Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, David Douthitt wrote: > Ray Olszewski wrote: > > We need to be careful here. Silence does not equal assent, and many of the > > important participants in LEAF have been most notable for their silence on > > this thread. > > I'd like to speak up myself. I would also like to echo those > sentiments: silence does not imply my assent. Amen. > > My personal goal is to respond in a way that lets me feel OK about living > > with myself. This is, for lack of a better word, a moral concern, not a > > political one. As I've said in other contexts, one cannot control the world, > > but one can at least try to control one's own reaction to the world. > > In a sense, this too is my perspective. I can control my own > responses; he has his opinions and certainly has never made them > secret. When I started reading his shell code and seeing how he > signed his name. that was one of the first things I changed in my > distro... > > As distasteful as his views may be, it is not my place to pass > judgement (difficult though that may be at times). In the End, he > will not be judged by any of us. He will have to answer for his own > actions, and not any one else's; same thing for us. Amen. > Pi van Riezen said: > > I think you cannot > > criticize a _project_ for having political bias and/or a political agenda. > > Free Software itself is inherently political; Its political nature is the > > very ground that is being attacked so violently these days by the > > Microsoft FUD machines. > > I disagree. It is one of its founders, Richard Stallman, who is quite > political. If you compare GNU founder Richard Stallman to the style > and substance of one of Open Source's leading spokesmen today - Eric > Raymond - there is quite a stark contrast between the two. I think Free Software and Open Source represent themselves with different sobriquets for this reason, so no, it is not just RMS. > Charles Steinkuehler said: > > I am un-subscribing myself from the lists at linuxrouter.org, and will > > direct users of my disk images to use the LEAF site/lists, which I will > > remain subscribed to. > > It is likely that I will follow suit. It is not likely that I would > sign on to a letter that condemns Dave; as I have said, it is not my > place to judge him; there is another Judge that will do that. History will wash over all of us like sandcastles on a beach, whether a higher judge passes sentence on us or not. I just hope Dave C doesn't do too much damage to the world in his time. > I have been going over this quite a bit, and trying to find what I > want to say. I don't feel I am able to pass judgement on others; I AM > able to choose what forums I will take part in and which I will not. > So I'll be on LEAF-Users shortly and not on LRP. Letting him be what he is, and say what he thinks, may prevent his anger from being bottled up. But I would rather float away from him than be caught in his waves, regardless of what he becomes... a discontented spirit, or another McVeigh. Since he did make his statement publically, I hope the former is more likely. I normally think in terms of "live-and-let-live", but his abuse of the website struck me as a form of terrorism, and I don't believe in negotiating with terrorists. I think I may have squatted in his yard too long now, so it is time to leave it. --- Jeff NewmillerThe . . Go Live... DCN:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Basics: ##.#. ##.#. Live Go... Live: OO#.. Dead: OO#.. Playing Research Engineer (Solar/BatteriesO.O#. #.O#. with /Software/Embedded Controllers) .OO#. .OO#. rocks...2k --- ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Ray Olszewski wrote: > We need to be careful here. Silence does not equal assent, and many of the > important participants in LEAF have been most notable for their silence on > this thread. I'd like to speak up myself. I would also like to echo those sentiments: silence does not imply my assent. > My personal goal is to respond in a way that lets me feel OK about living > with myself. This is, for lack of a better word, a moral concern, not a > political one. As I've said in other contexts, one cannot control the world, > but one can at least try to control one's own reaction to the world. In a sense, this too is my perspective. I can control my own responses; he has his opinions and certainly has never made them secret. When I started reading his shell code and seeing how he signed his name. that was one of the first things I changed in my distro... As distasteful as his views may be, it is not my place to pass judgement (difficult though that may be at times). In the End, he will not be judged by any of us. He will have to answer for his own actions, and not any one else's; same thing for us. Pi van Riezen said: > I think you cannot > criticize a _project_ for having political bias and/or a political agenda. > Free Software itself is inherently political; Its political nature is the > very ground that is being attacked so violently these days by the > Microsoft FUD machines. I disagree. It is one of its founders, Richard Stallman, who is quite political. If you compare GNU founder Richard Stallman to the style and substance of one of Open Source's leading spokesmen today - Eric Raymond - there is quite a stark contrast between the two. Charles Steinkuehler said: > I am un-subscribing myself from the lists at linuxrouter.org, and will > direct users of my disk images to use the LEAF site/lists, which I will > remain subscribed to. It is likely that I will follow suit. It is not likely that I would sign on to a letter that condemns Dave; as I have said, it is not my place to judge him; there is another Judge that will do that. I have been going over this quite a bit, and trying to find what I want to say. I don't feel I am able to pass judgement on others; I AM able to choose what forums I will take part in and which I will not. So I'll be on LEAF-Users shortly and not on LRP. ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Scott C. Best wrote: > > I just wanted to split a quick hair. No affront to > Pi, I just needed a handy quote to speak from: > > > My point: This is an LRP issue. Deal with it in LRP and try not to > > generalize it into something larger. Abstaining from politics is politics > > as well. > > To be sure, McVeigh is not a "political" issue. It is > an *ideological* issue. Dave-C's advocation of terrorism and > violent extremism does not merit a comparison to even the most > libertarian political agenda. It is not "politically correct" > to condemn the actions of McVeigh, or the actions of the bombers > in Lebanon, Jerusalem, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. Condemnation of > terrorism is the flip-side of a near-universal love of life > and respect for it. In the religion of my family, this mindset > was known as simply "ethical". Which, as has been pointed out, > has nothing to do with an operating system. You didn't have to convince me of that, for sure. There is no issue of silently agreeing with what was stated, just that I feel no need to get on the publicity bandwagon about what is on a site I am only faintly affiliated with. The more noise people make of it, the more publicity there will be to surround it. Serves no real purpose, political, ideological or other. I don't feel like mixing things up in some ZDNet fanatic reporting that Open Source is now equal to terrorism and lord knows what. Let's keep our distance from linuxrouter, for sure, but let's not call for a press conference. Pi -- Head Development -- Vuurwerk Internet -- http://www.vuurwerk.nl/ Brainbench MVP Unix Programming, twisted artist and Free Software idiot. Serversitter and Operator for the Efnet and Undernet chat networks. * I need a mental stoma. ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
