Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO wrote: >IOW, Eileen is superior to the rest of the list, right? Or, perhaps more in >accordance with your views, I am inferior to the rest of the list so the >normal rules (banning only by list consensus) do not apply to me. > Um - no. I didn't say anything like that. What I said was that because of her involvement with Cornell, she could be put in a difficult situation by what you did. I made no comparison of you, Eileen, or anyone else on the list.
> >Again, I did NOT ABUSE MY POWER! When is that going to make it through that >thick skull of yours? Now, unsubscribing you (without asking the list about >it) for being an intolerant asshole, *that* would be abuse of power. >Although people might argue that it is not abuse of power, but applaudable >community service... > Well, considering this is the first time I've spoken up about all this IIRC, that seems a bit over the top. I haven't said anything about the spam, or the vitriol or all the other things that have been going on, but I think this is different. In my personal opinion, and that is all that any post I send can ever be; doing something that is generally considered unethical, and is specifically against Cornell's guidelines, just because your listowner status means you can and none of the other posters on the subject can, seems like an abuse of power. Maybe it's that thick skull of mine... Besides, Eileen didn't unsubscribe you (or make veiled threats to do so), she didn't do anything to diminish your membership of this community, she didn't moderate your posts, block your posts, or do any of the things that you have proposed for Mark or Erik. She merely did what Cornell would expect her to do in the circumstances. Russell C.
