an "on-list" (or perhaps "list-related") offense in the sense
that it is perpetrated against the list itself ("the list" being congruent
with its membership, as facilitated by a given server). So, "off-list"
cannot be assumed to imply "unrelated to the list."
In other words I sort of agree with you, but I think there are ways to
threaten or harm a list that do not involve on-list breaches of
etiquette. Countering such acts may justify requirements or assurances
that go beyond the discipline reserved for something mundane like an
egregious flame.
>
> >(Attempting the same thing over and over again while expecting different
> >results is the definition of insanity, someone said.)
>
> As someone who gets paid to solve problems that are related to M$ Windows,
> I can assure you that doing the exact same thing over and over again
> actually does quite often produce different results. :-)
>
> Guess I just admitted to being insane... :-)
No, just that Windows is insane.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
List management (was RE: Official Statement)
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk ... > I must disagree with this. Off-list offenses are a private matter between > the sender and the recipient, and therefore it is for the recipient (and > only the recipient) to decide how to deal with it (kill-filing, flaming > back, filing an abuse report with the offender's ISP). As an off-list > offense by definition does not take place on-list, it is not for the > listowners or the community as a whole to punish the offender. I have a real problem with the idea of member punishment, as opposed to list regulation. I don't think it is ever the list manager's job to *punish* anyone for their behavior on the list. Our role is only to retrict peoples' access to the list if they don't comply with list policies. That might *feel* like punishment to those who are restricted, but I think there's quite a difference. Punishment, in my mind, would have to go further, such as continuing to restrict someone's access even after they recognize why they were restricted and indicate that they'll do their best to comply in the future. In other words, list management isn't about modifying the behavior of the participants, it's about regulating the list content itself. Although the latter may affect the former, the purpose is different and the goals differ. If I aim to regulate the list content, I'm satisfied when the list is operating as its policies call for. But if my goal is to use punishments, rewards, etc., to persuade everyone who subscribes to adhere to the policies, then I'm not satisfied until any offenders change their behavior. So, while wearing my list manager hat, I don't care if an errant list member changes their behavior. They just won't have full access to the list if they step far enough outside of our (rather generous, IMO) policies. I hope that explains the distinction well. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 08:45 PM 12/10/02 +0100, J. van Baardwijk wrote: At 18:57 09-12-2002 -0600, Marvin Long wrote: (Attempting the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, someone said.) As someone who gets paid to solve problems that are related to M$ Windows, I can assure you that doing the exact same thing over and over again actually does quite often produce different results. :-) Guess I just admitted to being insane... :-) I suspect that you are actually describing not yourself but M$ Windows . . . --Ronn! :) I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed that I would see the last. --Dr. Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this > mess and for the disturbance it caused I'm a little late in chiming in here but I'd just like to say: WAHHH-H I've been trying to talk some people into joining the list and lately it hasn't been a real good time to do that! > This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it > go to hell... Agreed. Thank you, Jeroen. And thanks for all the time and effort you've put into the list in the past and will, hopefully, in the future! - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 18:57 09-12-2002 -0600, Marvin Long wrote: Formal statements of apology or reformed intent should not be required for mere on-list etiquette offenses, at least not for first or second offenses. (Off-list offenses that go beyond breaches of etiquette may be quite another matter, however.) I must disagree with this. Off-list offenses are a private matter between the sender and the recipient, and therefore it is for the recipient (and only the recipient) to decide how to deal with it (kill-filing, flaming back, filing an abuse report with the offender's ISP). As an off-list offense by definition does not take place on-list, it is not for the listowners or the community as a whole to punish the offender. (Attempting the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, someone said.) As someone who gets paid to solve problems that are related to M$ Windows, I can assure you that doing the exact same thing over and over again actually does quite often produce different results. :-) Guess I just admitted to being insane... :-) Jeroen "It's a dirty job but someone has to do it" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Ray Ludenia wrote: > J. van Baardwijk wrote: > > > > - what kinds of behaviour will not be accepted > > - what steps can/will be taken in case something unacceptable happens > > - if sanctions are taken against a member, how long they will last. > > Reasonable points, but should be kept fairly general ie not a highly > detailed and specific list of transgressions and detailed penalties. IMO: Jo Anne's etiquette guidelines adequately spell out what