I just wanted to split a quick hair. No affront to Pi, I just needed a handy quote to speak from: > My point: This is an LRP issue. Deal with it in LRP and try not to > generalize it into something larger. Abstaining from politics is politics > as well. > > Pi To be sure, McVeigh is not a "political" issue. It is an *ideological* issue. Dave-C's advocation of terrorism and violent extremism does not merit a comparison to even the most libertarian political agenda. It is not "politically correct" to condemn the actions of McVeigh, or the actions of the bombers in Lebanon, Jerusalem, Kenya, Tanzania, etc. Condemnation of terrorism is the flip-side of a near-universal love of life and respect for it. In the religion of my family, this mindset was known as simply "ethical". Which, as has been pointed out, has nothing to do with an operating system. Sorry for the soapbox'ing. -Scott ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Pim van Riezen wrote: > My point: This is an LRP issue. Deal with it in LRP and try not to > generalize it into something larger. Abstaining from politics is politics > as well. Doing a bit of a follow-up on myself here. I think it may help if I point out what my position towards LRP is: I don't feel "a part of LRP" in the same sense that I feel "a part of RedHat". I *use* LRP for my own particular means. In that sense, I feel that I have no right whatsoever to complain about what does or does not happen to the LRP website, he can turn it into a pr0n webring for all I care. LEAF is different in that respect, since it is basically a "federation of hackers". If something like this were to happen to the LEAF website, I would feel left out as part of that community and I _would_ have the moral right to complain. Hope that helps! Cheers, Pi -- Head Development -- Vuurwerk Internet -- http://www.vuurwerk.nl/ Brainbench MVP Unix Programming, twisted artist and Free Software idiot. Serversitter and Operator for the Efnet and Undernet chat networks. * I need a mental stoma. ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
> >I agree with Scott's wording. I recognized my mistake as soon as I read his > >message. I think we should give Morgan a chance to write a draft. He may > >come up with something we can all agree on. > ... > > We need to be careful here. Silence does not equal assent, and many of the > important participants in LEAF have been most notable for their silence on > this thread. Some of them may not share the sentiments of those of us who > have spoken up, but hesitate to start a confrontation here on this list. > Understandably. Others may share the general sentiment but feel that it is > not a proper topic of discussion here. Again, understandably. In other > contexts, I've been in both of these positions, and they are uncomfortable ones. Sorry to stir up this thread and disappear... Shortly after posting the suggestion to take a look at linuxrouter.org (which I can't actually take credit for...Michael Smith sent an e-mail to the webmaster account of my LRP site suggesting I take a look at linuxrouter.org or I never would have noticed), I went off bicycling. Two flat tires, and about 4 1/2 hours later on an extremely humid day, I got home, showered, and crashed, not getting a chance to read this thread until this morning. > Personally, I'm not too worried about trying to do something "effective". I > think Dave's efforts are trivial in any real political sense. Agreed. As for my response to Dave's day of mourning, for me there is now no question about the future direction of my efforts with LEAF. While I was working towards making some disk images with LRP 2.9.8, and would have been willing to consider using Butterfly as a base distribution if/when it ever saw the light of day, these plans are now scrapped. I am un-subscribing myself from the lists at linuxrouter.org, and will direct users of my disk images to use the LEAF site/lists, which I will remain subscribed to. Future development will be based either on custom work or perhaps a small distribution, like HardHat. In the short term, I'd like to see Dachstein actually get released, and I'll try to implement linuxrc script changes that enable us to boot LRP like systems using the standard kernel (I've never been too fond of Dave's initrd-archive patches anyway). Also, while I'll consider signing a letter to Dave C. from the LEAF group, I'm not sure this is appropriate or necessary. While I disagree with the statements posted on the linuxrouter.org site yesterday, I think the biggest transgression Dave made was combining his political views with the linuxrouter project. If the linuxrouter site had a history of being the "American terrorist firewall site: Keep the FBI out of your secret files", his site content yesterday would have been appropriate. Instead, it seems like he is attempting to force his views onto a user-base that has little or no advanced warning of what they're getting into. If we see enough questions from the user-base, we may need a FAQ or article stating something about how the LEAF group is not politically oriented, we just make firewalls and other useful things out of small linux systems, and intend for them to be used by anyone regardless of political or moral views. (At least, I hope this is what we're doing). Charles Steinkuehler [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Mike Noyes wrote: > Morgan Reed, 2001-06-12 00:52 -0400 > >This is an inital rough draft that I think/hope represents all of the > >ideas mentioned here. > > Morgan, > It looks pretty good to me. For this to work we need all of our project > admins and a strong majority of developers to sign it. If this can't be > accomplished, I suggest that everyone do what they feel is best. > > Personally, I'll probably follow Jacques and Ray, and unsubscribe from the > linux-router list. I think that this actually makes the wrong point. I think you cannot criticize a _project_ for having political bias and/or a political agenda. Free Software itself is inherently political; Its political nature is the very ground that is being attacked so violently these days by the Microsoft FUD machines. If you are wearing your LEAF project hats, you have no right whatsoever to criticize what happened to linuxrouter.org, it is only as a member of _that_ community that you can say "Hey, I'm also a part of the LRP effort, and I don't agree with this political agenda!". If, however, I were to put political propaganda for Alfred E. Neuman's presidential campaign on the homepage of, say, the CISH project, you would in my opinion have little right to complain unless if I was using your source code ;) My point: This is an LRP issue. Deal with it in LRP and try not to generalize it into something larger. Abstaining from politics is politics as well. Pi -- Head Development -- Vuurwerk Internet -- http://www.vuurwerk.nl/ Brainbench MVP Unix Programming, twisted artist and Free Software idiot. Serversitter and Operator for the Efnet and Undernet chat networks. * I need a mental stoma. ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
I subscribed to this list moments ago, and this is the second message I received. If you plan to send this out, I will sign it. Cheers -Original Message- From: Mike Noyes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 3:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft? Morgan Reed, 2001-06-12 00:52 -0400 >This is an inital rough draft that I think/hope represents all of the >ideas mentioned here. Morgan, It looks pretty good to me. For this to work we need all of our project admins and a strong majority of developers to sign it. If this can't be accomplished, I suggest that everyone do what they feel is best. Personally, I'll probably follow Jacques and Ray, and unsubscribe from the linux-router list. >I agree with Ray that some notibles have reamined silent, and if there >cannot be a consensus, then so be it, and a statemnt dies on the vine. >My intent in suggestion a letter was to avoid an nudrectd >"counterstrike" made in haste. Actually a lot of them have. I hope this discussion hasn't made them uncomfortable. If it has I'd like them to send email to me directly. If I get enough negative responses I'll make a suggestion on our list to drop the subject. >Dear fellow LRP supporters, users and friends, > >Recently, one of the common web sites for Linux Router Project >information was used for a purpose that was decidedly unrelated to LRP; >instead, the domain name was exploited to make a political statement >that had no bearing, except in the broadest interpretation, on anything >connected to LRP. > >While we all support the concept and practice of free and open political >speech, we do not, and cannot condone the use of an open source, >community based project to support an individual member of the >communities' political position. > >We believe that the global attention drawn to the LRP website is there >because of all the participants, not just a single developer. We >understand that the holder of the domain name can technically do as >he/she wishes with the domain, but insofar as an open source project is >conceptualized, written, supported and expanded by a truly diverse >community, it seems wrong at the very core to essentially hijack the >work of many to serve a single person's political goals. > >We hope this letter can serve a dual purpose; to let others know that >the message that appeared on the website was not shared by (any/the vast >majority) of us, and to show our disapproval for the abuse of the >community trust placed in the domain name holder's hands. > >If a project is truly open source, then it can know no single political >position, no single political ideology. It should, we believe, represent >to everyone an example of how people from all places and walks of life >can focus on a project that has no clear material gain, no self serving >purpose and produce a remarkable product free for everyone to use and >benefit from. > >Signed > >__ -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
