>From: "Marvin Long, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: BRIN-L Mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Let's Not Bloody Vote
>Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:03:09 -0500 (CDT)
>Pardon me, Jon, but I think this is a rotten idea.
>
>Brin-L isn't some kind of goddamned gated community with a church at one 
>end and a golf course at the other and a set of
>homeowners' laws designed to keep the property values from going down.  The 
>etiquette guidelines aren't law, they're aspirations.  Mark's case is a 
>strange one, but he's not hurting anybody.  I don't care what state of mind 
>he's in, but I utterly reject the idea that any of us is qualified, merely 
>be reading his posts, to judge him in those terms.  As long as he's not 
>hurting anybody, I don't think it's appropriate to pass judgement by trying 
>to ban him, temporarily or otherwise.

In starting the voting process, I pass no judgment whether he is being 
offensive or not in terms of content.  (I could care less about what Mark�s 
actually saying anymore, since he�s been killfiled in my Hotmail box.)

I *do* feel that arriving home after being away for three days and finding 
84 posts (and four more this morning) in my Junk Mail folder that have 
little or no semantic content from one list member is excessive.  And have 
you looked at the digests from the past week?  They�re nearly impossible to 
follow unless you dissect them bit by bit.  He is flooding the list with 
garbage.  How does Mark differ from the guy who repeatedly posted nothing 
but curses to the list a couple of years ago?

I am not proposing that we turn Brin-L into a gated community.  I do think 
that we have a right to limit spammers and believe that Mark now qualifies.  
He is clearly being disruptive.  To that end, I think a good first step in 
the process of defining what to do about this is to see where the majority 
of the list stands in what to do with him.

In the past, when someone has disrupted the list we have banned them.  If 
you don�t think this case fits our _established precedent_, then suggest an 
alternative way we can effectively deal with Mark�s disruptions.  But please 
don�t take potshots at me (like you do in the paragraph that follows) for 
asking for a list consensus to do something we've done before.  Such 
behavior (and language,) is frankly ...unlike you.

>Finally, the notion that banning him is a good way to teach him 
>"boundaries" as though he's some kind of kindergarten student, is insulting 
>and insane.  No, it's worse.  It's fucking bullshit.

Jon

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

Reply via email to