>From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: And here we go again.
>Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 12:57:22 +0200
>
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> > Van: Jon Gabriel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Onderwerp: And here we go again.
>
> > From the nature of Jeroen's posts, he is, in his capacity as
> > ListOwner/Moderator, once again threatening list members.
>
>First, my being a co-listowner has nothing to do with any of this. Second,
>I
>am not a moderator because this is an unmoderated list. Third, it is over
>the top to call it a threat -- unless you believe you will be personally
>harmed by the existence of a record of misbehaviour.
I did not say that I was being threatened personally by you. I said that
you are threatening list members. Your actions are a threat to list
members, as I said, because you will be taking their posts out of the
context and conversations in which they were posted. If you were to post
entire conversations, that would be different. But what you said was that
you would be taking individual posts of different listmembers' "misbehavior"
and posting them on your website with comments, which would necessarily take
them out of context.
Julia explained that you are a co-owner of the Brin-L list (I asked in a
separate post yesterday.) I wasn't sure of your position on the list and
that is why I referred to you as a co-listowner/moderator. I recognize that
you are not a moderator as that's been pointed out, but I also see that you
hold a position of authority on this list. I want to note that your
position as listowner allows you to banish and suspend listmembers.
I feel it is totally inappropriate for a listowner to threaten list members
in an effort to win an argument.
> > In our previous episode, he merely threatened various people with
> > banishment.
>
>I never threatened anyone with banishment. I have pointed out that
>misbehaviour could lead to banishment.
>
Coming from a listowner, it seemed like a not-so-subtly veiled threat,
especially considering that you were in a heated discussion with the person
you were pointing it out to at the time. Other list members viewed it this
way as well, including the person you threatened. By pointing out to
someone that they can be banished for misbehavior directed at you, you
strongly imply that you are the one who will do so.
In the interest of clarity, lets define the term more clearly. By your
definition, "misbehavior" must be a violation of the Etiquette Guidelines.
Is there any other justifiable reason why someone would be banished?
>
> > Now he is threatening to create a "Bitch Site"
>
>If it lists cases of misbehaviour without my personal comment, how can it
>be
>bitching? By that definition, a person's criminal record would be a
>"Bitching Document".
Yes it would but that's *not* what you said you're doing.
You said that you are planning on posting such records with additional
comments added by you. That is very clearly the scenario I am referring to
and that would fulfill my personal definition of a "Bitch Site." I never
complained about, nor indicated anywhere in my post that I would have a
problem if you listed "cases of misbehaviour without your personal comment"
I quite obviously objected to the idea of your reposting what we say out of
context and with comments.
On a side note, if you term a post "misbehavior", you are rendering a
judgement about it. At the very least, you have judged (assuming we agree
on the definition of 'misbehavior') that said posts are in violation of the
Etiquette Guidelines.
Would what you are planning to do be a method of moderating Brin-L? It's
an interesting thought. You wouldn't be controlling what is sent back and
forth, but you would be rendering judgements about what is and is not an
appropriate post. A moderator does that. I'm not accusing you of anything
here... it's merely something that suddenly occurred to me.
>And even if I would give my personal opinion, how exactly is such a site
>threatening? Are you going to lose your job when your boss does a Google
>search on your name and finds that site? Is your wife going to file for
>divorce because of it? Are your friends going to turn their back on you
>because of it? After all, it would only be threatening if you would suffer
>from it.
You are planning on posting someone's words out of context in an attempt to
establish a record that you hope will render future arguments suspect. It
would mean something within the context of this list, and that's what
matters.
I don't think my boss, wife or either of my cats are going to be terribly
upset about my name showing up on your website :-)
:-)
On a personal note, I'm sure my wife, friends, family and pets can come up
with ways to make me suffer if pressed without your proposed site.
:-)
>
> > in which our comments will most likely be taken out of context
>
>Your assumption is false.
>
You have said that you are going to post individual posts (and not entire
conversational threads) with your comments underneath, under a rather
judgemental heading of "misbehavior." I'm willing to entertain the
possibility that I'm making inaccurate assumptions: please explain to me how
they would maintain their contextual structure when posted in the manner you
describe.
> > and will definitely be judged according to his own opinions.
>
>Of course, since I will be the one doing the work.
>
Whether you are doing the work or not, you admit that will be rendering a
judgement about them.
>
> > I don't personally have a problem with people taking my words and
> > spreading them all over the net, so long as they do so in the context
> > in which I posted them.
>
>You do not have a problem with it, yet at the same time you consider it
>threatening. You are contradicting yourself here.