Morgan Reed, 2001-06-12 00:52 -0400 >This is an inital rough draft that I think/hope represents all of the >ideas mentioned here. Morgan, It looks pretty good to me. For this to work we need all of our project admins and a strong majority of developers to sign it. If this can't be accomplished, I suggest that everyone do what they feel is best. Personally, I'll probably follow Jacques and Ray, and unsubscribe from the linux-router list. >I agree with Ray that some notibles have reamined silent, and if there >cannot be a consensus, then so be it, and a statemnt dies on the vine. >My intent in suggestion a letter was to avoid an nudrectd >"counterstrike" made in haste. Actually a lot of them have. I hope this discussion hasn't made them uncomfortable. If it has I'd like them to send email to me directly. If I get enough negative responses I'll make a suggestion on our list to drop the subject. >Dear fellow LRP supporters, users and friends, > >Recently, one of the common web sites for Linux Router Project >information was used for a purpose that was decidedly unrelated to LRP; >instead, the domain name was exploited to make a political statement >that had no bearing, except in the broadest interpretation, on anything >connected to LRP. > >While we all support the concept and practice of free and open political >speech, we do not, and cannot condone the use of an open source, >community based project to support an individual member of the >communities' political position. > >We believe that the global attention drawn to the LRP website is there >because of all the participants, not just a single developer. We >understand that the holder of the domain name can technically do as >he/she wishes with the domain, but insofar as an open source project is >conceptualized, written, supported and expanded by a truly diverse >community, it seems wrong at the very core to essentially hijack the >work of many to serve a single person's political goals. > >We hope this letter can serve a dual purpose; to let others know that >the message that appeared on the website was not shared by (any/the vast >majority) of us, and to show our disapproval for the abuse of the >community trust placed in the domain name holder's hands. > >If a project is truly open source, then it can know no single political >position, no single political ideology. It should, we believe, represent >to everyone an example of how people from all places and walks of life >can focus on a project that has no clear material gain, no self serving >purpose and produce a remarkable product free for everyone to use and >benefit from. > >Signed > >__ -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
Hi Morgan, Sounds fine to me. I may or may not personally agree with Capital Punishment (or terrorism), but I sure as hell don't think that my views belong in such an obvious place on such an unrelated home page as that of www.linuxrouter.org. And I think it is an abuse of position/power that Dave used it for his political views. I will sign the text that is decided upon by all LEAFers. I think I may unsubscribe from the LRP mailing lists if there are others doing this too, as a statement of "protest" (for lack of a better word). Regards, Hilton Travis > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Morgan Reed > Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2001 2:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft? > > > This is an inital rough draft that I think/hope represents > all of the ideas mentioned here. > > Again, I agree with Bao, Ray and Dave, that treading > cautionsly is best, and I agree, to a limited degree, with > Ray's most recent assertion that silence does not always = > agreement, but, as I think you may see from my draft, Dave's > decision does represent a breach of overall trust. > > I agree with Ray that some notibles have reamined silent, and > if there cannot be a consensus, then so be it, and a statemnt > dies on the vine. My intent in suggestion a letter was to > avoid an nudrectd "counterstrike" made in haste. > > All of that niceness aside, soem times, ya gotta say > BULLSHIT, or the unchallenged comment goes on to become > accepted. Anyway, it is late, this is very rough, and > probably sucks toilet water. Here goes: > > Dear fellow LRP supporters, users and friends, > > Recently, one of the common web sites for Linux Router > Project information was used for a purpose that was decidedly > unrelated to LRP; instead, the domain name was exploited to > make a political statement that had no bearing , except in > the broadest interpretation, on anything connected to LRP. > > While we all support the concept and practice of free and > open political speech, we do not, and cannot condone the use > of an open source, community based project to support an > individual member of the communities' political position. > > We believe that the global attention drawn to the LRP website > is there because of all the participants, not just a single > developer. We understand that the holder of the domain name > can technically do as he/she wishes with the domain, but > insofar as an open source project is conceptualized, written, > supported and expanded by a truly diverse community, it seems > wrong at the very core to essentially hijack the work of many > to serve a single person's political goals. > > We hope this letter can serve a dual purpose; to let others > know that the message that appeared on the website was not > shared by (any/the vast > majority) of us, and to show our disapproval for the abuse of > the community trust placed in the domain name holder's hands. > > If a project is truly open source, then it can know no single > political position, no single political ideology. It should, > we believe, represent to everyone an example of how people > from all places and walks of life can focus on a project that > has no clear material gain, no self serving purpose and > produce a remarkable product free for everyone to use and > benefit from. > > Signed > > __ > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray > > Olszewski > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:24 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > > > > At 08:25 PM 6/11/01 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: > > ... > > >I agree with Scott's wording. I recognized my mistake as soon as > > I read his > > >message. I think we should give Morgan a chance to write a > draft. He > > >may come up with something we can all agree on. > > ... > > > > We need to be careful here. Silence does not equal assent, > and many of > > the important participants in LEAF have been most notable for their > > silence on this thread. Some of them may not share the > sentiments of > > those of us who have spoken up, but hesitate to start a > confrontation > > here on this list. Understandably. Others may share the general > > sentiment but feel that it is not a proper topic of > discussion here. > > Again, understandably. In other contexts, I've been in both &
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org draft?