constitutes desirable and undesirable behavior if ordinary social norms prove insufficient. Steps/sanctions should be left to the discretion of the list owners because there are too many possible cases and contexts for a set of unambiguous rules to be written. However, I do think that when a temporary moderation or ban is put in place, it's only fair that the duration be spelled out at the beginning. EG, "So-and-so will be on moderation for one week, effective immediately," or "So-and-so will is on moderation and will be taken off moderation after he/she goes x consecutive days without writing a post that the listowners feel should be rejected." Formal statements of apology or reformed intent should not be required for mere on-list etiquette offenses, at least not for first or second offenses. (Off-list offenses that go beyond breaches of etiquette may be quite another matter, however.) Statements of apology might be taken as "good behavior" conducive to "early parole," however. > > I also think it should be formally established that sanctions may only be > > taken after the list has discussed the matter and has given its approval. > > This should prevent current and future listowners from becoming judge, jury > > and executioner. Keywords here are "accountability" and "transparency". > > Please no! I don't want endless arguments and bickering about any specific > cases. As long as there is a clear statement by the list manager(s) giving > reasons and remedies, then that should be it. If they clearly over-step the > mark, then I am sure there would be no stopping ferocious reaction to their > decisions. As long as they are reasonable, even if we disagree to some > extent, I would rather not have the list cluttered with endless discussions > about this. I would think we have had enough of that already. I agree with Ray. IIRC, the list has never successfully produced a means of determining consensus on an issue, must less achieved an identifiable consensus. Experience teaches us that the only consensus we can reasonably expect is the tacit approval indicated by a) a general lack of complaint, and b) the general willingness of listmembers to stay subscribed. (Attempting the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is the definition of insanity, someone said.) Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk > > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my > posting privileges to the > > > list, and without moderation. > > > > Done. > > > > GROUP HUG!!! > BIG GROUP HUG O frabjous day! Caloo! Calay! Here We Come A-Snuggling Among The Bytes So Clean Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
On Sat, 7 Dec 2002, Nick Arnett wrote: > Jeroen: > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the > > list, and without moderation. > > Done. Yay! (I know, I'm a bit late. I was out of town.) Mail filters are down...now! :-) Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Poindexter & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 20:13 07-12-2002 -0500, William Taylor wrote: What does the winner get for the magic numbered post? The usual prize: a free one-year subscription to Brin-L. But as this is a special occassion, we'll throw in a bonus prize: a 50% discount on the exit fee if the winner leaves Brin-L within that year. Jeroen "Tight budget" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Ray Ludenia wrote: > > >> I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-) > >You don't have to keep apologising again and again. Try stopping these >repetitive posts. > > > I know you weren't but do you think posting repetitive messages is such a bad behaviour that those that do it must be moderated? Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 11:32 08-12-2002 -0500, Kat Feete wrote: >I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we >can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be >tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens >that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and >well-documented list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks >from happening again. Er, we have one? JoAnne's Etiquette Guidelines? Or has that changed? The Etiquette Guidelines indicate what would be considered (in)appropriate behaviour, but only say that the listowners have the right to remove someone who misbehaves. They do not mention what action should be taken in case of which type of misbehaviour, and do not mention how long a sanction should last. The current version would be a good starting point, but it could use some amendments. They used to be up on your site, IIRC, but of course that's gone now. They will be back in the near future. Jeroen "Architectus Websiticum" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Jeroen van Baardwijk wrote: >I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we >can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be >tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens >that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and >well-documented list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks >from happening again. Er, we have one? JoAnne's Etiquette Guidelines? Or has that changed? They used to be up on your site, IIRC, but of course that's gone now. But they were certainly useful as a roadmap to unacceptable behavior. The only thing I'd add to them is: No reposting private messages to other people without the permission of the original sender - with or without disclaimer sigs. I have an intense distaste for this practice. I've never *once* seen any good come of it. The golden rule is *always* "Attack the post, not the poster". I find it very useful to have guidelines rather than rules. Everyone steps over