I think my logic is quite clear and uncontradictory:
I don't have a problem with your posting my words as long as you do so
a) as an ordinary listmember and not a listowner who uses it as a threat in
order to silence people you disagree with
and
b) as long as you post everything. Your posts, my posts. Each side of an
issue. Otherwise, you are presenting a one-sided argument to the list that
by definition will be biased.
> > And, Jeroen has a right to do so. They are, after all a matter of
> > *public* record.
> >
> > But I don't think that anyone who's a list moderator or a list owner
> > should do so with the express intent of giving their opinion about
> > what's being posted.
>
>Why should listowners not be allowed to give their opinion about what is
>being posted? The whole point of being on a discussion list is giving your
>opinion...
>
The point of being a listowner is not to threaten people in an effort to
silence them. You have threatened listmembers with banishment unless they
ceased behavior you objected to. You have threatened to establish a website
in which listmember 'misbehavior' is posted in an effort to discredit people
with whom you cannot win arguments with.
I don't feel a listowner of a supposedly all-inclusive discussion list
should be threatening listmembers.
> > I certainly don't think repeatedly threatening list members is
> > appropriate behavior for a listowner/moderator.
>
>Again, my being a listowner is unrelated to all this, and we do not have
>moderators.
Yes, we don't have moderators. And, no, your being a listowner is of
importance here for reasons stated above. At the risk of repeating myself, I
don't feel the listowner of a discussion list that supposedly embraces
diversity of viewpoints should be threatening listmembers.
> > And editing posts to point out what he terms 'misbehavior' fits a
> > description of 'out of context.' This is wrong.
>
>Nonsense. I have said nothing about "editing posts" and as long as you have
>not seen anything of such a site, you cannot judge whether it is "out of
>context".
'Edit' as used in this sense indicates that a post will be manipulated to
serve a particular purpose. I have not seen your site, but I would like an
answer to the question I asked above, namely: Please explain to me how they
would maintain their contextual structure when posted in the manner you
describe.
>
>Further, some things are by definition misbehaviour -- unless you consider
>insults ("you live in a paranoid fantasy world") and unproven accusations
>("you are anti-Semitic") to be not misbehaviour but statements of fact.
>
These nasty things *are* clearly being posted and said, and they are against
the Etiquette guidelines. The people who post them should, quite frankly,
attack your argument and not you. I have said this onlist before, and I
recently rose to your defense when I thought something had been said that
was particularly out of line. Yet, I handled it in a manner which I felt
was more appropriate to the nature of our list: I posted a plea/complaint
about the way list members were treating each other, and urged the list to
be more civilized. And, at least one list member who was previously
attacking you seems to have ceased doing so.
I maintain that as a listowner you should not be threatening list members.
The website you propose is threatening as I defined above.
> > It is my opinion that by
> > a) repeatedly and unapologetically threatening list members (how many
> > times does this make, has anyone kept count?)
>
>Ah, so now *I* am supposed to apologise, right? Well, why do I not hear
>anyone going on about apologies for all those personal attacks and all
>those
>unwarranted accusations against *me*? Is there some double standard at play
>here, something like "Europeans must apologise for anything that *might* be
>considered offensive by someone, but Americans can slander and accuse all
>they want"? It certainly looks like that... :-(
>
No it doesn't. I did not say that they should or should not apologize for
attacking you. I *did* say that you have been unapologetic about
apologizing to those listmembers you threatened. I didn't say you slandered
them, I said you overstepped your bounds as a listowner. There are clear
differences. In one case, we have a situation in which a listmember has
been deliberately insulting and acted like a complete a**hole. I do
personally believe that they should apologize for attacking you and not your
arguments. I have previously spoken against this behavior onlist.
In the situation I am referring to, however, we have an abuse of power.
This isn't slander, it's a threat which has been made in an effort to
silence someone. I do think you should apologize for that.
Oh, and it's not a double standard because the two situations are not equal.
For the sake of clarity, I'll provide an example. You are an Italian
citizen during WWII's fascist era. You call Mossolini a 'mindless donkey'.
He says, 'keep up that behavior and I'll cut your head off so you'll never
be able to speak again'.
Do you think both offenses are equal? Why or why not?
> > and b) announcing that he is constructing a web site in which our posts
> > will be taken out of context
>
>That is a wild assumption. I look forward to seeing you prove that anything
>will be taken out of context.
Actually, I've explained why I think there will be. Please answer my
question on this.
> > and attacked according to a self-imposed standard,
>
>Not attacked, only listed.
>
Again, I'd like an explanation of how your proposed website fits this
definition.
>
> > that Jeroen is overstepping himself as a ListOwner/Moderator.
>
>And for the third time in this message, my being a co-listowner is totally
>unrelated to this and we do not have moderators.
>
Again, it does for the aforestated reasons.
Jon
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