This is an inital rough draft that I think/hope represents all of the ideas mentioned here. Again, I agree with Bao, Ray and Dave, that treading cautionsly is best, and I agree, to a limited degree, with Ray's most recent assertion that silence does not always = agreement, but, as I think you may see from my draft, Dave's decision does represent a breach of overall trust. I agree with Ray that some notibles have reamined silent, and if there cannot be a consensus, then so be it, and a statemnt dies on the vine. My intent in suggestion a letter was to avoid an nudrectd "counterstrike" made in haste. All of that niceness aside, soem times, ya gotta say BULLSHIT, or the unchallenged comment goes on to become accepted. Anyway, it is late, this is very rough, and probably sucks toilet water. Here goes: Dear fellow LRP supporters, users and friends, Recently, one of the common web sites for Linux Router Project information was used for a purpose that was decidedly unrelated to LRP; instead, the domain name was exploited to make a political statement that had no bearing , except in the broadest interpretation, on anything connected to LRP. While we all support the concept and practice of free and open political speech, we do not, and cannot condone the use of an open source, community based project to support an individual member of the communities political position. We believe that the global attention drawn to the LRP website is there because of all the participants, not just a single developer. We understand that the holder of the domain name can technically do as he/she wishes with the domain, but insofar as an open source project is conceptualized, written, supported and expanded by a truly diverse community, it seems wrong at the very core to essentially hijack the work of many to serve a single persons political goals. We hope this letter can serve a dual purpose; to let others know that the message that appeared on the website was not shared by (any/the vast majority) of us, and to show our disapproval for the abuse of the community trust placed in the domain name holders hands. If a project is truly open source, then it can know no single political position, no single political ideology. It should, we believe, represent to everyone an example of how people from all places and walks of life can focus on a project that has no clear material gain, no self serving purpose and produce a remarkable product free for everyone to use and benefit from. Signed __ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray > Olszewski > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2001 12:24 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > At 08:25 PM 6/11/01 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: > ... > >I agree with Scott's wording. I recognized my mistake as soon as > I read his > >message. I think we should give Morgan a chance to write a draft. He may > >come up with something we can all agree on. > ... > > We need to be careful here. Silence does not equal assent, and many of the > important participants in LEAF have been most notable for their silence on > this thread. Some of them may not share the sentiments of those of us who > have spoken up, but hesitate to start a confrontation here on this list. > Understandably. Others may share the general sentiment but feel that it is > not a proper topic of discussion here. Again, understandably. In other > contexts, I've been in both of these positions, and they are > uncomfortable ones. > > Personally, I'm not too worried about trying to do something > "effective". I > think Dave's efforts are trivial in any real political sense. > > My personal goal is to respond in a way that lets me feel OK about living > with myself. This is, for lack of a better word, a moral concern, not a > political one. As I've said in other contexts, one cannot control > the world, > but one can at least try to control one's own reaction to the world. > > If Morgan comes up with something, I'll be happy to read and > comment on it. > But not tonight; I'm about done for the night (and it's after midnight in > DC, after 11 in Kansas and Minnesota). Really, we are, as a > group, better at > sharing ideas and stimulating one another's creativity than we are at > forging consensus. We've done that part here, and if nothing more happens > than whatever each of us decides to do individually, we should feel good > about that result. > > My best wishes to you all. > > > -- > "Never tell me the odds!"--- > Ray Olszewski-- Han Solo > Palo Alto, CA
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
At 08:25 PM 6/11/01 -0700, Mike Noyes wrote: ... >I agree with Scott's wording. I recognized my mistake as soon as I read his >message. I think we should give Morgan a chance to write a draft. He may >come up with something we can all agree on. ... We need to be careful here. Silence does not equal assent, and many of the important participants in LEAF have been most notable for their silence on this thread. Some of them may not share the sentiments of those of us who have spoken up, but hesitate to start a confrontation here on this list. Understandably. Others may share the general sentiment but feel that it is not a proper topic of discussion here. Again, understandably. In other contexts, I've been in both of these positions, and they are uncomfortable ones. Personally, I'm not too worried about trying to do something "effective". I think Dave's efforts are trivial in any real political sense. My personal goal is to respond in a way that lets me feel OK about living with myself. This is, for lack of a better word, a moral concern, not a political one. As I've said in other contexts, one cannot control the world, but one can at least try to control one's own reaction to the world. If Morgan comes up with something, I'll be happy to read and comment on it. But not tonight; I'm about done for the night (and it's after midnight in DC, after 11 in Kansas and Minnesota). Really, we are, as a group, better at sharing ideas and stimulating one another's creativity than we are at forging consensus. We've done that part here, and if nothing more happens than whatever each of us decides to do individually, we should feel good about that result. My best wishes to you all. -- "Never tell me the odds!"--- Ray Olszewski-- Han Solo Palo Alto, CA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Morgan Reed, 2001-06-11 23:08 -0400 >I agree we don't have to be politically correct (gets my hair up just >thinking about it) but I do think that if Mike were to post something >without support of the rest of the dev group, it is no different than >what Dave has done. Morgan, I hope I never do that, and if I do I expect to lose my admin privileges. This site belongs to all of us, and the project should be larger than any one of us. >I also think a polite note or statement expressing our disappointment >with Dave's choice does the trick. > >But you note that we should want to remain neutral for its potential >benefit. That idea has many merits, except that I hazard to bet that >there is a feeling among many that neutral does not mean unseeing. > >We can draft a letter that remains politically neutral without being >supportive of using an open source project for political propagandizing. Please work up a draft letter for us to look at. I would do it, but my writing skills are lacking when it comes to this kind of thing. I hope it's not to late in the evening for this message. -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Ray Olszewski, 2001-06-11 19:41 -0700 >OK, some additional thoughts ... >2. Including his sponsors as part of that audience would seem to me to >be a good thing as well. Preferably without any footnotes from us; his >words really do speak for themselves, very clearly. Alas, it's probably >too late in the day to suggest that they take