the line at one point or another, and none of us want to get dinged every time we make an off-color joke in the heat of an arguement. It's when violating the guidelines becomes routine that it becomes upsetting. Kat Feete 'I've gone to hundreds of fortune-tellers' parlors, and have been told thousands of things, but nobody ever told me I was a policewoman getting ready to arrest her.' -- New York City Detective ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: "Jon Gabriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 12:49 AM Subject: RE: Official Statement > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:34 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J. van Baardwijk > > Subject: Re: Official Statement > > > > I dont think so..no not at all. I think we are all adults here and > know > > right from wrong. If you cant seem to get a handle on it, the maybe > Sonja > > can help you since she seems to have a pretty good head on her > shoulders. > > > > I think codifying "The Rules" only invites people to skirt them, and > to be > > honest I think that is pretty much what you attempted to do. You argue > like > > a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when it is > really a > > pretty simple thing for most people. > > OK, here's where I disagree with you, Rob. If for no other reason than > to be fair, the rules really need to establish in advance whether > typical moderation will be indefinite or temporary -- or if it will last > until a change in behavior is forthcoming etc. A change in behavior should be the pivotal reason for a change of status in either direction. I do not think that we are into punishment here, nor do we want to establish anyone as civil authorities. We only want to keep the peace and protect the list itself. I dont think we want to build jails (or any analogue of jails ). I think that all we ever want to do is to show a person that a. they are disrupting the list b. it wont be tolerated I f a person is still uncooperative, they can be banned. *If we look back into recent history, this process may have saved a lot of bandwidth in regards to Mark, in that he would have clearly been shown what would and what would not be tolerated. *Moderation is a filter through which true incorrigables can be seperated from dissenters. > I don't think it needs > to be terribly specific, but it does need to let people know they're not > being shunned indefinitely. I disagree with Jeroen's methods: demands, > etc., but he did have one very good point: AFAIK, he was never told how > long the moderation would last and IMHO, under normal circumstances > that's wrong. Basicly, I dont believe we need rules so much as the establishment of a guiding philosophy. Rules bind you, they are a sword that cuts both ways. And I for one, would like the listowners to have the leeway to practice and use good judgement. Rules are hard and fast, but a philosophy can be more flexible. Generally we call our current philosophy "The Guidelines". We discourage the use of expletives on the list, yet there are times when their use is entirely appropriate, shift/masked or not. > > > > > > > > > This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to > hell... > > > > I think a lot of us, myself included, have been waiting for it to get > *back* from hell. It's been a nasty year to be an active Brinneller. > :-( > > > I agree, and while i think a Jeroen-less list is a diminished list, do > not > > think life would go on for the rest of us without you. > > We've lost many people over the past few years, some to their own > stubborn-ness and others to their own desire to enjoy being a part of a > grand discussion not peppered with flamewars and bickering. Brin-L goes > on without their voices, but I think each one is missed. :-( > > It would be a terrible shame to lose anyone else for any reason, but it > would be especially disappointing and sad for us to lose Jeroen. He has > poured a *lot* of time, love and energy into this place. I'm glad he's > changed his mind. > > > By the same token I > > believe that losing JDG would be tragic also, so please refrain from > > "requests" that others be banned or moderated. Coming from you after > the > > last few weeks, it would leave quite a bad taste. > > Or, rather than calling for it onlist, which seems to promote intense > arguments and flamewars, can we suggest that such subjects be taken up > with the listowners privately and *calmly*? I agree in general. I wanted to go on record as saying that I dont like members bitching about one another and that there are good reasons why they shouldnt. Let me go on record again: I think complaining about other listmembers should be recognised as grounds for moderation. (of course I'm talking about constant bitching, not justifiable complaints.) > Saying 'don't discuss it' > seems too much like 'we'll welcome you back
Re: Official Statement
