----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 6:07 AM Subject: RE: Calling someone a Nazi is OK?? (Was: Re: Etiquette)
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Robert Seeberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Verzonden: donderdag 31 januari 2002 1:15 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Re: Calling someone a Nazi is OK?? (Was: Re: Etiquette) > > > > >To try and intimidate a listmember into silence is vile. There is > > > >no defense and no justification for those actions. > > > > > > The listowners are NOT trying to intimidate anyone into silence, in > > > case that is what you believe. If we believe some action should be > > > taken against someone, we will not take that action lightly. If we > > > are going to unsubscribe someone, it will be done only after > > > thoroughly discussing the matter in public and giving the offender a > > > chance to improve his behaviour. > > > > Yet the first visible action was a threat from someone the list sees > > once a year at best. > > So what if you usually do not hear from Eileen? Most subscribers to Brin-L > are in lurk mode and never come out of it. Off the top of my head, there are > nowadays maybe 60-70 active posters while there are over 300 subscribers. It appears to me that she is.....uninvolved with the list in any but an official context. Dont get me wrong, Eileen is as nice as they come AFAIC. But her absentee status is problematic for listmembers in light of current events. I would suggest to you as someone else has, that you should do your own dirty work. > > Eileen is primary listowner, so in a way you could see her as "the boss". > When you are at work, would you want to hear from your boss continuously, > commenting on your work? Personally, I hold the position that the less I see > and hear my boss, the better it is. > Like I said, I dont have a problem with Eileen Tan. > > > > Eileen, Julia and yours truly are NOT the listowners from Hell. > > > > Yet. > > Keep in mind that you are being judged by the listmembers. > > This has all the appearance of being heavyhanded. > > I am slowly getting angry with people like you and Gautam. In all honesty, I would not expect otherwise. After all, we are kinda peeing in your punch. But I think we are making a valid complaint considering the long history on this list of free speech and social controls rather than authoritarian controls. >To whom did you > turn a few years ago when some guy was throwing obscenities around on this > list? If I had been around at that time, and was knowledgeable as to the particulars of those events, I would be able to make comment. As it stands, I am ignorant, but feel sure that things were handled in a way that did not cause complaints to this day. >The listowners, because they are the ones that could ban him. Who do > you turn to when you have a problem with your subscription ("Help! I can not > send messages to the List!")? The listowners, because they are the ones who > can (and do) solve the problem for you. So, you are saying that listmembers should be gratefull for your service and should therefore allow listowners to do whatever without comment? Or complaint? Ever? > > But now, when we perform one of our other duties (pointing out to a poster > that he needs to clean up his act), we get accused of issuing "threats", > intimidation, and being on our way to become listowners from Hell. If we > were all that, we would not even have bothered to tell you anything but > would have simply banned John. What actually happened is that John was threatened with almost exactly that kind of action. > But that is not the way we work. To this I pray. > > Now, go stand over there in the corner, face towards the wall, and bow your > head in shame. Either that is an attempt at humor, or evidence of a bossy attitude. And you aint the boss of me. xponent Holding Steady Maru rob who really does love you guys and feels that he does owe the list a lot