a look at the Web site >before it returns to normal. Ray, I mirrored Dave C's current site earlier today with wget. A tarball can always be sent to the LRP sponsors, if we think it's appropriate. $ wget -m http://linuxrouter.org:80/ $ du -sh linuxrouter.org 33k linuxrouter.org >3. As to us ... while I suspect we could easily forge a general >consensus, I also think it would get bogged down in details. For >instance, while Mike and I surely agree about a lot, I find myself >uncomfortable with his equating "anarchists" to people who adopt violent >means of protest (Scott's use of "violent anarchism" is a good bit more >careful). I agree with Scott's wording. I recognized my mistake as soon as I read his message. I think we should give Morgan a chance to write a draft. He may come up with something we can all agree on. >5. Right now, I'm not quite decided what I will do tomorrow ... but >right now, I'm leaning toward posting a "goodbye" message inviting >people who want me to see their postings to turn to one of the LEAF >lists. No discussion of *why* I am leaving, just, in effect, a >"forwarding address". If enough of us do something of that sort, always >VERY politely, it will be noticed. I like this. It's simple and effective. I'll probably join you, if Morgan is unable to create a consensus for an open letter. >6. More generally, I think each of us should look to our own feelings >here and do what seems right to him (or her - are there any "hers" >here?). LEAF has done just fine technically with this sort of >decentralized decision making, and I thimk it can handle today's events >equally well in that fashion. Agreed. We're all intelligent people with the ability to make our own decisions. >7. I doubt we should politicize the LEAF site itself by using it in any >response to Dave's action. Agreed. That wasn't one of my better suggestions. -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Bao, good idea, this is where I was headed. Thank you for putting it so succinctly and clearly. I would continue to suggest that we get as many of the people who agree that Dave's choice was a mistake to join with Mike. The strongest way to make an "individual" message is to have supporters! previously, I said: >A letter can help us, as the "face" of LRP, put a layer of >separation between ourselves and Dave's misguided political >message. Granted, Dave has done a lot of work on LRP, but more >importantly happens to own the most obvious URL. We need to >clarify that his ownership of one popular URL does not confer any >extra status on his views. A single, open letter should do >that. I agree we don't have to be politically correct (gets my hair up just thinking about it) but I do think that if Mike were to post something without support of the rest of the dev group, it is no different than what Dave has done. Who knows, maybe a majority of the developers agree with Dave! And unlike Dave's site, our names are all on the dev site. I also think a polite note or statement expressing our disappointment with Dave's choice does the trick. But you note that we should want to remain neutral for its potential benefit. That idea has many merits, except that I hazard to bet that there is a feeling among many that neutral does not mean unseeing. We can draft a letter that remains politically neutral without being supportive of using an open source project for political propagandizing. A thought, since the project is open source, and so many did contribute, LRP really isn't' Dave's, it's all of ours, and therefore, if his page is the widely recognized "source" for LRP, then it is making a statement that reflects on everyone involved. I know it may be considered by some to be in bad taste to quote the words of Pastor Martin Niemoller, but here goes: First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. For some folks, some times, you gotta draw the line. Morgan Reed > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bao C. Ha > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > > Perhaps Mike Noyes should put a statement together on > the Leaf site that we don't agree with Dave using > a visible open-source project for his own political > agenda. And then leave at that. I don't think we > should otracize Dave or try to "punish" him for his > action. > > Lrp is not a commercial product where we have to be > "politically" correct to survive. We would like to > remain neutral, however, so we can attract talented > people to further our "technical" causes. > > Furthermore one of the things that makes Linux great > is our individuality. As a community, we have shown > our ability to accommodate a wide range of skills, > personalities, ideologies, ... Everyone should be > welcome to contribute. The community has been wise > to pick and choose the best contributions solely on > technical basis so far. I strongly believe that > our individuality is the creative fire that has fuel > the Linux revolution. And our tolerance is what > has sustained the fire in the last 10 years. > > We just need to let Dave knows that his action is > childish, serving no useful purpose other than > "alienating" his collegues and peers. > > Just my $0.05. > Bao > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > > Steven Peck > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:14 PM > > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > > > > I like this idea. > > > > LRP/LEAF has an international audience so who cares if you > > are a registered > > foreign agent. It's Open Source. > > > > I will be out tonight, but can look at anything that is > > circulated and add > > my thoughts either late tonight or evening tommorrow. > > > > -- > > Steven Peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sacramento, CA http://leaf.blkmtn.org > > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: Morgan Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:00 PM > > &g
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
While I don't disagree with the general sentiments expressed about Dave's politics, I don't think anything would be accomplished by any organized campaign against Dave. It would just create more anger and hate. There is such a death-strewn chain of deadly action and reaction and reaction and reaction in the Oklahoma bombing and what came before and what came after, action and reaction that took and continues to take lives, that it needs to stop somewhere. Let's just stop it here. OTOH, there is no harm on posting a disclaimer here that disassociates leaf with the politics of the LRP founder. That might be a good thing. Tim , has left so many dead ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
OK, some additional thoughts ... 1. Personally, I think the world would be a better place if Dave's current version of the LRP home page was seen by a very large audience. His dodgy description of the site interruption on the LRP lists -- it is hardly true that "The servers will be down all of Monday" given the Home Page we have all seen -- suggests to me that he wanted to have his cake and eat it too. Creating situations where his views are widely known and associated with him seems like a very reasonable thing to do. 2. Including his sponsors as part of that audience would seem to me to be a good thing as well. Preferably without any footnotes from us; his words really do speak for themselves, very clearly. Alas, it's probably too late in the day to suggest that they take a look at the Web site before it returns to normal. 