J. van Baardwijk wrote: > I must agree with Jon; I think that there really should be some document > that at least states a few basic things such as: > > - what kinds of behaviour will not be accepted > - what steps can/will be taken in case something unacceptable happens > - if sanctions are taken against a member, how long they will last. Reasonable points, but should be kept fairly general ie not a highly detailed and specific list of transgressions and detailed penalties. > I also think it should be formally established that sanctions may only be > taken after the list has discussed the matter and has given its approval. > This should prevent current and future listowners from becoming judge, jury > and executioner. Keywords here are "accountability" and "transparency". Please no! I don't want endless arguments and bickering about any specific cases. As long as there is a clear statement by the list manager(s) giving reasons and remedies, then that should be it. If they clearly over-step the mark, then I am sure there would be no stopping ferocious reaction to their decisions. As long as they are reasonable, even if we disagree to some extent, I would rather not have the list cluttered with endless discussions about this. I would think we have had enough of that already. > That of course raises the question of how to deal with listowners who > themselves misbehave, especially if his/her fellow listowners support > him/her. Any suggestions? If there is widespread belief this has happened, I would think we would raise an almighty ruckus. If enough of us felt strongly that misbehaviour had occurred, then one of the remedies available to us is to desert this list and set up an alternative venue, and transfer to that. All my comments do place a great deal of reliance and trust in the list managers, but so far I have not seen much to worry about. Because of your dispute Jeroen, I can see where you may have some reservations about this :-) Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 22:32 08-12-2002 +1100, Ray Ludenia wrote: > I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-) You don't have to keep apologising again and again. Try stopping these repetitive posts. That was not an apology, that was an observation. :-) Jeroen "Gotta explain *everything* to them Aussies" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
At 01:49 08-12-2002 -0500, you wrote: > I think codifying "The Rules" only invites people to skirt them, and > to be honest I think that is pretty much what you attempted to do. You > argue like a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when > it is really a pretty simple thing for most people. OK, here's where I disagree with you, Rob. If for no other reason than to be fair, the rules really need to establish in advance whether typical moderation will be indefinite or temporary -- or if it will last until a change in behavior is forthcoming etc. I don't think it needs to be terribly specific, but it does need to let people know they're not being shunned indefinitely. I must agree with Jon; I think that there really should be some document that at least states a few basic things such as: - what kinds of behaviour will not be accepted - what steps can/will be taken in case something unacceptable happens - if sanctions are taken against a member, how long they will last. I also think it should be formally established that sanctions may only be taken after the list has discussed the matter and has given its approval. This should prevent current and future listowners from becoming judge, jury and executioner. Keywords here are "accountability" and "transparency". That of course raises the question of how to deal with listowners who themselves misbehave, especially if his/her fellow listowners support him/her. Any suggestions? We've lost many people over the past few years, some to their own stubborn-ness and others to their own desire to enjoy being a part of a grand discussion not peppered with flamewars and bickering. Brin-L goes on without their voices, but I think each one is missed. :-( Well, if you insist, we could try to track down Kyle and ask him to return... :-) > > Salam Alaikum / Sholom Aleichem. The phrase means: "Peace be with you" in both Hebrew and Arabic and I return the sentiment tenfold. Ahem. If you know the meaning of those words, than you should also know (and use) the appropriate response to them (Alaikum Salam in Arabic, Aleichem Hashalom in Hebrew). Just thought I should mention that. Jeroen "Speaker of many tongues" van Baardwijk LEGAL NOTICE: By replying to this message, you understand and accept that your replies (both on-list and off-list) may be published on-line and in any other form, and that I cannot and shall not be held responsible for any negative consequences (monetary and otherwise) this may have for you. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
J. van Baardwijk wrote: > I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-) You don't have to keep apologising again and again. Try stopping these repetitive posts. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J. van Baardwijk > Subject: Re: Official Statement > > > - Original Message - > From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:48 PM > Subject: Official Statement > > > > To my fellow Brinellers, > > > > I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and for > > the disturbance it caused, and I also offer my sincere apologies to Nick > > for trying to gain access to his server. I promise that I will do > > everything within my capabilities to prevent escalations, flame wars and > > other nastiness from happening again. > > Do you think you can actually follow through with this? > Gonna be pretty tough after this last go round. > Hallelujah and more power to you though. :-) > > > > > As a first sign of good will, you may notice when looking at the "From:" > > field of this message that the return address is now once again my own > > e-mail address. > > More of a return to honesty, but if you want to call it goodwill..eh! > It's an excellent step in the right direction, and a move towards normalization. I'm entirely in favor of it. > > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the > > list, and without moderation. > > I'd like to see you posting again, but would support Nick on moderation if > he cares to continue it. If he does not care to continue it, all the > better. > I'll second this wholeheartedly, but it's a safe call since reading ahead I see that Nick has already done