Re: Galactic Moderates (Was Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked)
--- Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Debbi Galactic Moderate? Maru See, that's your problem. No one in the Four Galaxies listens to the moderates, you should know that! :-) Well, even we Moderates are entitled to our middle-of-the-road opinions! Heck, we can even poke fun at ourselves! Silly Synthians? 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: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)
--- Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an attempt to answer this post, I did an I Feel Lucky search for Hacking Defined on Google: From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_15425-35430--,00.html Hacking Defined - The reintroduction technique, called hacking, includes collecting chicks from the wild at five to six weeks old and placing them in hack boxes until they are ready to fly. ... LOL *grin* Who knew? Not what I originally meant, but made me laugh. :) Hacking out in the equitation realm means to ride outside of an arena/ring, in more-or-less open country, perhaps on bridle trails or established horse paths. It is now regarded as a break from training for serious competitors, sort of a recess for horses. Flight Without Wings 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: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)
Jon wrote: In an attempt to answer this post, I did an I Feel Lucky search for Hacking Defined on Google: From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_15425-35430--,00.ht ml Hacking Defined The reintroduction technique, called hacking, includes collecting chicks from the wild at five to six weeks old and placing them in hack boxes until they are ready to fly. DNR staff will feed the birds released from the hack sites while they learn to fly and catch fish on their own. Male ospreys generally return to nest at the site at which they learned to fly. Females will follow males to their nesting grounds. Ospreys usually do not nest until they are three years old. They will migrate to South America in the fall and may not be seen again in the Maple River or Kensington Metro Park areas until they are ready to nest. LOL *grin* Who knew? Not what I originally meant, but made me laugh. :) Jon GSV Is there a weekly award for the wildest subject change? There should be, cuz I think I just won it. :-) I officially nominate Jon for the Thead Creep of the Week Award. Wait a minute, something doesn't sound quite right about that... ;-) Anyway, thanks for the laugh. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Jeroen said: As it obvious that he cannot be trusted with list-admin powers, I must once again insist that he be removed from his position. Given that it's running on his server, I consider that unlikely. Again, I'd suggest that if you'd like the list run some other way then you should consider setting up your own alternative Brin-L. This would be very easy to do through YahooGroups or one of the other free list providers (or perhaps someone else would be kind enough to offer more sophisticated facilities; I would if I had any available to offer). I know that, if I'd be welcome there, I'd subscribe to such an alternative as well as this current list. In fact, I'd find it very interesting to see how different listowner policies affect the character of what will essentially be parallel incarnations of the same list. Rich GCU Trying To Be Constructive ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
J. van Baardwijk wrote: I must once again insist that he be removed from his position. You make a lot of demands. Just an observation. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Jim observed: J. van Baardwijk wrote: I must once again insist that he be removed from his position. You make a lot of demands. Just an observation. And, according to my newly installed mail filter (thanx to Julia and The Fool, apologies to the list reiterated), he's still spoofing the brin-l address instead of his real return address. Now, were I mean-spirited, I'd think that was because he was Up To Something, but I'm trying to be a better person, so it's obviously because he's unable to properly configure his email. Nothing wrong with that, of course - I've had my share of problems getting my email working properly. Let someone know if you need help correcting that error, Jeroen! Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Silence. I am watching television. - Spider Jerusalem ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
J. van Baardwijk wrote: Jim Sharkey wrote: I must once again insist that he be removed from his position. You make a lot of demands. Just an observation. Not that many, really. There are only a few demands, that get repeated from time to time. Hmm. Let's look at the past year. You've demanded answers, you've demanded other members get booted, you've demanded apologies, you've demanded reinstatement, you've demanded the removal of listowners, you've demanded others shape up or ship out, and you've demanded people behave in a manner you find appropriate or shut up. Did I miss any? Now, maybe that's not a lot of demands to you, but it seems like a lot number to me. The repetition, which I would call regular rather than from time to time, only bolsters that idea. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:32 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Ah, I thought you were only referring to my recent demands that : my posting privileges be reinstated I have no problem with that as long as you can behave in a manner that most Brin-L posters would find acceptable! At that point it would be a very good idea! that the listowners step down I absolutely disagree, and think that they are doing a fine job! and that JDG be removed from this list. I absolutely disagree again. JDG's behavior has been just fine in all respects recently, and in any case his presence on the list has nothing to do with your situation. xponent Direct Mail Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:43:27 -0500 At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote: At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to say so. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) OK then, I disagree. This whole situation is giving me the creeps. Unlike most people, I don't think anyone's actually in the right here, everyone's wrong. snip I left this list a little more than a year ago, after the 9-11 attack because I was reading posts which advocated things like nuclear attacks against Afghanistan and that members who actually voiced their opposition were put down and compared to the terrorists themselves. I remember that it was Jeroen, displaying the same pig-headedness that he shows today, who refused to stop asking the unpopular questions like, where's the proof? IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my objection to his attitude on the list, Jeroen was the very first person to mention nuking Afghanistan. He wasn't advocating that we do so, but instead posted that he assumed that the US would blame, then nuke Afghanistan for the attacks. He not only decided that it was a fait accompli, but denounced us for even considering it. (At the time, not a single US gov't source had mentioned the use of *any* weapons of mass destruction in any way other than to mention that they were *not* being considered.) When I posted an objection to Jeroen's attitude and then asked him for proof (in the form of military or gov't sources) that we were seriously considering nuking Afghanistan as a retaliation, he not only didn't and couldn't provide any, but refused to apologize. He cited past US history as a justification for making wild accusations about us on the list and never once apologized for his obvious error. So, I think the pig-headedness that you're commending him for is seriously misplaced, at least on the nuclear front. Now I'm back, and the dynamics have changed. I am not in a position to tell anyone what to do, but I can say what I believe and this is it. We have a problem which needs to be resolved. Kicking Jeroen out is not a solution which I believe will be beneficial to the list. I agree with this. I don't think *any* moderation should be indefinite or for an undefined time-frame. I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp. As I pointed out yesterday, this block is limited to the chello servers. He can still post to the list from work, using his mindef.nl address. Perhaps we need to talk about whether one member be allowed to deliberately cause this much chaos without any consequences being considered or objections being raised? I do think this needs to be resolved, but should we simply ignore the threats and attacks he's making? By the way, no one has kicked Jeroen out. He has been asked to change behavior and cease actions that would have been the result of a complete, not temporary ban on many other listservs. AFAIK, he has an open-ended invitation from Nick and Julia to come back when he is willing to stop attacking people. Since he refuses to change his behavior and has in fact been escalating his attacks against Brin-L members, it's listowners and server privately and publicly, you might say he is trying to remove *himself* from the list. If you didn't see Brin-L.com during the last couple of weeks of November, I have the site's pages saved on my home hard drive and can send them to you offlist if you want. The threats Jeroen made were quite disturbing. Jon _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
