Another FYI.... -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
Ken and all, Of course coming from the also famous Ken Stubbs, whom BTW had filed a false TM/SM with the USPTO, this comment comes a no surprise. Ken Stubbs wrote: > if the circumstances you stated are correct then it would only re-affirm my > feeling that these childish irresponsible acts are > a product of a defective mental process on the part of the person who > initiated them. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Sunday, November 14, 1999 9:44 AM > Subject: FW: Re: [ga] Will we chase rabbits or ideas? > > > I thought some of you who witnessed the spill over of Baptista's little > escapade on > > the GA list would find this message of interest. It appears Baptista did > a little > > Denial of Service attack on the dnso servers and attempted to do it while > > masquerading as each and every member of that list. > > > > Quite mature, wouldn't you say? > > > > > > > > -----FW: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>----- > > > > Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 06:44:44 -0800 > > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > From: Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [ga] Will we chase rabbits or ideas? > > > > On Sat, Nov 13, 1999 at 11:19:57PM -0600, Weisberg wrote: > > > Kent Crispin wrote: > > > > > > > What many knee-jerk fanatic free speech advocates forget > > > > > > This comment illustrates the problem with civility rules. We all > > > have different levels of sensitivity and different styles of > > > communication. Some people will complain that such sarcasm is > > > offensive, inappropriate and requires sanction. Who wants to spend > > > their(our) time discussing whether particular > > > comments are out of order? Isn't that where we are going? > > > > No. That is *not* what we are doing. We are *not* discussing > > whether particular individual comments are out of order. We are > > discussing flagrant abuses. We are discussing mailbomb attacks, > > deliberate and repeated attempts to "disturb the peace", and long > > established patterns of behavior. We are discussing behaviors that, > > in physical analogy, no physical forum on earth would -- or could -- > > tolerate on a continuing basis. > > > > Incidentally, it occurs to me that you, and some others, may simply > > not be aware of what happened -- "Joe Baptista" sent spoofed mail > > messages from *every single email address on the list* -- 260 > > addresses. The list software tried to send every one of those > > messages to every member of the list -- that's 260*260 = 67,600 > > messages. The messages, including headers, were about a kilobyte > > each -- 67 megabytes of garbage email. > > > > In other words, there was in fact a deliberate attack, criminal in > > some jurisdictions, on the list. Elisabeth caught the attack, and > > shut down the list, so most people didn't see it. > > > > We are not just talking about "civil discourse", or what is or is not > > out of order. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > noise can cause actual damage. I can't put a > > > megaphone to your ear > > > > and shout, blowing out your eardrum, and claim that it > > > is my free > > > > speech right. > > > > > > > > > No. That is an "assault" if not a "battery," crimes in all > > > jurisdictions. But, in the U.S., there is a presumption that any > > > limitation on speech is improper. > > > > In certain contexts, that is true. But as a general statement it is > > completely false. > > > > > Only the minimum regulation > > > necessary to accomplish a clearly identified and proper objective is > > > allowed, especially in political contexts. > > > > You are confusing "Congress shall make no law" with "there shall be > > no regulation of any kind in any context whatsoever by anybody". > > This is a common confusion. > > > > Even in governmental circles "freedom of speech" is strictly > > constrained by rules of order -- if you speak out of turn or exceed > > your time speaking in Congress, the Sergant at Arms will throw you > > out. There are generic and informal "rules of order" for mailing > > lists; it would be nice if they were formalized, but in the meantime > > we can go with the informal ones. > > > > Morever, this list is not in the US. It is run in France. > > > > [...] > > > > > >...Breaking rules of etiquette that causes others to > > > leave the > > > >discussion is an abuse of THEIR free speech rights. > > > > > > Perhaps. But, the perameters tend to be subjective and hard to > > > apply in most cases. On balance, I prefer filtering. > > > > Yes, as you said, it works for you. But it doesn't work for > > everyone. It certainly doesn't work if the messages are spoofed. > > > > -- > > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain > > > > --------------End of forwarded message------------------------- > > > > -- > > William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934 > > Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!) CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng. Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC. E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact Number: 972-447-1894 Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