so. :) > > > > > I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we can > > reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be > > tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens > > that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and well-documented > > list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks from happening > > again. > > I dont think so..no not at all. I think we are all adults here and know > right from wrong. If you cant seem to get a handle on it, the maybe Sonja > can help you since she seems to have a pretty good head on her shoulders. > > I think codifying "The Rules" only invites people to skirt them, and to be > honest I think that is pretty much what you attempted to do. You argue like > a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when it is really a > pretty simple thing for most people. OK, here's where I disagree with you, Rob. If for no other reason than to be fair, the rules really need to establish in advance whether typical moderation will be indefinite or temporary -- or if it will last until a change in behavior is forthcoming etc. I don't think it needs to be terribly specific, but it does need to let people know they're not being shunned indefinitely. I disagree with Jeroen's methods: demands, etc., but he did have one very good point: AFAIK, he was never told how long the moderation would last and IMHO, under normal circumstances that's wrong. > > > > > This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to hell... > I think a lot of us, myself included, have been waiting for it to get *back* from hell. It's been a nasty year to be an active Brinneller. :-( > I agree, and while i think a Jeroen-less list is a diminished list, do not > think life would go on for the rest of us without you. We've lost many people over the past few years, some to their own stubborn-ness and others to their own desire to enjoy being a part of a grand discussion not peppered with flamewars and bickering. Brin-L goes on without their voices, but I think each one is missed. :-( It would be a terrible shame to lose anyone else for any reason, but it would be especially disappointing and sad for us to lose Jeroen. He has poured a *lot* of time, love and energy into this place. I'm glad he's changed his mind. > By the same token I > believe that losing JDG would be tragic also, so please refrain from > "requests" that others be banned or moderated. Coming from you after the > last few weeks, it would leave quite a bad taste. Or, rather than calling for it onlist, which seems to promote intense arguments and flamewars, can we suggest that such subjects be taken up with the listowners privately and *calmly*? Saying 'don't discuss it' seems too much like 'we'll welcome you back as long as you
Re: Official Statement
William Taylor wrote: >>I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion. >>Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS > >Just wear a blue feather so that the color will clash with my red >one. So does that mean I have to wear yellow? Why does Robert get to be the Queen? Oh, wait, never mind, answered my own question. :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
"J. van Baardwijk" wrote: > Hey Rob, should I give you the name and phone number of > my lawyer? He claims to have plenty of experience with > sexual-harassment lawsuits. :-) Looks more like sexual *his*-assment. ;-) __ Steve Sloan . Huntsville, Alabama => [EMAIL PROTECTED] Brin-L list pages .. http://www.brin-l.org Chmeee's 3D Objects http://www.sloan3d.com/chmeee 3D and Drawing Galleries .. http://www.sloansteady.com Software Science Fiction, Science, and Computer Links Science fiction scans . http://www.sloan3d.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:17:22 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > What does the winner get for the magic > > numbered post? > > > A pinch on the butt from Jim! > And I'm gonna wn!! > > xponent > Carrying It All To Far Maru To Far Maru..sounds like a book title. Having a wonderful evening. Spent $60 at auction for books. So far I priced the 1783 set at $150, and the 1912 Vancouver Island Miners protest card found inside of the Engels book might be priceless. William Taylor --- Where is Maru Maru? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:09:39 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion. > Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS > > > JIM!..You savage!! > I was wondering if you had noticed my "Daisey Dukes" > > > Did that work better? > > Just wear a blue feather so that the color will clash with my red one. William Taylor - Anachronistic references. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:15 PM Subject: Re: Official Statement > > Robert Seeberger wrote > >AHHHthat didnt comethrough very well did it? > > > >I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion. > >Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS > > > > > >JIM!..You savage!! > >I was wondering if you had noticed my "Daisey Dukes" > > > > > >Did that work better? > > > > LOL! Much better. Next time I'll assume you're jsut going with it. Though, to be frank, I kind of enjoyed defending my position in a tragic, overwrought, highly deluded sort of way. :) > Jim..you are s butch!! xponent Lick Me Till I Scream Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:13 PM Subject: Re: Official Statement > In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:03:04 PM US Mountain Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > Both parts of the request, or just the first part? > > > > Both. It was a Boolean AND, after all. > > It was logic like unto a magic fulfillment, as in a wish granted from the > ONLY worthwhile Bedazzled movie. > > In the voice of Peter Cook: > > "Just say Booleandrews!" > > William Taylor > > What does the winner get for the magic > numbered post? > A pinch on the butt from Jim! And I'm gonna wn!! xponent Carrying It All To Far Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Robert Seeberger wrote >AHHHthat didnt comethrough very well did it? > >I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion. >Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS > > >JIM!..You savage!! >I was wondering if you had noticed my "Daisey Dukes" > > >Did that work better? > LOL! Much better. Next time I'll assume you're jsut going with it. Though, to be frank, I kind of enjoyed defending my position in a tragic, overwrought, highly deluded sort of way. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