At 11:31 2002-12-06 -0500, Jon wrote: IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my objection to his attitude on the list, Jeroen was the very first person to mention nuking Afghanistan. He wasn't advocating that we do so, but instead posted that he assumed that the US would blame, then nuke Afghanistan for the attacks. He not only decided that it was a fait accompli, but denounced us for even considering it. (At the time, not a single US gov't source had mentioned the use of *any* weapons of mass destruction in any way other than to mention that they were *not* being considered.) When I posted an objection to Jeroen's attitude and then asked him for proof (in the form of military or gov't sources) that we were seriously considering nuking Afghanistan as a retaliation, he not only didn't and couldn't provide any, but refused to apologize. He cited past US history as a justification for making wild accusations about us on the list and never once apologized for his obvious error. So, I think the pig-headedness that you're commending him for is seriously misplaced, at least on the nuclear front. You're right and I do remember this. However, there have been posts suggesting that the US would be perfectly justified to do so. Now I'm back, and the dynamics have changed. I am not in a position to tell anyone what to do, but I can say what I believe and this is it. We have a problem which needs to be resolved. Kicking Jeroen out is not a solution which I believe will be beneficial to the list. I agree with this. I don't think *any* moderation should be indefinite or for an undefined time-frame. I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp. As I pointed out yesterday, this block is limited to the chello servers. He can still post to the list from work, using his mindef.nl address. If the list server was attacked from that ISP, then Nick should take whatever steps he feels are needed. I'm going to mind my own business on that one since I consider this to be between Nick and Jeroen. I'd rather talk about what's happening on-list. Perhaps we need to talk about whether one member be allowed to deliberately cause this much chaos without any consequences being considered or objections being raised? I do think this needs to be resolved, but should we simply ignore the threats and attacks he's making? By the way, no one has kicked Jeroen out. He has been asked to change behavior and cease actions that would have been the result of a complete, not temporary ban on many other listservs. AFAIK, he has an open-ended invitation from Nick and Julia to come back when he is willing to stop attacking people. Since he refuses to change his behavior and has in fact been escalating his attacks against Brin-L members, it's listowners and server privately and publicly, you might say he is trying to remove *himself* from the list. Jeroen hasn't been kicked out, but anybody with eyes and a brain to read can figure out where this is headed. I get the feeling that most of us are past trying to find a solution and are resolved to sticking to their guns as they hold the Truth (TM). If you didn't see Brin-L.com during the last couple of weeks of November, I have the site's pages saved on my home hard drive and can send them to you offlist if you want. The threats Jeroen made were quite disturbing. Jon Actually I haven't seen them, I only know what has been posted on-list, and some of that I haven't had the patience to read. I just feel that the discussion is getting nowhere. What is our goal here? If we want this settled, we need to do more than just say who's right and who's wrong. Moderating Jeroen shields the rest of us from the symptoms of the problem, but it isn't a cure. As a first step, it has its merits, but we need to be going somewhere with this. Jean-Louis ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
on 6/12/02 4:34 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But her post _does_ express the 'prairie chicken effect' nicely... What is the 'prairie chicken effect' ? -- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 14:17:30 -0500 At 11:31 2002-12-06 -0500, Jon wrote: IIRC, and I believe I do so quite correctly since I remember voicing my objection to his attitude on the list, Jeroen was the very first person to mention nuking Afghanistan. He wasn't advocating that we do so, but instead posted that he assumed that the US would blame, then nuke Afghanistan for the attacks. He not only decided that it was a fait accompli, but denounced us for even considering it. (At the time, not a single US gov't source had mentioned the use of *any* weapons of mass destruction in any way other than to mention that they were *not* being considered.) When I posted an objection to Jeroen's attitude and then asked him for proof (in the form of military or gov't sources) that we were seriously considering nuking Afghanistan as a retaliation, he not only didn't and couldn't provide any, but refused to apologize. He cited past US history as a justification for making wild accusations about us on the list and never once apologized for his obvious error. So, I think the pig-headedness that you're commending him for is seriously misplaced, at least on the nuclear front. You're right and I do remember this. However, there have been posts suggesting that the US would be perfectly justified to do so. I do remember them. I was particularly upset by them. I just wanted to point out his track record on the subject. The evidence suggests that he has a problem with America in general, and would voice objections to American policy (real or imagined) at the slightest opportunity. Now I'm back, and the dynamics have changed. I am not in a position to tell anyone what to do, but I can say what I believe and this is it. We have a problem which needs to be resolved. Kicking Jeroen out is not a solution which I believe will be beneficial to the list. I agree with this. I don't think *any* moderation should be indefinite or for an undefined time-frame. I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp. As I pointed out yesterday, this block is limited to the chello servers. He can still post to the list from work, using his mindef.nl address. If the list server was attacked from that ISP, then Nick should take whatever steps he feels are needed. I'm going to mind my own business on that one since I consider this to be between Nick and Jeroen. I'd rather talk about what's happening on-list. OK, no prob. :) Perhaps we need to talk about whether one member be allowed to deliberately cause this much chaos without any consequences being considered or objections being raised? I do think this needs to be resolved, but should we simply ignore the threats and attacks he's making? By the way, no one has kicked Jeroen out. He has been asked to change behavior and cease actions that would have been the result of a complete, not temporary ban on many other listservs. AFAIK, he has an open-ended invitation from Nick and Julia to come back when he is willing to stop attacking people. Since he refuses to change his behavior and has in fact been escalating his attacks against Brin-L members, it's listowners and server privately and publicly, you might say he is trying to remove *himself* from the list. Jeroen hasn't been kicked out, but anybody with eyes and a brain to read can figure out where this is headed. I get the feeling that most of us are past trying to find a solution and are resolved to sticking to their guns as they hold the Truth (TM). Personally, I think the ball is in Jeroen's court as far as his own behavior is concerned. It's not like any of us forced him to attack anyone. Ask Nick or Julia if the situation is hopeless, I guess? They're in charge of Jeroen's moderated status. If you didn't see Brin-L.com during the last couple of weeks of November, I have the site's pages saved on my home hard drive and can send them to you offlist if you want. The threats Jeroen made were quite disturbing. Jon Actually I haven't seen them, I only know what has been posted on-list, and some of that I haven't had the patience to read. I just feel that the discussion is getting nowhere. What is our goal here? If we want this settled, we need to do more than just say who's right and who's wrong. Moderating Jeroen shields the rest of us from the symptoms of the problem, but it isn't a cure. As a first step, it has its merits, but we need to be going somewhere with this. Until several days ago, Jeroen was being moderated and posts with personal attacks on listmembers and/or duplicate posts would not be sent to the list. I agree with temporary moderation in this case. The situation had escalated to a point where it was truly out of control. But ideally, temporary moderation is supposed to be a tool
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
K. Feete [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To be honest, I was considering defending Jeroen, until I started getting the endless stream of emails I still can't figure out what's going on ... none of you are kids - in fact, most of you are twice my age - For God's sake *stop it* before you make bigger asses out of yourselves than you've already managed. I agree with Kat and I wish I were no more than than twice her age -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jean-Louis Couturier ... and never once apologized for his obvious error. So, I think the pig-headedness that you're commending him for is seriously misplaced, at least on the nuclear front. You're right and I do remember this. However, there have been posts suggesting that the US would be perfectly justified to do so. I'd suggest that it's not a good idea to bring up old stuff in the context of the present problem. Jeroen wasn't put on moderation for anything that happened previous to the personal attacks named in the original posting. Let's let the past be the past; bringing it up again smacks of resentment, etc., which are poisonous. Jeroen hasn't been kicked out, but anybody with eyes and a brain to read can figure out where this is headed. I get the feeling that most of us are past trying to find a solution and are resolved to sticking to their guns as they hold the Truth (TM). I'd like to make it clear that I'm not past trying to find a solution. In fact, Sonja asked off-line what it would take the resolve the situation and I gave her the best answer I could. She's welcome to share our discussion with the list if she wishes. My point here is that I'm not by any means opposed to Jeroen's return. He's just got to figure out the words it'll take to assure us that he'll do his best not to allow disagreements to escalate as the most recent one with JDG did. Hmm, perhaps I'm not heeding my own advice, alluding to past escalations. I don't want this to be about *who* is right and wrong. In a community like this one, whose shared purpose is what I'd call brainstorming, trying to win an argument, or even points, is also poison. The best things I've gotten from being here are appreciation of other points of view, including JDG's and Jeroen's. That's not just a theoretical appreciation; I increasingly see how a variety of points of view keep us out of trouble. Info-diversity is like bio-diversity, I suspect -- it keeps us ready to solve a variety of problems that might crop up, while the single-minded society, like the single-genotype species, becomes extinct far more easily; anything that kills one, kills all. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Jon Gabriel wrote: From: Jean-Louis Couturier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:43:27 -0500 At 21:26 2002-12-04 -0600, Marvin wrote: At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to say so. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) OK then, I disagree. This whole situation is giving me the creeps. Unlike most people, I don't think anyone's actually in the right here, everyone's wrong. By the way, no one has kicked Jeroen out. He has been asked to change behavior and cease actions that would have been the result of a complete, not temporary ban on many other listservs. AFAIK, he has an open-ended invitation from Nick and Julia to come back when he is willing to stop attacking people. Actually no. *If* I got it correctly from Nick, at the moment he's kind of off the list for an indefinite period of time. And if you ask me at current he doesn't have much of a chance to return. Since he refuses to change his behavior and has in fact been escalating his attacks against Brin-L members, it's listowners and server privately and publicly, you might say he is trying to remove *himself* from the list. I for one hold the position that where two fight there are two at fault. So just to get things balanced a bit, and to make said point, I'd like to recall another incident besides those you here mention (and for which the difference in interpretation, from my European vantage point and being close to Jeroen , seems to be solely based on cultural and language differences as well as misunderstandings in interpretation of the written word, while taking for granted certain biases inherent to respective interpretations and an obstinate and uncompromising unwillingness to even try to find common ground or to remain in peacefull disagreement for ever by both sides). So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly enough that never had any consequences whatsoever for Erik, although his behaviour was at least partial to the disruptiveness resulting. And while I do not explicitly object to (if there must be something stupid like it at all that is) there being some consequenses for disruptive behaviour (although I'd rather see them disappear and listmembers behave at least according to their age) I do however very strongly object to the randomness of those consequenses resulting from rather vague ideas about list policy and (if you ask me) personal dislikes from a few that unfortunately make up a very strong and vocal group. Sonja Pfew... long sentences Maru. ;o). Can you tell I have a degree? grin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
-Original Message- From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 2:47 PM ... This is not correct. Arnett wants me to demonstrate a willingness and ability to refrain from personal attacks, harassment, etc., but he persists in refusing to tell me *how* I could demonstrate that. This indicates that he has no intention whatsoever of letting me back on the list. I don't think you are a child who needs to be instructed on what to say or do. Demonstrating willingness and ability mean coming up with the words and actions that *you* believe are appropriate, not what anyone else says. You have no shortage of words and actions under other circumstances, so I'm quite confident that you are capable of doing so now. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: on 6/12/02 4:34 am, Deborah Harrell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But her post _does_ express the 'prairie chicken effect' nicely... What is the 'prairie chicken effect' ? Sorry, that wouuld be quite obtuse if you hadn't read the Little House series by Laura Ingalls Wilder; I actually used it once before, when I 'dinged' some discussion that had gotten personal and flamey (can't remember what it was, though!) Anyway, brand-newbie Laura snaps at the raucous schoolyard gang that they sound like a bunch of prairie chickens! But she was right, they _did_. :) Debbi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly enough that never had any consequences whatsoever for Erik, although his behaviour was at least partial to the disruptiveness resulting. Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com server? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Julia Thompson wrote: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly enough that never had any consequences whatsoever for Erik, although his behaviour was at least partial to the disruptiveness resulting. Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com server? Is that important? :o) I mean the mess already started before we moved and only got worse after a short lull as far as I can tell, after we moved. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:53:41PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com server? That's irrelevant, because the posts she is referring to were not equivalent to what Jeroen was doing anyway. I made a few teasing posts in response to some of Jeroen's whining posts. I did not demand that Jeroen be silent, I did not demand that Jeroen respond to me, I did not threaten Jeroen, I did not privately email Jeroen, I did not call Jeroen names, in short, I did not harass Jeroen. It was clearly satire. Teasing or pestering, yes, harassing, no. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly enough that never had any consequences whatsoever for Erik, although his behaviour was at least partial to the disruptiveness resulting. Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com server? Is that important? :o) I mean the mess already started before we moved and only got worse after a short lull as far as I can tell, after we moved. What happened in reaction to various things when the list was at Cornell and what happens in reaction to various things when the list is on the mccmedia.com server may differ. So yes, that's important if you're wanting to discuss treatment of various people *now* as opposed to treatment of various people in July and August -- it may not be apples and oranges, but cortlands and jonagolds. Julia Proctofructology Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Erik Reuter wrote: On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 06:53:41PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com server? That's irrelevant, because the posts she is referring to were not equivalent to what Jeroen was doing anyway. I made a few teasing posts in response to some of Jeroen's whining posts. I did not demand that Jeroen be silent, I did not demand that Jeroen respond to me, I did not threaten Jeroen, I did not privately email Jeroen, I did not call Jeroen names, in short, I did not harass Jeroen. It was clearly satire. Teasing or pestering, yes, harassing, no. I just realised that one of the problems I feel this list has, is that we are too familiar with each other without actually knowing each other. I think we do need to realise that pushing each others buttons isn't just harmless fun ;o). Some people can handle when their buttonss are consciously being pushed by others and realised they are being baited and act accordingly, some can't. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Julia Thompson wrote: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: So just for the record I also clearly remember Erik for one being particularly nasty and very childish in harrasing Jeroen even after several repeated requests from a lot of listmembers to cut it out and leave Jeroen alone. Strangly enough that never had any consequences whatsoever for Erik, although his behaviour was at least partial to the disruptiveness resulting. Did this happen since the list was moved onto Nick's mccmedia.com server? Is that important? :o) I mean the mess already started before we moved and only got worse after a short lull as far as I can tell, after we moved. What happened in reaction to various things when the list was at Cornell and what happens in reaction to various things when the list is on the mccmedia.com server may differ. So yes, that's important if you're wanting to discuss treatment of various people *now* as opposed to treatment of various people in July and August -- it may not be apples and oranges, but cortlands and jonagolds. Then maybe there should be a clearcut distinction between the policies then and now and it should be made clear that there is that distinction. Be honest and say it as it is. I mean you can't make it to everybodies taste but at least things are clearcut that way and can be enforced without much bravado. And speaking for myself I would find it nice to know what the policy is. There seems to be a choice between being a policeman or not being a policeman, but to me it seems to be impossible to be something in between and get away with it without inevitably someone feeling hurt. f.i. I did like DB's approach in pointing out the faults in the way of argumantation between JDG en Jeroen in part of their dispute. But that is being a policeman and it forced DB to react to both sides in equal ways without being able to take an argumentative part himself. Question is do you really want that? Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Sat, Dec 07, 2002 at 02:12:06AM +0100, Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten wrote: Some people can handle when their buttonss are consciously being pushed by others and realised they are being baited and act accordingly, some can't. And some people need to learn how to handle being teased (especially when they practically BEG for it) without responding with harassment and threats. One good way to handle it is to tease back without escalating. Another good way is to ignore it. Another reasonable way to handle it is to avoid a forum where you may be teased if you know you have trouble dealing with teasing. Responding angrily or with threats is not a good way to handle it. Also, it is ironic that someone who is now demanding freedom of speech and who often belittles Americans and American policies would be so sensitive to some mild teasing. Finally, you may have noticed that I haven't teased Jeroen in a long time. As you said, I found that he usually can't handle it. That is not to say that I will never tease him in the future if he says something that warrants a little teasing. But the likelihood of that is much lower now, because I would have to think he had matured enough not to make threats when teased, and since I killfile and rarely read his list posts, and bounce personal emails back to him without storing them. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Galactic Moderates (Was Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked)
