At 00:36 02-05-2002 -0400, Jon Gabriel wrote: >I did not say that I was being threatened personally by you. I said that >you are threatening list members.
I do not see it as a threat. Pointing a gun at someone and saying "give me your wallet or I will shoot" is a threat. Basically, what I would be doing is bringing together data that is already available on-line. If you consider that threatening, then you should also consider the existence of the Yahoogroups archive threatening. >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. I have already listed what would be considered misbehaviour (such as insults like "you live in a paranoid fantasy world"). I have also already stated that I would list them and *maybe* add a comment, and that a link to the relevant part of the Archive would be included. This should be enough for any reader to put the statements in perspective. If they are too lazy to read the relevant posts -- well, that is their problem, not mine. I cannot *force* them to read those messages. >I want to note that your position as listowner allows you to banish and >suspend listmembers. Theoretically, you are correct. However, in earlier discussion it was said repeatedly that nobody would be banished before discussing it with the entire list. No listowner would singlehandedly decide to pull the plug on someone's subscription. Even if one of them *would* do that, what would he or she gain from that? He or she would certainly suddenly find himself/herself a *former* listowner, and quite likely also a *former* member of this community (but only after discussing it with the entire list, of course). Is there any reason to believe I would singlehandedly unsubscribe someone? No. There is however plenty of indication that I show restraint in that matter. I have been attacked several times, and sometimes quite ferociously, by some people. However, despite the fact that I could easily kick them off the list (and the drop in number and scale of attacks certainly would make my on-line life a bit more pleasant), did I ever actually unsubscribe people like JDG (to name pretty much the worst offender)? Guess what: I did not. >I feel it is totally inappropriate for a listowner to threaten list >members in an effort to >win an argument. As said before, this is neither to win an argument nor to silence someone, only to stimulate people to not lower themselves to misbehaviour. Is that bad? Not really; the very same thing happens in Real Life. That is why we have laws in Real Life and punishment for people who break those laws: not only to punish people, but also to discourage law-breaking. >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. My earlier statements as well as the abovementioned earlier discussion contradict this. >You said that you are planning on posting such records with additional >comments added by you. No, my exact words were "perhaps with a short comment added". If you are going to quote me, at least do it properly. >On a side note, if you term a post "misbehavior", you are rendering a >judgement about it. How many people do you know that would not qualify personal attacks as misbehaviour? >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. Links to the Archive should suffice to provide the necessary context. Also, the purpose is not to "render future arguments suspect" but to discourage misbehaviour and provide some insight into how seriously a poster should be taken (and it would be up to the reader to make that judgement). >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 Do I really need to point out again that my being a listowner has nothing to do with it and that the purpose is not to silence people? >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. That is where the links to the Archive come in. Otherwise, I would have to post multiple copies of various parts of the Archive; not exactly an efficient use of limited web space. >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. No, I have stated that people who show repeated misbehaviour *could* be banished -- but only after thoroughly discussing the matter on-list. Whether that misbehaviour is directed against me or against some other listmember is not important. >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. No, to discourage misbehaviour and provide some insight into whether or not a certain poster should be taken very seriously. If you would know that someone habitually attacks people when he can not win an argument, would you still take that person seriously? You would probably just filter out his posts and send them straight to the Trashcan. >Please explain to me how they would maintain their contextual structure >when posted in the manner you describe. See above. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