3. As to us ... while I suspect we could easily forge a general consensus, I also think it would get bogged down in details. For instance, while Mike and I surely agree about a lot, I find myself uncomfortable with his equating "anarchists" to people who adopt violent means of protest (Scott's use of "violent anarchism" is a good bit more careful). This is only an example, but it is a real example of the kind of problem we would have agreeing to a shared text. 4. Anyway, our concern should not be with Dave's politics. At least in a First Amendment sense, he's entitled to them ... and he does *own* the linuxrouter.org site, after all. Our concern as a group should be about the continued viability of LEAF ... in many ways, this sort of thing is *why* we started LEAF in the first place ... and I very much doubt that Dave's actions will hurt us one whit. 5. Right now, I'm not quite decided what I will do tomorrow ... but right now, I'm leaning toward posting a "goodbye" message inviting people who want me to see their postings to turn to one of the LEAF lists. No discussion of *why* I am leaving, just, in effect, a "forwarding address". If enough of us do something of that sort, always VERY politely, it will be noticed. 6. More generally, I think each of us should look to our own feelings here and do what seems right to him (or her - are there any "hers" here?). LEAF has done just fine technically with this sort of decentralized decision making, and I thimk it can handle today's events equally well in that fashion. 7. I doubt we should politicize the LEAF site itself by using it in any response to Dave's action. -- "Never tell me the odds!"--- Ray Olszewski-- Han Solo Palo Alto, CA[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Perhaps Mike Noyes should put a statement together on the Leaf site that we don't agree with Dave using a visible open-source project for his own political agenda. And then leave at that. I don't think we should otracize Dave or try to "punish" him for his action. Lrp is not a commercial product where we have to be "politically" correct to survive. We would like to remain neutral, however, so we can attract talented people to further our "technical" causes. Furthermore one of the things that makes Linux great is our individuality. As a community, we have shown our ability to accommodate a wide range of skills, personalities, ideologies, ... Everyone should be welcome to contribute. The community has been wise to pick and choose the best contributions solely on technical basis so far. I strongly believe that our individuality is the creative fire that has fuel the Linux revolution. And our tolerance is what has sustained the fire in the last 10 years. We just need to let Dave knows that his action is childish, serving no useful purpose other than "alienating" his collegues and peers. Just my $0.05. Bao > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of > Steven Peck > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:14 PM > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > I like this idea. > > LRP/LEAF has an international audience so who cares if you > are a registered > foreign agent. It's Open Source. > > I will be out tonight, but can look at anything that is > circulated and add > my thoughts either late tonight or evening tommorrow. > > -- > Steven Peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sacramento, CA http://leaf.blkmtn.org > > > > -Original Message----- > > From: Morgan Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:00 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > > > > I have read many good suggestions here, but one I have not > > seen mentioned is > > an open letter, signed by all (r as many as possible) of the > > LEAF-dev team, > > expressing our sorrow and disagreement with Dave's decision. > > We would then > > post this letter for the general LRP list. > > > > I think that would be enough. If it ever becomes an issue in > > the future, a > > search of geocrawler will show the sentiment, but I don't > > think we will be > > causing as big a firestorm as we would if we moved to sever > links etc. > > > > We are, in essence, engaged in a PR campaign for LRP, and as > > we saw with the > > Linux Gazette article, poorly a informed press leads to > > poorly informed > > articles. Since Dave C has not put forth the kind of effort > > as seen by Rick > > in lrp.c0wz, Charles in EigerStein+, DD in Oxygen, Mike in > > LEAF and the > > countless hours that others have put into LRP, it would be a > > travesty if a > > disagreement over a clearly wrong, and I personally feel an > > immoral stance > > by Dave lead to a loss of recognition in the work everyone else has > > provided. > > > > A letter can help us, as the "face" of LRP, put a layer of > separation > > between ourselves and Dave's misguided political message. > > Granted, Dave has > > done a lot of work on LRP, but more importantly happens to > > own the most > > obvious URL. We need to clarify that his ownership of one > > popular URL does > > not confer any extra status on his views. A single, open > > letter should do > > that. > > > > In order to have full disclosure, I should step out of the > > shadows a bit on > > this. As many of you may know, I actually work in Washington > > DC, and used to > > work for Congress. I am happy to answer any and all > > questions about "how it > > works" "are their any conspiracies" "why do they spend all > > my/our money" > > "why do foreigners get all my tax money" "why are all > > politicians corrupt" > > and all that. Please note a certain level of sarcasm in > the previous > > statements, but not in my willingness to answer. > > > > By the same token, the level of knowledge many of you bring > > to Linux, I > > bring to issues of Government Relations. If you really care, > > run a google > > search on Morgan W Reed III. Yes, I am a registered foreign agent. > > > > > > Morgan Reed > > > > > ___ > Leaf-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel > ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
I like this idea. LRP/LEAF has an international audience so who cares if you are a registered foreign agent. It's Open Source. I will be out tonight, but can look at anything that is circulated and add my thoughts either late tonight or evening tommorrow. -- Steven Peck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sacramento, CA http://leaf.blkmtn.org > -Original Message- > From: Morgan Reed [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > I have read many good suggestions here, but one I have not > seen mentioned is > an open letter, signed by all (r as many as possible) of the > LEAF-dev team, > expressing our sorrow and disagreement with Dave's decision. > We would then > post this letter for the general LRP list. > > I think that would be enough. If it ever becomes an issue in > the future, a > search of geocrawler will show the sentiment, but I don't > think we will be > causing as big a firestorm as we would if we moved to sever links etc. > > We are, in essence, engaged in a PR campaign for LRP, and as > we saw with the > Linux Gazette article, poorly a informed press leads to > poorly informed > articles. Since Dave C has not put forth the kind of effort > as seen by Rick > in lrp.c0wz, Charles in EigerStein+, DD in Oxygen, Mike in > LEAF and the > countless hours that others have put into LRP, it would be a > travesty if a > disagreement over a clearly wrong, and I personally feel an > immoral stance > by Dave lead to a loss of recognition in the work everyone else has > provided. > > A letter can help us, as the "face" of LRP, put a layer of separation > between ourselves and Dave's misguided political message. > Granted, Dave has > done a lot of work on LRP, but more importantly happens to > own the most > obvious URL. We need to clarify that his ownership of one > popular URL does > not confer any extra status on his views. A single, open > letter should do > that. > > In order to have full disclosure, I should step out of the > shadows a bit on > this. As many of you may know, I actually work in Washington > DC, and used to > work for Congress. I am happy to answer any and all > questions about "how it > works" "are their any