Hi Karen.
For the examples you wrote about below to apply fully, you would have
to be in a captive, or simi captive situation. Well, You are where
ever you are, and I am in my house. Thus I can control what I
listen to here, as can you, and stop reaching for that deleet key!
But I think what I've said before still stands. It would be a hard
choice, but if it got bad enough here, I would make that choice
without a problem.
So Gabe is obnoctious,, I don't think he's threatened anybody here
yet has he? And since his business has beenmentioned to some degree
over the past few days, well, again, that's his problem. He can
choose to fail, just as he can make choices to encourage success.
Right now, I am choosing to listen to the list in general, Since I
read my mail at least at the start one line at a time, it doesn't
take long for me to figure out if I want to read the rest of it or
not. I wish I could use a deleet key when I am out on the streets or
at stores, or basically out in public with some of the things I've
heard people say. That is realy being in the public. The list is
just cyber. Like the tv or radio you have control to the greater
degree of what you allow into your house or workspace if your work
allows you to do internet and e-mail. Some don't.
So when I'm out in public and I'm hearing someone carrying on in a
way I don't wish to hear, I can simply change direction, thus "not
listen." I still get some words of what was said, otherwise how
would I know that I should avoid them? Same here, only faster,
"deleet."
This still comes back to each one of us as an individual regardless
of what the list owner or moderators decide what to do.
I think though, I've just about said my piece on this matter such as
it is. Think we just see it a little differently. Think you are
able to pick up on the grays better than I do.
73s.
On Aug 12, 2006, at 4:47 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Actually yes and no.
The constitution as interpreted via the Supreme court jurisprudence
does put some limits on free speech.
One of them was referenced before. Gabe's behavior might be seen
as unavoidable, and comparable to shouting fire in a crowded room,
where no one could escape his words.
The courts say that this, like burning an American flag at a
veteran's event is too provocative for protection.
Indeed there is no legal discussion about on-line services, and
indeed the list is privately owned.
But if the list owner feels that Gabe's behavior is costing him
traffic and it is, he would be within his right to either monitor
Gabe, my preference truth be told, or ban him all together.
Unfortunately we cannot really avoid listening as other folks have
pointed out.
Karen
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Tom McMahan wrote:
Oh he can shout all he wants to, but nobody has to listen. The
constitution says "Free speech" not "obligation that anyone has to
listen."
On Aug 12, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Karen Lewellen wrote:
Sad but true. Granted I prefer not censoring anyone's right to
free speech, and realize we are likely rewarding Gabe's obvious
poor sense of self, but even the constitutional legal history
has cases when you just cannot let someone shout what they wish
to the decrement of others.
Karen
On Sat, 12 Aug 2006, Josh de Lioncourt wrote:
> Karen Lewellen wrote:
> > NO!
> > do not do this. We need the wisdom of others, and leaving
does not > > solve
> > the problem. Perhaps blocking that address, so you still get
and con
> > contribute to the discourse here without the problem postings?
> > Karen
> > > Hi Karen,
> > I certainly share your sentiment. The problem is that its
hard to avoid > Gabe entirely, as he's very good at stirring up
drama on the list. Even > if you block his address, you'd have to
block many others to avoid the > problems entirely. I really do
not want to see this community deteriorate > any further, so I
continue to urge everyone to try to contact the > MacVisionaries
administrators, as i have done. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