In a message dated 12/7/2002 6:03:04 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Both parts of the request, or just the first part? > > Both. It was a Boolean AND, after all. It was logic like unto a magic fulfillment, as in a wish granted from the ONLY worthwhile Bedazzled movie. In the voice of Peter Cook: "Just say Booleandrews!" William Taylor What does the winner get for the magic numbered post? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:01 PM Subject: Re: Official Statement > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > From: "Jim Sharkey" > >>Robert Seeberger wrote: > >>>GROUP HUG!!! > >>>BIG GROUP HUG > >> > >>*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) > >> > > > >JIM!...You Savage!! > > The fact that the niceties of civilization have created a world where we cannot express our passions freely doesn't make me a savage simply because I choose to obey mine. :) > > Jim AHHHthat didnt comethrough very well did it? I shall have to create a metatag for this type of occasion. Its the Flaming Pink Effeminate Swishy Stereotype tag = FPESS JIM!..You savage!! I was wondering if you had noticed my "Daisey Dukes" Did that work better? xponent Stereotypes'R'Us Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 4:46 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Official Statement > > > At 16:34 07-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: > > > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting > privileges to the > > > list, and without moderation. > > > >Done. > > Both parts of the request, or just the first part? Both. It was a Boolean AND, after all. Perhaps I'm coding too much these days. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Robert Seeberger wrote: From: "Jim Sharkey" >>Robert Seeberger wrote: >>>GROUP HUG!!! >>>BIG GROUP HUG >> >>*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) >> > >JIM!...You Savage!! The fact that the niceties of civilization have created a world where we cannot express our passions freely doesn't make me a savage simply because I choose to obey mine. :) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Jim wrote: > Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: > >>Robert Seeberger wrote: > >>>GROUP HUG!!! > >>>BIG GROUP HUG > >> > >>*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) > > > >*slaps* Jim. > > > >Fresh! I at least expect some flowers before you get that friendly! > > Hey, who was talking to you? Robert's clearly my love-muffin! Well, someone pinched me. > *Goes to FTD to send flowers to Adam just in case.* > > Gotta hedge my bets, after all! I like roses. Red ones. With dinner and a movie, who knows? Adam Simper Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 18:50 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > >GROUP HUG!!! > >BIG GROUP HUG > > *Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) > JIM!...You Savage!! Hey Rob, should I give you the name and phone number of my lawyer? He claims to have plenty of experience with sexual-harassment lawsuits. :-) Jeroen ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
In a message dated 12/7/2002 5:37:44 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > GROUP HUG!!! > BIG GROUP HUG > Agreed, but.hey! That's GROUP not Grope! Stop that Tytlal! ::Runs out chasing a blurred mass of fur:: William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 18:49 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: Its a shame because you really would have made a great lawyer. You definately have the mind for it. (That could be taken as an insult as easily as a compliment, so please just take it!) I'll get back to you about that later -- right after I graduate from Law School... Jeroen ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: >>Robert Seeberger wrote: >>>GROUP HUG!!! >>>BIG GROUP HUG >> >>*Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) > >*slaps* Jim. > >Fresh! I at least expect some flowers before you get that friendly! Hey, who was talking to you? Robert's clearly my love-muffin! *Goes to FTD to send flowers to Adam just in case.* Gotta hedge my bets, after all! Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 6:44 PM Subject: Re: Official Statement > At 18:33 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: > > >You argue like a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, > >when it is really a pretty simple thing for most people. > > Yeah, I know I would have made one hell of a defense lawyer, but my parents > insisted that I get myself an education for a *respectable* > profession. > > And so I eventually ended up as an underpaid and underappreciated wage > slave in Her Majesty's Civil Service, spending my days fixing someone > else's computer problems. > > I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-) > Its a shame because you really would have made a great lawyer. You definately have the mind for it. (That could be taken as an insult as easily as a compliment, so please just take it!) xponent The Short Version Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: "Jim Sharkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 6:46 PM Subject: Re: Official Statement > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > >GROUP HUG!!! > >BIG GROUP HUG > > *Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) > JIM!...You Savage!! xponent Sweetie Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Robert Seeberger wrote: >GROUP HUG!!! >BIG GROUP HUG *Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Jim wrote: > > Robert Seeberger wrote: > >GROUP HUG!!! > >BIG GROUP HUG > > *Takes advantage of the group hug to pinch Robert's butt* :-) *slaps* Jim. Fresh! I at least expect some flowers before you get that friendly! Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Silence. I am watching television." - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 18:37 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: GROUP HUG!!! BIG GROUP HUG Great -- now I have that Teletubbies tune stuck in my head again. Gr Jeroen "Teletubbies are evil, why they must be eradicated" van Baardwijk ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
At 16:34 07-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the > list, and without moderation. Done. Both parts of the request, or just the first part? Jeroen ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
At 18:33 07-12-2002 -0600, Robert Seeberger wrote: You argue like a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when it is really a pretty simple thing for most people. Yeah, I know I would have made one hell of a defense lawyer, but my parents insisted that I get myself an education for a *respectable* profession. And so I eventually ended up as an underpaid and underappreciated wage slave in Her Majesty's Civil Service, spending my days fixing someone else's computer problems. I must have done something wrong somewhere along the way... :-) Jeroen ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Rob said: > Groupie Maru We're not groupies! We are Brin-aids! Rich GCU No Points On Offer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Adam said: > I also support his request for a discussion. I wouldn't presume to dictate what people can and can't discuss (for fear of Erik, if for no other reason), but it seems to me that the list has had plenty of talk along such lines recently. It might be better if we held off on that discussion for a week or two to allow things to go back to some semblance of normality and to allow each of us to reflect on the recent unpleasantness and how it might best be avoided in future. But if y'all want to talk about it, then I'll throw in whatever insights I can dredge up. Rich GCU Here I Am Now Entertain Me ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 6:34 PM Subject: RE: Official Statement > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk > > ... > > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the > > list, and without moderation. > > Done. > GROUP HUG!!! BIG GROUP HUG xponent Groupie Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Official Statement
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of J. van Baardwijk ... > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the > list, and without moderation. Done. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
- Original Message - From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:48 PM Subject: Official Statement > To my fellow Brinellers, > > I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and for > the disturbance it caused, and I also offer my sincere apologies to Nick > for trying to gain access to his server. I promise that I will do > everything within my capabilities to prevent escalations, flame wars and > other nastiness from happening again. Do you think you can actually follow through with this? Gonna be pretty tough after this last go round. > > As a first sign of good will, you may notice when looking at the "From:" > field of this message that the return address is now once again my own > e-mail address. More of a return to honesty, but if you want to call it goodwill..eh! > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the > list, and without moderation. I'd like to see you posting again, but would support Nick on moderation if he cares to continue it. If he does not care to continue it, all the better. > > I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we can > reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be > tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens > that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and well-documented > list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks from happening again. I dont think so..no not at all. I think we are all adults here and know right from wrong. If you cant seem to get a handle on it, the maybe Sonja can help you since she seems to have a pretty good head on her shoulders. I think codifying "The Rules" only invites people to skirt them, and to be honest I think that is pretty much what you attempted to do. You argue like a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when it is really a pretty simple thing for most people. > > This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to hell... I agree, and while i think a Jeroen-less list is a diminished list, do not think life would go on for the rest of us without you. By the same token I believe that losing JDG would be tragic also, so please refrain from "requests" that others be banned or moderated. Coming from you after the last few weeks, it would leave quite a bad taste. Sometimes