> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 7:34 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J. van Baardwijk > Subject: Re: Official Statement > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. van Baardwijk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 5:48 PM > Subject: Official Statement > > > > To my fellow Brinellers, > > > > I hereby offer my sincere apologies for my part in all this mess and for > > the disturbance it caused, and I also offer my sincere apologies to Nick > > for trying to gain access to his server. I promise that I will do > > everything within my capabilities to prevent escalations, flame wars and > > other nastiness from happening again. > > Do you think you can actually follow through with this? > Gonna be pretty tough after this last go round. >
Hallelujah and more power to you though. :-) > > > > > As a first sign of good will, you may notice when looking at the "From:" > > field of this message that the return address is now once again my own > > e-mail address. > > More of a return to honesty, but if you want to call it goodwill......eh! > It's an excellent step in the right direction, and a move towards normalization. I'm entirely in favor of it. > > > I hereby request that the listowners restore my posting privileges to the > > list, and without moderation. > > I'd like to see you posting again, but would support Nick on moderation if > he cares to continue it. If he does not care to continue it, all the > better. > I'll second this wholeheartedly, but it's a safe call since reading ahead I see that Nick has already done so. :) > > > > > I also urge the list to discuss the matter of "list policy", so that we can > > reach a list-wide agreement on what behaviour will and will not be > > tolerated, and what steps should be taken if and when something happens > > that this list deems "unacceptable". IMHO, only a clear and well-documented > > list policy may prevent mayhem like these last few weeks from happening > > again. > > I dont think so......no not at all. I think we are all adults here and know > right from wrong. If you cant seem to get a handle on it, the maybe Sonja > can help you since she seems to have a pretty good head on her shoulders. > > I think codifying "The Rules" only invites people to skirt them, and to be > honest I think that is pretty much what you attempted to do. You argue like > a defense lawyer about what is right and what is wrong, when it is really a > pretty simple thing for most people. OK, here's where I disagree with you, Rob. If for no other reason than to be fair, the rules really need to establish in advance whether typical moderation will be indefinite or temporary -- or if it will last until a change in behavior is forthcoming etc. I don't think it needs to be terribly specific, but it does need to let people know they're not being shunned indefinitely. I disagree with Jeroen's methods: demands, etc., but he did have one very good point: AFAIK, he was never told how long the moderation would last and IMHO, under normal circumstances that's wrong. > > > > > This list has been too much fun and too interesting to let it go to hell... > I think a lot of us, myself included, have been waiting for it to get *back* from hell. It's been a nasty year to be an active Brinneller. :-( > I agree, and while i think a Jeroen-less list is a diminished list, do not > think life would go on for the rest of us without you. We've lost many people over the past few years, some to their own stubborn-ness and others to their own desire to enjoy being a part of a grand discussion not peppered with flamewars and bickering. Brin-L goes on without their voices, but I think each one is missed. :-( It would be a terrible shame to lose anyone else for any reason, but it would be especially disappointing and sad for us to lose Jeroen. He has poured a *lot* of time, love and energy into this place. I'm glad he's changed his mind. > By the same token I > believe that losing JDG would be tragic also, so please refrain from > "requests" that others be banned or moderated. Coming from you after the > last few weeks, it would leave quite a bad taste. Or, rather than calling for it onlist, which seems to promote intense arguments and flamewars, can we suggest that such subjects be taken up with the listowners privately and *calmly*? Saying 'don't discuss it' seems too much like 'we'll welcome you back as long as you keep your mouth shut'. By the same token, the last thing I think any of us wants is to rehash these arguments on the list *again!* If you disagree Rob, please jump in! :) I know we want to put this behind us.... > Sometimes its better to keep some opinions under your hat ( you can bet that > I dont say everything I think at all times). <G> > Note to self: adopt this policy ;-) > If you start feeling like saying things that might cause trouble, you can > always email me first and see what effect it has on me, before springing it > on the list at large. *Grin* I hereby nominate Rob as our official 'trouble' diplomat. :-) *Grin* > > Of course that offer is open to all of you. I think we have all done this > with each other at one time or another. <G> > > > > > > Salam Alaikum / Sholom Aleichem. > > > > The phrase means: "Peace be with you" in both Hebrew and Arabic and I return the sentiment tenfold. :-) Jon GSV WE AAMOAC _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