Debbi Galactic Moderate? Maru See, that's your problem. No one in the Four Galaxies listens to the moderates, you should know that! :-) Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 4:47 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp. The nature and extent of this attack is being grossly exaggerated. Arnett immediately assumed the worst, but the truth is that the alleged hacking was very limited. In fact, I doubt it even qualifies as hacking. All I did was go to the page where we all can go to log in and change our subscription settings; there I made a few attempts to login using the e-mail addresses of the list censors, and take a few guesses at the corresponding passwords. That is all. So basicly you *tried* to get into the system using someone elses account. Really Jeroen, trying to minimise that into something innocent shows - I dont know - contempt for the minds of your peers here. What you did, and admit to doing, would get you banned almost anywhere. I know of several people who have been banned from access from BBSs and the like just for trying such an exploit. Passwords are the locks on a door, and tring to pick the lock is wrong.as in immoral, or at least unethical. I dont see anything blocking the path to your being forgiven for this. But you pretty much need to do the things that would allow this to come to pass. xponent Struth Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 5:17 PM Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked At 13:11 06-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: I'd like to make it clear that I'm not past trying to find a solution. In fact, Sonja asked off-line what it would take the resolve the situation and I gave her the best answer I could. However, Sonja is not the one who is the victim of your dictatorial actions -- I am. However, you did not send *me* your answer on how to resolve the situation. My point here is that I'm not by any means opposed to Jeroen's return. He's just got to figure out the words it'll take to assure us that he'll do his best not to allow disagreements to escalate as the most recent one with JDG did. In order to assure the list of anything, I would have to post a message to the list. However, as you have essentially kicked me off the list, I cannot do that. You will first have to restore my posting privileges -- and *without* moderation. I also expect Giorgis to promise he will improve his on-list behaviour, and I expect you (Arnett) to apologise for your actions (which were way out of line and a gross violation of list policy) and step down as listowner. One can only make such strong demands when one bargains from a position of strength. Jeroen, you are in no position to make these demands. No single member of this list could actually pull off what you seem to expect is your due. You need to stop and think about this a bit because it will never happen. xponent Speaking As A Friend Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp. The nature and extent of this attack is being grossly exaggerated. Arnett immediately assumed the worst, but the truth is that the alleged hacking was very limited. In fact, I doubt it even qualifies as hacking. All I did was go to the page where we all can go to log in and change our subscription settings; there I made a few attempts to login using the e-mail addresses of the list censors, and take a few guesses at the corresponding passwords. That is all. That is more than enough... Brad DeLong ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)
In an attempt to answer this post, I did an I Feel Lucky search for Hacking Defined on Google: From the Michigan Department of Natural Resources: http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10370_12143_15425-35430--,00.ht ml Hacking Defined The reintroduction technique, called hacking, includes collecting chicks from the wild at five to six weeks old and placing them in hack boxes until they are ready to fly. DNR staff will feed the birds released from the hack sites while they learn to fly and catch fish on their own. Male ospreys generally return to nest at the site at which they learned to fly. Females will follow males to their nesting grounds. Ospreys usually do not nest until they are three years old. They will migrate to South America in the fall and may not be seen again in the Maple River or Kensington Metro Park areas until they are ready to nest. LOL *grin* Who knew? Not what I originally meant, but made me laugh. :) Jon GSV Is there a weekly award for the wildest subject change? There should be, cuz I think I just won it. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Bradford DeLong Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 11:14 PM To: J. van Baardwijk Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked At 11:31 06-12-2002 -0500, Jon Gabriel wrote: I'm disturbed by his being blocked at chello.nl, but I'm more disturbed that the list server was attacked from that isp. The nature and extent of this attack is being grossly exaggerated. Arnett immediately assumed the worst, but the truth is that the alleged hacking was very limited. In fact, I doubt it even qualifies as hacking. All I did was go to the page where we all can go to log in and change our subscription settings; there I made a few attempts to login using the e-mail addresses of the list censors, and take a few guesses at the corresponding passwords. That is all. That is more than enough... Brad DeLong ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)
damn. I thought this post might be about the Men at Arms military books. Oo .Startide Rising battle plans. Time to wake the alien! William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: damn. I thought this post might be about the Men at Arms military books. Oo .Startide Rising battle plans. Time to wake the alien! Why? Does he need to make the donuts? (I swear, as soon as I read that last line, I had a flashback to a Dunkin' Donuts commercial.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)
In a message dated 12/6/2002 10:03:55 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Oo .Startide Rising battle plans. Time to wake the alien! Why? Does he need to make the donuts? (I swear, as soon as I read that last line, I had a flashback to a Dunkin' Donuts commercial.) Julia The Episiarch would never make donuts. He'd open up a dimensional portal and steal them right off of the Krispy Kreame's racks. I think we just figured out what those chin spikes on the Thennanin are for. Two reserve donuts. Never let a Tytlal offer you a Pringles. The gull might be rare in the middle if the Pring didn't fry it just right. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Ospreys (Was: RE: Admin: Server access blocked)
William Taylor wrote: The Episiarch would never make donuts. He'd open up a dimensional portal and steal them right off of the Krispy Kreame's racks. You know, if an episiarch could get me a regular supply of Krispy Kremes, I'd adopt one of the shaggy lunatics tomorrow! Assuming, of course, I could housebreak it. I really don't need portions of my home disappearing or being rearranged at a whim. My wife wouldn't approve. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
David Hobby wrote: This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind. I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting material for your study of internet communities and how they deal with a crisis. Or maybe not - probably the listmembers that would support Jeroen are silent, because this is not a conflict between common listmembers, but between a listmember and the list Overlord. Hey, you forgot the emoticons! : ( No, I didn't. I guess that I support Nick's action, anyway I gave up and killfiled Jeroen for keeps weeks ago. We keep kicking around ideas on easy ways to collectively deal with individuals who don't respect etiquette. But until we do come up with one that works, the listowner and overlord has to step in. I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious: he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge authority took control. Others are subtle. And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? I guess by now everybody will be very pleased, seeing how he is reacting. I was right! He's not a member of a civilization! Let's ban him forever! Alberto Monteiro PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender of the Lost Cause :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto Monteiro wrote: I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to be the victim-of-the-day. Was he? Admittedly I have only been re-subbed here for a few months, I have not had much time to devote to Brin-L mail but I seem to have missed the singling-out. And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? Who is supposed to be harassing him? I guess by now everybody will be very pleased, seeing how he is reacting. I was right! He's not a member of a civilization! Let's ban him forever! But isn't that assuming that the rest of us are incapable of disapproving of the deeds without hating the doer? :) PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender of the Lost Cause :-) But isn't that assuming that his cause is lost? :) Ritu GCU A Veritable Graveyard Of Cats ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Ritu Ko wrote: I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to be the victim-of-the-day. Was he? Yes. And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? Who is supposed to be harassing him? If _every_ message he wrote was replied with mild offenses, this is a harassing. I guess by now everybody will be very pleased, seeing how he is reacting. I was right! He's not a member of a civilization! Let's ban him forever! But isn't that assuming that the rest of us are incapable of disapproving of the deeds without hating the doer? :) Yes. Which makes Me the only Saint in the list :-P PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender of the Lost Cause :-) But isn't that assuming that his cause is lost? :) Of course it is a lost. It will escalate forever. Probably it will end up in splitting the list in two - the best scenario, the other scenarios are worse. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Erik Reuter wrote: And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? Actually, it is the reverse. What better person to shout at then one who harasses? (I wonder if you have confused harass with tease? Jeroen has never been harassed by anyone on Brin-L that I know of) Maybe I confused the terms. Is there any precise definition? IMHO, harass should mean that the subject of the action feels so. I guess by now everybody will be very pleased, seeing how he is reacting. I was right! He's not a member of a civilization! Let's ban him forever! No, I think that most people would be happy for the ban to be temporary, if only Jeroen would apologize or even show a little remorse for his past misbehavior. What do you think are the chances of that? Less than 10%. Which is why I think this will escalate to Jeroen's final ban - another symptom that the list is dying. PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender of the Lost Cause :-) Time to ban Alberto! Try it!!! I will fight back!!! I will mailbomb all of you!!! Of course, threats aren't literal. When you say that to me, it's obvious a joke. When Jeroen said that to JDG [IIRC], everybody took it as serious. When Nick says it to Jeroen, he's serious. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:50:19AM -0200, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Maybe I confused the terms. Is there any precise definition? Probably not as precise as you want. But I think the usual use of harass implies repeated, unwanted action or attention (in some manner) and with intent to harm. Tease doesn't necessarily imply any of those qualities (although it COULD occasionally, they are not implied). -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Ritu Ko wrote: But isn't that assuming that his cause is lost? :) Of course it is a lost. It will escalate forever. Probably it will end up in splitting the list in two - the best scenario, the other scenarios are worse. It would end up *splitting* the list in two and that is the *best* case scenario!?!?! Yes. People have been leaving the list with angry goodbye, f--- you all messages along the years. Maybe these two points of view are unable to live together happily forever. Well, I have no idea what I have stumbled onto so I'll just sit down and keep quiet. :) Worst case scenario will be things getting out of the Cyberspace, like Digimon 3. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Which is why I think this will escalate to Jeroen's final ban - another symptom that the list is dying. The symptom that the list is dying is that yet again we are involved in endlessly discussing one particular person and his actions and other's reactions. Enough of the self-flagellation already. Regards, Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Ray Ludenia wrote: Which is why I think this will escalate to Jeroen's final ban - another symptom that the list is dying. The symptom that the list is dying is that yet again we are involved in endlessly discussing one particular person and his actions and other's reactions. Enough of the self-flagellation already. I hate those kind of discussion. Why did I drag myself to become the solo defender of Jeroen? I guess I know: because it will make me the Only Defender of Free Speech :-P Things would be different if I were the list-tyrant. I would ban everybody who sent messages using the horrible imperial units Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Things would be different if I were the list-tyrant. I would ban everybody who sent messages using the horrible imperial units So you admit that not all imperial units are horrible? Never thought I'd see the day! Ray. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto said: Worst case scenario will be things getting out of the Cyberspace, like Digimon 3. My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts, all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming. Rich GCU And The Universal Adoption Of Imperial Units ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Rich wrote: My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts, all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming. Rich GCU And The Universal Adoption Of Imperial Units And the wombats? Ritu GCU You Can't Forget The Wombats! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
unsubscribe jeroen-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Alberto Monteiro wrote: PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender of the Lost Cause :-) Does that mean you don't actually disagree with Nick's decision, but are only protesting pro forma in your role as Official Contrarian? Or are you protesting? You seem to be lamenting the lack of support for Jeroen's case, but I don't see you arguing on his behalf in any specific way, except maybe for debating the concept of harrassment. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Rich wrote: unsubscribe jeroen-l Me too. Ritu GCU Please ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Rich wrote: unsubscribe jeroen-l Me too. Ritu GCU Please ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: Ritu Ko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked Rich wrote: unsubscribe jeroen-l Me too. Two comments on this: 1) Why doesn't Jerone start up his own version of BRIN-L (caps on purpose) and see how many people would subscribe. If it is more than [EMAIL PROTECTED], then he has made his point. 2) You could start a good discussion with that 100k exposition on the morality of pacifism that you've been owning me. evil grin. Actually, I'm even looking forward to a small exposition from someone of your viewpoint, wisdom and intellect. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
unsubscribe jeroen-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender of the Lost Cause :-) Does that mean you don't actually disagree with Nick's decision, but are only protesting pro forma in your role as Official Contrarian? You are a very evil person... Or are you protesting? You seem to be lamenting the lack of support for Jeroen's case, but I don't see you arguing on his behalf in any specific way, except maybe for debating the concept of harrassment. serious My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum set of restraint that listmembers should show before being suspended And even 40 messages per day can't be considered mailbombing. I guess even I - who spend too much time watching TV - have occasionally written 40 messages in one day. /serious Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto wrote: I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious: he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge authority took control. Others are subtle. And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? So you don't think there should be consequences for his actions? Or do you think the consequences should be something other than being temporarily banned from posting to the list? I guess by now everybody will be very pleased, seeing how he is reacting. I was right! He's not a member of a civilization! Let's ban him forever! I think I've only seen one post suggesting the ban be long-term, and none suggesting it be permanent. And I for one, and probably several others, certainly wish it had not come to this. Very pleased does not describe my feelings on this, and I doubt very seriously it describes the feelings of anyone else. I *like* Jeroen. On some issues, I even *agree* with him. PS: I am _also_ a meme-stereotype. If everybody is against Jeroen, then I must stand to be the Defender of the Lost Cause :-) I always saw you as more of the Trickster type. Challenging the general feeling of the group would certainly fit with that. Sometimes I think the Tricksters are the most important part of a society, challenging the status-quo and making us examine things that we sometimes feel uncomfortable examining. So keep up the good work! :-) Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Richard Baker wrote: My worst case scenario involves giant asteroids, gamma ray bursts, all-out nuclear exchanges, plague, famine, brain-eating zombie infestations, leaves on the line, and Steps reforming. Have you been hacking into my home pc and reading my new novel? :-) Reggie Bautista GSV Not that there's an old one _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto wrote: serious My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum set of restraint that listmembers should show before being suspended And even 40 messages per day can't be considered mailbombing. I guess even I - who spend too much time watching TV - have occasionally written 40 messages in one day. /serious But what about attempts to hack the server? Or putting [EMAIL PROTECTED] as his reply-to address so anyone wanting to reply to him actually ends up posting on-list (this can easily be seen as forcing others to unwittingly violate nettiquette by posting private email on-list)? Those aren't reasons enough for a temporary posting ban? Reggie Bautista _ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Dan Minette wrote: 2) You could start a good discussion with that 100k exposition on the morality of pacifism that you've been owning me. evil grin. chuckle And which one would that be? All I can see in my drafts folder is an unfinished 11k mail on a war that looks nigh inevitable. :) And since it took me long years to break myself of the habit of expounding unasked, you'll have to ask me those questions that you keep refering to. g I'll try to finish it by the next weekend. I am going to be out of town until mid next week. Actually, I'm even looking forward to a small exposition from someone of your viewpoint, wisdom and intellect. Thank you. I hope you won't be *too* disappointed. :) But I really thought those were my reasons for looking forward to this debate. Ritu PS - Apologies for all those repeated messages guys. My Outlook seems to be acing up. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Reggie Bautista wrote: And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? So you don't think there should be consequences for his actions? Yes - cause and effect. But the punishment should be comparable to the offense. Or do you think the consequences should be something other than being temporarily banned from posting to the list? Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent before, from other people. I always saw you as more of the Trickster type. Challenging the general feeling of the group would certainly fit with that. Sometimes I think the Tricksters are the most important part of a society, challenging the status-quo and making us examine things that we sometimes feel uncomfortable examining. So keep up the good work! :-) Being the Trickster I can be heard when I say things that, coming from other people, would be considered offenses :-) Alberto Uthacalthing ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Ritu Ko wrote: PS - Apologies for all those repeated messages guys. My Outlook seems to be acing up. No problem. The server will block any repeated message. Or not? O:-) Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 10:46 AM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Reggie Bautista wrote: And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? So you don't think there should be consequences for his actions? Yes - cause and effect. But the punishment should be comparable to the offense. Or do you think the consequences should be something other than being temporarily banned from posting to the list? Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent before, from other people. Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity? Who else has repeatedly reacted to someone failing to respond to email by personally insulting said person? Who else has repeatedly called for the permanant ouster of another list member because they either didn't respond to posts or responded offlist? And, that was just the short period leading up to moderation. If you really want to make a case for person X behaving no differently than persons A-W, yet being singled out, then I think you really have an uphill battle. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Dan Minette wrote: Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent before, from other people. Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity? Jeroen. And wtf does the list have to worry about something that's done offlist? Who else has repeatedly reacted to someone failing to respond to email by personally insulting said person? Jeroen. So, it's in the list rules that offending someone else is forbidden? Who else has repeatedly called for the permanant ouster of another list member because they either didn't respond to posts or responded offlist? Jeroen. So, the rule is: if X requests that Y should be banned, then X must be banned? And, that was just the short period leading up to moderation. If you really want to make a case for person X behaving no differently than persons A-W, yet being singled out, then I think you really have an uphill battle. Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other listmember, except for magnitude or intensity. If there's no law against drinking alchool, then there's no law against getting drunk Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto wrote: If there's no law against drinking alchool, then there's no law against getting drunk This is a flawed analogy. In the U.S. at least, there's no law against drinking alcohol, and no law against getting drunk, but there are laws against driving while drunk and many jurisdictions have laws against public drunkenness. In other words, you can be drunk, but you can't be drunk in certain places or while doing certain things. Reggie Bautista _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto wrote: Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other listmember, except for magnitude or intensity. If there's no law against drinking alchool, then there's no law against getting drunk That's true, but, at least in the US, there are laws against being drunk disorderly in public, and against driving while drunk. There are laws against creating a public nuisance, as well. Look at it this way: You're at a bar having a few drinks. You get drunk, which is perfectly legal (and in some degree expected), but then you get abusive, calling the waitress names when she refuses to serve you any more drinks. When the bar manager comes to talk to you about it, you insult him and threaten to sue him. The bar owner then has you escorted outside the premises by the thick-necked man named Bruiser. Once outside, you continue to scream abuse at the owner, staff and patrons of the bar, going so far as to try to jimmy open the window of the men's toilet to slip in that way. Are you arguing that you've done nothing wrong, and should be allowed back into the bar to continue drinking? This is stretching the analogy, of course, since Jeroen is not (as far as we know) under the influence of alcohol. He seems to be in full control of his actions, so he doesn't have the minimal defense of being under the influence of alcohol. I don't support a permanent ban, either, but I do support efforts to minimize the disruption of abusive behavior onlist. Adam C. Lipscomb __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
I wrote: If I make a really big mistake and cause a customer to loose several thousand dollars worth of business, I could get seriously reprimanded or possibly even fired. That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep. This, by the way, would count as a really small mistake. :-) Magnitude and intensity make all the difference in the world. And spelling does, two. ;-) Reggie Bautista _ 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: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Dan Minette wrote: Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent before, from other people. Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity? Jeroen. And wtf does the list have to worry about something that's done offlist? Because the offline email was posted on list. Who else has repeatedly reacted to someone failing to respond to email by personally insulting said person? Jeroen. So, it's in the list rules that offending someone else is forbidden? No, it is possible to offend someone simply by giving a reasonable argument that rebutts something they say. The list ettiquette rules 1) Say no personal attacks on list 2) Say take exchanges that are getting personal and heated offlist. When JDG and Jeroen's discussions were turning into flame wars the requests were 1) Stop it 2) Take it offline JDG tried to do both recently, but found his efforts thwarted. It seems reasonable for JDG to request that something be done about this. It was clear, to me, that some form of moderation would be used to minimize flame wars. Further, even in forums where flame wars predominate, people do not post off list messages or keep on flaming someone who doesn't reply. Who else has repeatedly called for the permanant ouster of another list member because they either didn't respond to posts or responded offlist? Jeroen. So, the rule is: if X requests that Y should be banned, then X must be banned? No. The banning has nothing to do with that. The banning has to do with actions taken after moderation was started. Personally, if Jerone actually did try to hack Nick's computers, then a ban until he demonstrates that he has changed enough so that the probability of another hack is miniscular is most reasonable. If he actually did something less, like cut and paste respond to, then a simple promise to not send repeated messages to be moderated over and over again, costing Nick and Julia a lot of time, sounds OK to me. Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other listmember, except for magnitude or intensity. If there's no law against drinking alchool, then there's no law against getting drunk Can you come up with a cite where another member has suggested that someone kill themselves? Has anyone else put up a wall of shame? Has anyone else deliberately posted private email? Even if you were right, the magnitude and intensity argument has been well refuted, IMHO, by other posters. But, let me give one more example. Simply because someone has not been arrested for going 30.1 kph in a 30 kph school zone doesn't mean that someone should not be arrested and taken to jail for going 150 kph in a 30 kph school zone. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alberto Monteiro ... serious My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum set of restraint that listmembers should show before being suspended Personal attacks are not okay and the policy on that is quite clear. In this case (as we would aim to do with all), we let a lot of them go by before taking action. Please recall that I posted a long list of them. Jeroen isn't banned from the list. He's moderated. I've shut off access to my company's server from his ISP because of attempted hacking, which Jeroen pretty much admitted to. Without access to my server, Jeroen can't post to the list, but that's a result of his hacking, not his behavior on the list. We'll shut off access to *anybody* who tries to break into my company's network; that decision is irrelevant to the list. And even 40 messages per day can't be considered mailbombing. I guess even I - who spend too much time watching TV - have occasionally written 40 messages in one day. /serious It wasn't just 40 messages. It was 40 duplicates. And it was the third or fourth time he'd sent them. That was just the largest burst. As I said, I've been patient, not immediately responding to anything except when I discovered Jeroen's IP address in our security logs. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Alberto Monteiro wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent before, from other people. Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity? Jeroen. And wtf does the list have to worry about something that's done offlist? Well, if he'd kept the off-list discussion off-list, it probably wouldn't have gotten to the point where anyone would even *consider* moderation in the first place. Who else has repeatedly reacted to someone failing to respond to email by personally insulting said person? Jeroen. So, it's in the list rules that offending someone else is forbidden? No, insulting someone repeatedly is frowned upon. The repeated is crucial to the whole thing. If someone wants to get their panties in a wad because of some of the stuff I posted about NFP bothers them, that's their problem, but if I repeatedly call someone stupid because I don't agree with their position, then I deserve some sort of time-out until I can show a little more respect for people I disagree with. Who else has repeatedly called for the permanant ouster of another list member because they either didn't respond to posts or responded offlist? Jeroen. So, the rule is: if X requests that Y should be banned, then X must be banned? No, but harping on the subject for a number of weeks and singling out a particular individual for this treatment is pretty rude, especially when a number of people have requested it not be done any more. And, that was just the short period leading up to moderation. If you really want to make a case for person X behaving no differently than persons A-W, yet being singled out, then I think you really have an uphill battle. Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other listmember, except for magnitude or intensity. If there's no law against drinking alchool, then there's no law against getting drunk There's no law against drinking alcohol, but there are laws regarding what you may and may not do beyond a certain point of intoxication. If you want to get so drunk you fall down, that's fine, just don't get behind the wheel of a car shortly before passing out from the alcohol. If A post an insult to B maybe twice a year, that can be tolerated. A posting an insult to B five times a day and making more aggressive demands than mere insult will not be tolerated here. And if it had *only* been the insulting, I would have protested the original request at moderation. It was the more aggressive behavior that lost Jeroen a potential ally among the admins. (And if it had only been the insults, I bet John would not have made as strong a case to the admins.) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:52:47 -0600 - Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Dan Minette wrote: Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent before, from other people. Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity? Jeroen. And wtf does the list have to worry about something that's done offlist? Because the offline email was posted on list. They were also posted on brin-l.com, which was the list's website. They were also sent to multiple listmembers offlist because they couldn't be posted here. Who else has repeatedly reacted to someone failing to respond to email by personally insulting said person? Jeroen. snip Who else has repeatedly called for the permanant ouster of another list member because they either didn't respond to posts or responded offlist? Jeroen. So, the rule is: if X requests that Y should be banned, then X must be banned? No. The banning has nothing to do with that. The banning has to do with actions taken after moderation was started. Personally, if Jerone actually did try to hack Nick's computers, then a ban until he demonstrates that he has changed enough so that the probability of another hack is miniscular is most reasonable. If he actually did something less, like cut and paste respond to, then a simple promise to not send repeated messages to be moderated over and over again, costing Nick and Julia a lot of time, sounds OK to me. Also, his chello.nl address has been blocked, but that's because an attack was registered from that isp on the mccmedia server, not as a result of the original reasons he was being moderated (if I understand things correctly). Unless I'm mistaken, Jeroen still has the ability to post to brin-l from his work address at mindef.nl, or any other address he chooses to subscribe from. I believe he would also be moderated if he posts from another address? Jeroen's behavious was no different than any other listmember, except for magnitude or intensity. If there's no law against drinking alchool, then there's no law against getting drunk Can you come up with a cite where another member has suggested that someone kill themselves? Has anyone else put up a wall of shame? Has anyone else deliberately posted private email? Jeroen only threatened to put up a Brin-L wall of shame. AFAIK, he never did, unless I missed something. Offlist e-mail also isn't the only private thing Jeroen has posted to the list within the past few months. He also posted the entire Brin-L subscriber list, with names and e-mails. This is not something any Brinneller could have done. No other Brinneller could have posted threats to John, Juilia and Nick on Brin-L.com. Yes, they could have posted threats on their own websites, but not the official list site. 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: Admin: Server access blocked
-Original Message- From: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:32 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:52:47 -0600 - Original Message - From: Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:08 AM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Dan Minette wrote: Why was he suspended in the first place? AFAIK, it was for some reason that *did* have a precedent before, from other people. Who else has repeatedly posted offline email in its entireity? Jeroen. And wtf does the list have to worry about something that's done offlist? Because the offline email was posted on list. They were also posted on brin-l.com, which was the list's website. They were also sent to multiple listmembers offlist because they couldn't be posted here. Yes, and receiving 40 copies of the same darn email flooded my yahoo account, shutting it down, and caused me to lose an eBay auction. Hey.. *perks up* maybe I can sue! ;) -j- ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
-Original Message- From: Erik Reuter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 11:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote: That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep. Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm missing a play on words? Cthulhu mythos god-alien-monster ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Erik wondered: On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote: That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep. Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm missing a play on words? http://www.deliverance.mcmail.com/lovecraft/nyarlathotep.htm or http://makeashorterlink.com/?B2A932CA2 Nyarlathotep is one of the dark Old Ones of H. P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu mythos. Very bad juju, baas. You no wanna mess wit' him. Adam THE HORROR! THE HORROR __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 11:42:31AM -0600, Reggie Bautista wrote: That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep. Erik Reuter wrote: Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm missing a play on words? Nyarlathotep was the name of a chaotic god-like character from H.P. Lovecraft's weird tales. __ 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: Admin: Server access blocked
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least 5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently, through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list as a whole. I don't think it was intended as a trick. And I feel that you at least could take into consideration that Jeroen cannot at the moment defend himself on-list. Then again if it really was a trick he pulled on you, just have the decency to don't blame Jeroen for being clever at your expense. You'd have done better hitting yourself over the head a few times for falling for it and because you didn't check the reply to field before sending a little mailbomb of your own making. grin So just for the record I also think that you, Adam are at least as childish as Jeroen in replying multiple times to something without adding any actual content. Jeroen in his off-list mail (even if it is unsolicited by you and/or others) can at least be granted the benifit of the doubt for trying to make a point he feels very strongly about and that he at present and probably in any forseable future isn't allowed to make on this list. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
You are a very evil person...
I try, thank you.
[blinks innocently]
My point is that it's not fair to ban Jeroen without
the consent about the list rules. We didn't agree to
what would be the list rules, and which was the minimum
set of restraint that listmembers should show before
being suspended
That's a good point. However,
{set pontificate=Yes}
In all my years on Brin-L, despite numerous attempts, I've never seen the
list produce even a means for producing a decision by consensus, much less
a decision itself. Not for lack of suggestions or technical skill, I
suspect, but because not enough people are willing to be bothered or
willing to trust another to be in charge of a formal system. If that is
indeed the case, then it's unrealistic to expect Brin-L to behave like a
participatory democracy in which people vote on rules and the application
of rules.
Rather, in the terms of my own evil analogy, we are like a free social
club hosted in someone's home (Nick's server now, Cornell's server by way
of Eileen and Hector in days of yore). We can come and go any time we
please. The only restriction on listmember behavior, de facto, is what
the host and fellow listmembers, by way of the host, are willing to
tolerate. The only restriction on host (listowner) behavior is what the
guests are willing to tolerate. Thus the organizational principle of
Brin-L is not discussion and formal consent but is the bare fact of
participation itself.
If moderating or banning someone is against our collective sense of
fairness in the given social context, then we may scream in protest or we
may vote with our feet by unsubscribing; but to expect parliamentary
procedure is unrealistic, and because we know this, we should be prepared
to accept that the only justice available is poetic, so to speak -- a
matter of social cause and effect. If Nick and Julia are jerks, for
example, then poetic justice will take the form of everybody leaving and
starting a new list elsewhere.
The advantage to such a system is that it suits the lack of effort we
appear to be willing to put into collective self-governance. The
disadvantage is that it is prone to the explicit or tacit tyranny of the
majority where unpopular behavior or opinions are concerned. The question
on the conscience of every listmember ought to be, then, at what point
does unpopular-but-protected become uncivil-and-punishable?
I wish it were otherwise - being socially inept myself, I hate anything
that smells cliquish - but I see no reason to expect things ever actually
to be otherwise, and I'm a sufficiently evil hypocrite to be content with
the current system as long as it works sufficiently to my own perceived
benefit.
Therefore: there is not, has never been, and will never be a court of
consensus or appeal except for our own selves. If one believes an
injustice is being committed, one must say so, leave, or decide it's not
worth the trouble to interfere.
{set pontificate=No}
And even 40 messages per day can't be considered
mailbombing. I guess even I - who spend too much
time watching TV - have occasionally written 40
messages in one day.
That's true. Mailbombing, as I understand it, is flooding a server with
so much mail it crashes. For just being an annoying git, the term
mailbomb is hyperbole.