conspiracies" "why do they spend all > my/our money" > "why do foreigners get all my tax money" "why are all > politicians corrupt" > and all that. Please note a certain level of sarcasm in the previous > statements, but not in my willingness to answer. > > By the same token, the level of knowledge many of you bring > to Linux, I > bring to issues of Government Relations. If you really care, > run a google > search on Morgan W Reed III. Yes, I am a registered foreign agent. > > > Morgan Reed > ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Mike I agree with all your three considerations and if a vote come up I would vote for them I don't think Dave C's sponsors should be notified.its their prob not ours, but I do think something of a news clip should be posted on leaf.sourceforge.net (I do have a jpeg screenshot and pdf file of the linuxrouter.org site, stuff like this should always be remembered, if only to show the limits of some folks reality) - Original Message - From: "Mike Noyes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 5:00 PM Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > Bao C. Ha, 2001-06-11 16:01 -0700 > > >I have an evil idea. Should I let the slashdot.org crowd > >knows about this? > > Bao, > I don't think Dave C's views deserve a larger audience then they are > already receiving. We may want to consider: > > 1) stop answering questions on the linux-router list (boycott/protest) > a) refer people to the leaf-user list for EigerStein & Oxygen support > 2) tell people to submit support requests on our site > a) Support Request Tracker > b) leaf-user list > 3) change all support request links to our site > a) leaf.sourceforge.net > b) lrp.c0wz.com > c) lrp.steinkuehler.net > > At least 70% of the people that answer questions on the linux-router list > are already members of our project. > > This would be a major change, so everyone would have to agree to it. > > > A couple of alternate possibilities. > * We can post an article on our site disclaiming any association with > Dave C's anarchist views. > * Contact the LRP sponsors and let them know about Dave C's use of the > linuxrouter.org web site to promote an anarchist political agenda. > > -- > Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ > > > ___ > Leaf-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
I have read many good suggestions here, but one I have not seen mentioned is an open letter, signed by all (r as many as possible) of the LEAF-dev team, expressing our sorrow and disagreement with Dave's decision. We would then post this letter for the general LRP list. I think that would be enough. If it ever becomes an issue in the future, a search of geocrawler will show the sentiment, but I don't think we will be causing as big a firestorm as we would if we moved to sever links etc. We are, in essence, engaged in a PR campaign for LRP, and as we saw with the Linux Gazette article, poorly a informed press leads to poorly informed articles. Since Dave C has not put forth the kind of effort as seen by Rick in lrp.c0wz, Charles in EigerStein+, DD in Oxygen, Mike in LEAF and the countless hours that others have put into LRP, it would be a travesty if a disagreement over a clearly wrong, and I personally feel an immoral stance by Dave lead to a loss of recognition in the work everyone else has provided. A letter can help us, as the "face" of LRP, put a layer of separation between ourselves and Dave's misguided political message. Granted, Dave has done a lot of work on LRP, but more importantly happens to own the most obvious URL. We need to clarify that his ownership of one popular URL does not confer any extra status on his views. A single, open letter should do that. In order to have full disclosure, I should step out of the shadows a bit on this. As many of you may know, I actually work in Washington DC, and used to work for Congress. I am happy to answer any and all questions about "how it works" "are their any conspiracies" "why do they spend all my/our money" "why do foreigners get all my tax money" "why are all politicians corrupt" and all that. Please note a certain level of sarcasm in the previous statements, but not in my willingness to answer. By the same token, the level of knowledge many of you bring to Linux, I bring to issues of Government Relations. If you really care, run a google search on Morgan W Reed III. Yes, I am a registered foreign agent. Morgan Reed ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Mike: IMO, you're absolutely right in not wanting to help Dave-C with attracting a larger audience. I think your "alternate possibility" list below, while a strong tactic, would affect the undesired response. However, your other suggestions seem dead-on. The LEAF team *is* the support team (and arguably the developer staff) for LRP. The reason that the LRP mailing list is currently successful and useful is because of us, not because of Dave-C (who, granted, got it all started). Resultingly, our support is now helping Dave-C to spread his message of violent anarchism. Which, clearly, sucks. So IMO, it's a good time to pull the plug, and relocate the support team and development staff to leaf-user. The critical relocations will be for the distro developers: Charles, David, Ewald, etc. The package developers like me will follow, obviously. Thoughts? Perhaps a vote to sever in such a way? I can see how some would see that it's cutting off our nose to spite our face. -Scott On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Mike Noyes wrote: > Bao C. Ha, 2001-06-11 16:01 -0700 > > >I have an evil idea. Should I let the slashdot.org crowd > >knows about this? > > Bao, > I don't think Dave C's views deserve a larger audience then they are > already receiving. We may want to consider: > > 1) stop answering questions on the linux-router list (boycott/protest) > a) refer people to the leaf-user list for EigerStein & Oxygen support > 2) tell people to submit support requests on our site > a) Support Request Tracker > b) leaf-user list > 3) change all support request links to our site > a) leaf.sourceforge.net > b) lrp.c0wz.com > c) lrp.steinkuehler.net > > At least 70% of the people that answer questions on the linux-router list > are already members of our project. > > This would be a major change, so everyone would have to agree to it. > > > A couple of alternate possibilities. > * We can post an article on our site disclaiming any association with > Dave C's anarchist views. > * Contact the LRP sponsors and let them know about Dave C's use of the > linuxrouter.org web site to promote an anarchist political agenda. > > -- > Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Bao C. Ha, 2001-06-11 16:01 -0700 >I have an evil idea. Should I let the slashdot.org crowd >knows about this? Bao, I don't think Dave C's views deserve a larger audience then they are already receiving. We may want to consider: 1) stop answering questions on the linux-router list (boycott/protest) a) refer people to the leaf-user list for EigerStein & Oxygen support 2) tell people to submit support requests on our site a) Support Request Tracker b) leaf-user list 3) change all support request links to our site a) leaf.sourceforge.net b) lrp.c0wz.com c) lrp.steinkuehler.net At least 70% of the people that answer questions on the linux-router list are already members of our project. This would be a major change, so everyone would have to agree to it. A couple of alternate possibilities. * We can post an article on our site disclaiming any association with Dave C's anarchist views. * Contact the LRP sponsors and let them know about Dave C's use of the linuxrouter.org web site to promote an anarchist political agenda. -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Ive nothing against playing hardball crap like this is best shown as what it is and NOT as representation of the LRP