On 12 Mar 2004, at 11:01am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have stayed out of this until now, as I don't really care all that much > about the public or private status of the GNHLUG list.
If the majority of our membership wanted to come up with some kind of entrance requirement, I would facilitate that. Personally, I would find it very unfortunate, as I think the list should be as open as possible, but if most people want restrictions, then okay, I will help. My major objection is Derek's repeated assertions that this list is somehow private or restricted. I honestly cannot see how he came to his conclusion, as this list has *never* been that, by intent or in fact. Again, GNHLUG does not even *have* an official status, charter, or membership criteria. (Personally, I think we should, but that's another topic.) Given the total *lack* of such, calling GNHLUG a "private club" is nothing short of ridiculous. > I actually thought that it was a closed list to keep RMS from posting > rants about how it should be called GNHG/LUG ;-) Hah! > However, I think that the posting of the whois information was not only > unnecessary, but completely inappropriate to the discussion. I believe the point was to demonstrate that the personal privacy Derek keeps asserting is being violated is already non-existent, by his own actions, and completely independently of this list. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do | | not represent the views or policy of any other person or organization. | | All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