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA)
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
From: J. van Baardwijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] But what about attempts to hack the server? That is something that happened *only* because Arnett willingly violated list policy again, so he has no right to take any action against me anyway. Isn't that a bit like saying that since the bank messed up my checking account, no one should get mad that I tried to break in to the vault? And I certainly shouldn't be punished or jailed... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least 5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently, through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list as a whole. Speaking of childish, isn't doing more than tit-for-tat (i.e., rejecting each one back to him just once) childish? :) Wouldn't it be a lot more effective to set up some sort of system that just bounces everything he sends you back to him, so you never have to worry about it after setting it up? Wouldn't it be great if there were an easily-obtained software solution that could do this for you? [Cue Fool with a recommendation of such a product.] Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
I wrote: That should be lose, of course. Darn that Nyarlathotep. Erik replied: Darn that WHAT? I can't find it in my dictionary. Maybe I'm missing a play on words? Nyarlathotep is one of the elder gods, along with Cthulhu and others, in the stories of H. P. Lovecraft. In a message within the past week, I mis-spelled Cthulhu which was pointed out to me by Alberto. I replied by stating that I had spelled Cthulhu correctly but somehow it had gotten changed after I sent it, and then I insinuated that it was Nyarlathotep's fault. So I figured with another mis-spelling, I could blame it on Nyarlathotep again. :-) Reggie Bautista _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
--- Adam C. Lipscomb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked rest of 10K message deleted I just got TEN of these in a row - what is going on? I realize that I still have 150+ messages to check, but I see that quite a few have this same thread/subject. :( Preparing To Delete Unread 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: Admin: Server access blocked
Debbi said: I just got TEN of these in a row - what is going on? Some might view it as a mailing list equivalent of the French Revolution. Others may well consider it escalating childishness. Rich GCU Who Will Be Our Napoleon? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Speaking of childish, isn't doing more than tit-for-tat (i.e., rejecting each one back to him just once) childish? :) Wouldn't it be a lot more effective to set up some sort of system that just bounces everything he sends you back to him, so you never have to worry about it after setting it up? Wouldn't it be great if there were an easily-obtained software solution that could do this for you? [Cue Fool with a recommendation of such a product.] Mailwasher www.mailwasher.net ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
Alberto Monteiro wrote: I begin to understand why Jeroen was singled-out to be the victim-of-the-day. Some reasons are obvious: he *was* a listowner, so our meme of challenge authority took control. Others are subtle. And his behaviour in the past days, with mailbombing, lawsuits, and forged headers, make him a very tasty target! Who's better to be harassed as someone who screams and shouts? To be honest, I was considering defending Jeroen, until I started getting the endless stream of emails in my inbox - each one less rational and more, well, whiny. I despise whiny, and I don't appreciate being spammed. So I didn't. shrug I don't think it matters either way. I still can't figure out what's going on, and I've stopped even wanting anyone to explain it to me, because I'm pretty damned sure it's not important. I don't know. Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous breakdown than I've ever been, but I just - can't - see what the fuss is about here. I feel like I ought to be grabbing several people here by the collars, just like I did with the kids I used to play with when they started getting snappish, and shouting It's just a game! But none of you have collars (at least, not that I can get to), and none of you are kids - in fact, most of you are twice my age - and I don't have any right to be ordering anyone around anyway, so I guess I'll just unsub from the list again if this doesn't stop in the next few days. But I *still* want to say it. It's just a listserve. It's just a game. These are just words. You've got lives, jobs, houses, kids, and you can't be paying them half the attention that you're paying to throwing silly, spiky words at each other over an issue I can't even pin down on an obscure little listserve that ninety-nine point nine nine percent of the world doesn't even know exists. For God's sake *stop it* before you make bigger asses out of yourselves than you've already managed. Okay, I'm going to go quietly insane somewhere else for a while Kat Feete Generally speaking, all aliens look like they come from Earth, but just drive faster cars than we do. - Beettam and Geigen-Miller's 10 LAWS OF BAD SCIENCE FICTION http://www.xenosarrow.com/10laws.htm ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:44:40PM -0500, K. Feete wrote: Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous breakdown than I've ever been, Interesting preface for someone who goes on to offer advice... -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
Erik Reuter wrote: On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:44:40PM -0500, K. Feete wrote: Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous breakdown than I've ever been, Interesting preface for someone who goes on to offer advice... Well, it gives you a basis on which to measure the advice. :) Julia p.s. I have PMS -- how's *that* for a disclaimer? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server Access Blocked
--- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: K. Feete wrote: Maybe it's just that between school and bad work habits coming back on me and a truly incredible streak of bad luck I'm closer to a nervous breakdown than I've ever been, Interesting preface for someone who goes on to offer advice... chuckle But her post _does_ express the 'prairie chicken effect' nicely... serious However little 'our' pond is, though, what goes on in it is important to 'us' (else why would we spend our valuable time participating?) - and this situation has been bothering me quite a bit; I just haven't articulated my position well enough to post yet. grimace Partly because I find open conflict very difficult - and disturbing - to deal with. [Duh.] Debbi Galactic Moderate? 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: Admin: Server Access Blocked
Deborah Harrell wrote: grimace Partly because I find open conflict very difficult - and disturbing - to deal with. [Duh.] Me too. In the chat yesterday, I promised to write an email that would at least *attempt* to smooth things over. I've been working on it all day, and I'm still not satisified with it. Maybe I'll finish it up tomorrow... __ 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: Admin: Server Access Blocked
On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:37:46PM -0600, Julia Thompson wrote: p.s. I have PMS -- how's *that* for a disclaimer? A more practical disclaimer than most that I've read... -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote: This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind. I appreciate those of you who have expressed your support during this difficult episode. I hope we've found a reasonable series of steps to balance fairness to the individual and mitigation of the list community's disruption and distraction. I regret that this situation has continued to escalate. I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting material for your study of internet communities and how they deal with a crisis. Or maybe not - probably the listmembers that would support Jeroen are silent, because this is not a conflict between common listmembers, but between a listmember and the list Overlord. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote: This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind. I appreciate those of you who have expressed your support during this difficult episode. I hope we've found a reasonable series of steps to balance fairness to the individual and mitigation of the list community's disruption and distraction. I regret that this situation has continued to escalate. I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting material for your study of internet communities and how they deal with a crisis. Or maybe not - probably the listmembers that would support Jeroen are silent, because this is not a conflict between common listmembers, but between a listmember and the list Overlord. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote: Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community Let me say this: I fully realise that Nick has the absolute right and power to do this. It is afterall his list and he can do as he pleases wether I like it or not. But I just wish he'd be honest about the motives and not hide behind that facade of doing it for the greater good of the list. I for one don't feel that we need protection by the almighty listowners. Complain as we may, we are afterall all grown-ups. Or at least I thougth we were. Nick has proven me totally and utterly wrong and this list just got a nanny. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Nick Arnett wrote: Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community Let me say this: I fully realise that Nick has the absolute right and power to do this. It is afterall his list and he can do as he pleases wether I like it or not. But I just wish he'd be honest about the motives and not hide behind that facade of doing it for the greater good of the list. I think he is already being honest. And I think you are turning a blind eye to the annoying nature of Jeroens behavior over the last few months, though I must say that it is quite understandable. I find his offlist spam to be childish, and while I only read it for its humorous content (to my sorrow it appears to be unintentional), I can see where others would find it *quite* annoying. But i prefer to see those kinds of bitches and rants off the list rather than on the list. I honestly dont feel that Jeroen is being treated unfairly. He should accept things as they are and move on with list life. Its not like he will die if he doesnt get his way. I for one don't feel that we need protection by the almighty listowners. Complain as we may, we are afterall all grown-ups. Or at least I thougth we were. Nick has proven me totally and utterly wrong and this list just got a nanny. I'm tempted to go back through Yahoo and throw some of the complaints that were generated from your house, some of the threats, and calls for action, back on your plate. But I dont want to point this at you directly, even if you are getting involved in this crap. xponent AMYCD Hi-Bandwidth Coming Soon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Assumptions Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Nick Arnett wrote: Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community Let me say this: I fully realise that Nick has the absolute right and power to do this. It is afterall his list and he can do as he pleases wether I like it or not. But I just wish he'd be honest about the motives and not hide behind that facade of doing it for the greater good of the list. I think he is already being honest. And I *don't* think he is. But we are entitled to different opinions based on different points of view. shrug I for one am willing to accept yours... so ... how tolerant are you? :o) I honestly dont feel that Jeroen is being treated unfairly. Good for you. But judging from this respons I'm afraid that you haven't read my post very well. It is so easy to assume things based on what we think we know. :o/ I for one don't feel that we need protection by the almighty listowners. Complain as we may, we are afterall all grown-ups. Or at least I thougth we were. Nick has proven me totally and utterly wrong and this list just got a nanny. I'm tempted to go back through Yahoo and throw some of the complaints that were generated from your house, some of the threats, and calls for action, back on your plate. If you do, please don't forget to research your part in making assumptions and acting on them. From my point of view you are making a whole bunch of in my opinion invalid ones about me, my situation and my relation with Jeroen right here and now. It would however be very nice if you first checked their validity. But I dont want to point this at you directly, even if you are getting involved in this crap. Yes you are. And no I'm not. I am however entitled to an opinion. Worse I'm even (for now still) entitled to voicing that opinion, independent of what Jeroen or anybody else thinks, says or does. :o) Sonja GCU smileys are our friends ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Assumptions Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten responded: But I dont want to point this at you directly, even if you are getting involved in this crap. Yes you are. And no I'm not. I am however entitled to an opinion. Worse I'm even (for now still) entitled to voicing that opinion, independent of what Jeroen or anybody else thinks, says or does. :o) Sonja GCU smileys are our friends And that's the best news I've heard all day... I'd hate to miss out on your next plumbing adventure. I'm waiting to hear that having sorted out the water supply, the drains are all broken, or the floor has collapsed, or any of those misadventures that seem to befall us when we get too adventurous... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
