On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote: > Hi, Ellen. > > Sorry to reply this late, but your message has been buried in hundreds > of private messages by Joe Baptista, and I did not read it until some > cleanup has been done. I object to you using my name for damage control. Regards Joe Baptista > > Please see my comments in the text. > > > >Hi, Roberto: > > > >Thank you for copying me on your note to Karl. It is clear that you > feel > >some anguish at the recent events with the GA mailing list rules and > our > >subsequent unsubscriptions. > > > > > Valuable people, whatever their opinion on the issues, is a scarce > resource these days. > I hate to see you (Ellen), Karl, and Dan go due to the application of > monitoring rules, as much as I hated to see other people fleeing the > list in the past due to the lack of monitoring rules. > > My only hope is that we can bring this matter to a vote, and that either > group will accept the result, and live with the situation. > > > >> Because I believe, and here comes the > >>disagreement, that at a certain point you have to draw the line > between > >>the expression of alternative positions on issues at hand, and > >>expression of nothing > > > >Taken to its extremes, a proposal that holds at its core a prohibition > >against posting an "expression of nothing" might disallow the posting > of a > >joke, of ISOC minutes, of a new book on the market that is only > >tangentially related to the subject at hand, of illness in the family > that > >prevents timely response, or a rant of an opposing point of view. I > >believe you can make rules as to behavior (no crossposting, no email > >spoofing) but rules as to expression are a slippery slope that can > slide > >subtly into censorship. Here's a clue: if it is difficult to define > the > >criteria of what constitutes an "expression of nothing", then you > cannot > >make such rules. > > > > > What I was trying to say is that nothing that could have some influence > on the scope of the list has been "censored". But, of course, if you > look at things from the strict "question of principle", you are right. > > >Two lists just provide a cludgely workaround. It's difficult to see > what > >that accomplishes, except to rebut complaints of censorship, never mind > > >that the full list is rea-only. > > > >You fail to address why individual filters aren't sufficient to manage > the > >concern about "expression of nothing". You could, for example, impose > a > >five message per day rule. That would raise hackles from some, but it > >wouldn't be enough reason to unsubscribe from a list because it would > apply > >to all of us equally and objectively. > > > >You could also impose rules that bounce any crossposted messages and > that > >unsubscribe people who have spoofed mailbox addresses. That is a > >legitimate approach to a clear breaches of netiquette. Multiple > identities > >is more difficult to identify and thus, to work into your mailing list > >rules. I know of a lady who uses pseudo names on the Internet because > she > >wants to keep her identity secret from a known harasser. Another who > is > >working on litigation for a client and doesn't want the defendant to > pursue > >her. > > > >>Do you *really* think that the best way to increase the power of the > GA > >>is to quit the boat now? > > > >Do you really think that the best way to increase the power of the GA > is to > >muzzle free expression? That is, in essence, what your rules have > >accomplished. > > > If "free expression" is the proposal of different ideas and different > POV on the issues at hand, the answer is "no". > If "free expression" is libel and slander, than, "yes", I believe that > the reduction thereof will greatly increase the power of the GA. > > > > >If the GA group remained on task, people would ignore the banter of > those > >who do not contribute to informative discussion. Listmembers are free > to > >ignore those who contribute nothing and to start new threads at any > time. > >I believe you will find that your new mailing list rules will not > resolve > >the very concerns that inspired them. I hope that I am wrong, but I > have > >been on lists where disruptors and empty contributions are ignored or > >shunned, and the substantive debate proceeds without any > acknowledgement of > >their existence, > > > > > True, but again only in theory, unfortunately. > > I am purposedly using a free-service E-Mail account for the messages > associated to this list. This is not uncommon, from what I see from the > addresses of the subscribers. > I access this E-Mail account strictly via Internet. This is less common > in the industrialized world, but is the standard in the reality of the > less developed (telecom-wise) areas, where people browse their E-Mail > from Internet-Cafes. > > Under these circumstances (I am talking about the Internet Cafe), > private filtering is difficult, if not impossible, while the choice of > subscribing to a monitored rather than an unmonitored list is possible. > Under these circumstances, the simple visualization of the inbox list > takes minutes, not to speak about action on a single message. > > I owe the people that are operating under these conditions priority in > my considerations over the matter of principle of the subscription to > one or the other list. > I am only asking three months time before issuing the final judgement, > that I will accept whatever it is. > > Regards, and thanks. > Roberto >