its better to keep some opinions under your hat ( you can bet that I dont say everything I think at all times). If you start feeling like saying things that might cause trouble, you can always email me first and see what effect it has on me, before springing it on the list at large. Of course that offer is open to all of you. I think we have all done this with each other at one time or another. > > Salam Alaikum / Sholom Aleichem. > > > Jeroen van Baardwijk > > Good Luck Jeroen xponent Wings To Speed You Onward Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Richard forwarded: > > To my fellow Brinellers, > > I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and for > the disturbance it caused, and I also offer my sincere apologies to Nick > for trying to gain access to his server. I promise that I will do > everything within my capabilities to prevent escalations, flame wars and > other nastiness from happening again. > > As a first sign of good will, you may notice when looking at the "From:" > field of this message that the return address is now once again my own > e-mail address. > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to > the list, and without moderation. > > I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we > can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be > tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens > that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and > well-documented list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks > from happening again. > > This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to > hell... > > Salam Alaikum / Sholom Aleichem. > > > Jeroen van Baardwijk This seems to me to be sincere. I can, in light of this, support a reinstatement of posting privileges. I also support his request for a discussion. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Moving Forward Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Official Statement
To my fellow Brinellers, I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and for the disturbance it caused, and I also offer my sincere apologies to Nick for trying to gain access to his server. I promise that I will do everything within my capabilities to prevent escalations, flame wars and other nastiness from happening again. As a first sign of good will, you may notice when looking at the "From:" field of this message that the return address is now once again my own e-mail address. I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the list, and without moderation. I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and well-documented list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks from happening again. This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to hell... Salam Alaikum / Sholom Aleichem. Jeroen van Baardwijk ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Official Statement
For those of you who have Jeroen killfiled and so aren't seeing his BCCed copies of messages sent to Brin-L, here is his statement (posted with his permission): --- To my fellow Brinellers, I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and for the disturbance it caused, and I also offer my sincere apologies to Nick for trying to gain access to his server. I promise that I will do everything within my capabilities to prevent escalations, flame wars and other nastiness from happening again. As a first sign of good will, you may notice when looking at the "From:" field of this message that the return address is now once again my own e-mail address. I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the list, and without moderation. I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we can reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and well-documented list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks from happening again. This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to hell... Salam Alaikum / Sholom Aleichem. Jeroen van Baardwijk Rich GCU Don't Shoot The Messenger ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Adam said: > I wouldn't support it without some assurances that there would be a > change in behavior, specifically the personal attacks and the posting > of personal information to the web. Oh, and attempts to hack the > server. The message to which I was replying appeared in my Brin-L folder so I assumed it was a Brin-L message, but on closer inspection it seems to have gone nowhere near Nick's server. I think what happened was that Jeroen mailed the list and BCCed me, and this confused my filters and hence me. I didn't mean to reply to off-list messages on-list... Rich GCU Totally Confuserated ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Richard opined: > Jeroen said: > > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to > > the list, and without moderation. > > For what it's worth, I'd support this action. > > Rich > GCU Can We Just Put It All Behind Us? I wouldn't support it without some assurances that there would be a change in behavior, specifically the personal attacks and the posting of personal information to the web. Oh, and attempts to hack the server. Scratch that last - he wasn't hacking, just attempting to use someone else's login to access the administrators' accounts. Nope, nothing unethical about that at all. Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Silence. I am watching television." - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Official Statement
Jeroen said: > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to > the list, and without moderation. For what it's worth, I'd support this action. Rich GCU Can We Just Put It All Behind Us? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