or LEAF personally it makes me somewhat embarrased that someone might think that this is a opinion of the developers - Original Message - From: "Bao C. Ha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 4:01 PM Subject: RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > I have an evil idea. Should I let the slashdot.org crowd > knows about this? > > Bao > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Noyes > > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:35 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > > > > Kenneth Hadley, 2001-06-11 09:39 -0700 > > >I hope that someone hacked his web server otherwise Ive lost > > what little > > >respect for Dave Cinege I had left after his fiasco with > > acepting help. > > > > Kenneth, > > I doubt his site was hacked. I knew Dave was a Libertarian, but I was > > unaware of his anarchist views. I'm a Libertarian too, but I'm not an > > anarchist. The Libertarian Party is a party of principle not > > a party of > > thugs. All party members must sign the following statement > > before joining. > > > > http://www.lp.org/action/joinprint.html > > ~ I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as > > a means of > > ~ achieving political or social goals. > > > > Dave must have forgotten this, or never signed it in the first place. > > > > I wonder what his LRP sponsors will think of his political statement. > > > > He is probably going to need to wear asbestos tomorrow when the > > linuxrouter.org lists start working. > > > > >Two points I'd like to make. > > > > > >1) Politcal statements are extremely inapropriate on web > > sites that are > > >not political site in nature (especially open source/technology based > > >ones) > > >2) Cowards are never Hero's > > > > I agree wholeheartedly. > > > > -- > > Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > ___ > > Leaf-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel > > > > ___ > Leaf-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
I have an evil idea. Should I let the slashdot.org crowd knows about this? Bao > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mike Noyes > Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 3:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > Kenneth Hadley, 2001-06-11 09:39 -0700 > >I hope that someone hacked his web server otherwise Ive lost > what little > >respect for Dave Cinege I had left after his fiasco with > acepting help. > > Kenneth, > I doubt his site was hacked. I knew Dave was a Libertarian, but I was > unaware of his anarchist views. I'm a Libertarian too, but I'm not an > anarchist. The Libertarian Party is a party of principle not > a party of > thugs. All party members must sign the following statement > before joining. > > http://www.lp.org/action/joinprint.html > ~ I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as > a means of > ~ achieving political or social goals. > > Dave must have forgotten this, or never signed it in the first place. > > I wonder what his LRP sponsors will think of his political statement. > > He is probably going to need to wear asbestos tomorrow when the > linuxrouter.org lists start working. > > >Two points I'd like to make. > > > >1) Politcal statements are extremely inapropriate on web > sites that are > >not political site in nature (especially open source/technology based > >ones) > >2) Cowards are never Hero's > > I agree wholeheartedly. > > -- > Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ > > > ___ > Leaf-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel > ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Kenneth Hadley, 2001-06-11 09:39 -0700 >I hope that someone hacked his web server otherwise Ive lost what little >respect for Dave Cinege I had left after his fiasco with acepting help. Kenneth, I doubt his site was hacked. I knew Dave was a Libertarian, but I was unaware of his anarchist views. I'm a Libertarian too, but I'm not an anarchist. The Libertarian Party is a party of principle not a party of thugs. All party members must sign the following statement before joining. http://www.lp.org/action/joinprint.html ~ I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of ~ achieving political or social goals. Dave must have forgotten this, or never signed it in the first place. I wonder what his LRP sponsors will think of his political statement. He is probably going to need to wear asbestos tomorrow when the linuxrouter.org lists start working. >Two points I'd like to make. > >1) Politcal statements are extremely inapropriate on web sites that are >not political site in nature (especially open source/technology based >ones) >2) Cowards are never Hero's I agree wholeheartedly. -- Mike Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://leaf.sourceforge.net/ ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
RE: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Hi Kenneth, Sorry to say, but I agree with you Kenneth and all others expressing the same opinion. DC seems to be a horribly mislead and lost person regarding this issue. Hero - my a$$. I think after this seriously misdirected "memorial", that linuxrouter.org should be removed from the links page on all current and new LRP images. Political statements, as has been said, are not appropriate for non-political websites, especially when the statement goes against rationalism and sensibility. Regards, Hilton Travis > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of > Mike Sensney > Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2001 3:12 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > > > At 09:39 AM 06/11/2001 -0700, Kenneth Hadley wrote: > > >I hope that someone hacked his web server otherwise Ive lost what > >little respect for Dave Cinege I had left after his fiasco with > >acepting help. > > I echo your opinion. > Would Dave C feel the same if his own family had been > "collateral damage"? > ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
Oh jeesh. What a f!cking moron. -Scott On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Mike Sensney wrote: > At 09:39 AM 06/11/2001 -0700, Kenneth Hadley wrote: > > >I hope that someone hacked his web server otherwise Ive lost what little > >respect for Dave Cinege I had left after his fiasco with acepting help. > > I echo your opinion. > Would Dave C feel the same if his own family had been "collateral damage"? > ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
Re: OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
At 09:39 AM 06/11/2001 -0700, Kenneth Hadley wrote: >I hope that someone hacked his web server otherwise Ive lost what little >respect for Dave Cinege I had left after his fiasco with acepting help. I echo your opinion. Would Dave C feel the same if his own family had been "collateral damage"?
OT Re: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org
I hope that someone hacked his web server otherwise Ive lost what little respect for Dave Cinege I had left after his fiasco with acepting help. Two points I'd like to make. 1) Politcal statements are extremely inapropriate on web sites that are not political site in nature (especially open source/technology based ones) 2) Cowards are never Hero's Kenneth Hadley McCormick Selph Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Charles Steinkuehler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 9:16 AM Subject: [Leaf-devel] linuxrouter.org > For those of you who haven't been to www.linuxrouter.org lately, you might > want to head over there today. Apparently the planned network outage today > is not for routine maintence. Instead, the network seems to be 'in > mourning'. > > Charles Steinkuehler > http://lrp.steinkuehler.net > http://c0wz.steinkuehler.net (lrp.c0wz.com mirror) > > > ___ > Leaf-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel ___ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
