Re: Robert Kagan on Europe and the US
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Adam C. Lipscomb wrote: I knew he couldn't keep out of a debate that touched on philosophy! How long did you hold out, Marvin? A week? ;) Hey, that doesn't mean anything. It's not like I'm addicted or anything. I can quit any time I want! Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Scouted: Women prefer HDTV to Diamonds???
Russell Chapman wrote: How dirty can a ceiling get?? That depends on how often you use candles, oil lamps, oil simmerpots, potpourri, and other things that put extra stuff in the air. And how often you do experiments that involve making a working volcano model on the living room coffee table... :-) Reggie Bautista Experience is the best teacher Maru _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Why the metric system is wrong
The metric system wrong? That is heresy, heresy I tell ya! GRIN http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/books/12/02/alder.measure/index.html There is a message of hope near the end of the article, though: Eventually, he says, Americans will fully adjust. The metric system was meant to be global, and the meter created by the surveyors has become the worldwide standard. Jeroen Imperial Units are evil, why it must be eradicated van Baardwijk ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: FW: Request to mailing list Brin-l rejected
Jeroen writes: you will have to remove Arnett from his position. Methinky-thinks thou doth protest too much, Jeroen. At least as a Cassius to Arnett's Caesar, plots upon plots circling in your mind, it shows on your face and prompts us to say, 'ware Arnett! For Cassius was a man who thought too much upon't; that being the rights of Caesar. Our 'Roon treads well niney-nigh on that path. Mark Tiddley [winks] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Digital image stored in single molecule
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Fool ... Digital image stored in single molecule 10:15 01 December 02 NewScientist.com news service An image composed of over 1000 of bits of information can be stored in the atoms of a single molecule, US researchers have shown. My office is already disorganized enough... I can just see it coming: Now which molecule did I store that in? Dang, I'll just have to go through them one-by-one until I find it. ;-) Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Scouted: Pill-Sized Camera Used to Find Tumors
More good medical news. Jon PILL-SIZED CAMERA USED TO FIND TUMORS CHICAGO (Dec. 4) - A pill-sized camera that can be swallowed and can explore parts of the small intestine that other diagnostic techniques miss, allows for improved detection of inflammatory bowel disorders, researchers reported Tuesday. Researcher Amy Hara of the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Arizona, said tests on 52 patients using the camera -- a technique called capsule endoscopy -- did a far better job of detecting bowel abnormalities than did computed tomography in conjunction with ingested barium, a standard method known as CT. In a report released at the annual scientific assembly of the Radiological Society of North America, Hara said the camera shows the most promise for diagnostics if used with CT. As the camera tumbles through the intestine, you don't know exactly where the mass is located. CT by contrast provides a very good global view of the body and specialized parameters can be employed to localize lesions, she said. The report said endoscopy, in which a fiber optic scope explores the intestines, can reach only the upper and very lower portions of the small intestine. The camera pill, by contrast, can explore its entire length, up to 25 feet. The camera is inside a pill the size of a large vitamin capsule. Developed in Israel and approved for use in the United States last year, it is swallowed by the patient after an eight-hour fast and eliminated about eight hours later. During its trip through the intestines it transmits a continuous stream of digital images to a small belt worn around the patient's waist. The camera pill used in the study was developed by Given Imaging Ltd., of Yoqneam, Israel. Inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn's disease, cause a swelling in the intestines leading to pain, diarrhea and other problems. 12/03/02 07:00 ET Copyright 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. _ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Admin: Server access blocked
Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Nick -- This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. It does not block outgoing mail; that address remains subscribed to brin-l and should receive the list mail as usual (including this message). This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind. I appreciate those of you who have expressed your support during this difficult episode. I hope we've found a reasonable series of steps to balance fairness to the individual and mitigation of the list community's disruption and distraction. I regret that this situation has continued to escalate. Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote: This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind. I appreciate those of you who have expressed your support during this difficult episode. I hope we've found a reasonable series of steps to balance fairness to the individual and mitigation of the list community's disruption and distraction. I regret that this situation has continued to escalate. I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting material for your study of internet communities and how they deal with a crisis. Or maybe not - probably the listmembers that would support Jeroen are silent, because this is not a conflict between common listmembers, but between a listmember and the list Overlord. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote: This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind. I appreciate those of you who have expressed your support during this difficult episode. I hope we've found a reasonable series of steps to balance fairness to the individual and mitigation of the list community's disruption and distraction. I regret that this situation has continued to escalate. I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting material for your study of internet communities and how they deal with a crisis. Or maybe not - probably the listmembers that would support Jeroen are silent, because this is not a conflict between common listmembers, but between a listmember and the list Overlord. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SCOUTED: Satellite Snooping on Saddam
http://www.space.com/news/astronotes-1.html High-flying satellites are helping United Nation specialists look for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. [snip] The usefulness of satellite snapshots is obvious in a just-released picture taken by Space Imaging's high-resolution Ikonos spacecraft. Taken on October 7, the commercial remote sensing satellite caught the Al-Sajoud Palace in all its glory. Reggie Bautista It's a very nice picture Maru _ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote: Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community Let me say this: I fully realise that Nick has the absolute right and power to do this. It is afterall his list and he can do as he pleases wether I like it or not. But I just wish he'd be honest about the motives and not hide behind that facade of doing it for the greater good of the list. I for one don't feel that we need protection by the almighty listowners. Complain as we may, we are afterall all grown-ups. Or at least I thougth we were. Nick has proven me totally and utterly wrong and this list just got a nanny. Sonja ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
SCOUTED: Judge: Force Microsoft to push Java?
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/biztech/12/03/microsoft.sun.reut/index.html or http://makeashorterlink.com/?V4EA529A2 BALTIMORE, Maryland (Reuters) -- A federal judge hearing Sun Microsystems Inc.'s antitrust suit against Microsoft Corp., said Tuesday that forcing Microsoft to carry Sun's Java software in the Windows operating system could be an attractive remedy. [snip] Sun's attorney, Rusty Day, told the judge that Microsoft should be forced to distribute Java as part of Windows, because Microsoft plans to use .Net to wipe out Java. Day, citing previous court rulings that concluded Microsoft had taken illegal steps to hobble Java, asked: Will this court call foul or will it allow Microsoft to exploit all the disadvantages that it illegally inflicted on its competitor? Reggie Bautista Presented without comment Maru _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: SCOUTED: Will Smith to star in 'I, Robot'
From: Reggie Bautista [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] NEW YORK (Reuters) -- Fox has booked Will Smith to star in sci-fier I, Robot, an adaptation of the 1940s Isaac Asimov short-story collection that set the groundwork for robot films ranging from The Terminator to A.I., Variety reports. Too bad this isn't Harlan Ellison's script. I understand that's been floating around for a few years. I wonder how this will turn out... - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Nick Arnett wrote: Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community Let me say this: I fully realise that Nick has the absolute right and power to do this. It is afterall his list and he can do as he pleases wether I like it or not. But I just wish he'd be honest about the motives and not hide behind that facade of doing it for the greater good of the list. I think he is already being honest. And I think you are turning a blind eye to the annoying nature of Jeroens behavior over the last few months, though I must say that it is quite understandable. I find his offlist spam to be childish, and while I only read it for its humorous content (to my sorrow it appears to be unintentional), I can see where others would find it *quite* annoying. But i prefer to see those kinds of bitches and rants off the list rather than on the list. I honestly dont feel that Jeroen is being treated unfairly. He should accept things as they are and move on with list life. Its not like he will die if he doesnt get his way. I for one don't feel that we need protection by the almighty listowners. Complain as we may, we are afterall all grown-ups. Or at least I thougth we were. Nick has proven me totally and utterly wrong and this list just got a nanny. I'm tempted to go back through Yahoo and throw some of the complaints that were generated from your house, some of the threats, and calls for action, back on your plate. But I dont want to point this at you directly, even if you are getting involved in this crap. xponent AMYCD Hi-Bandwidth Coming Soon Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Assumptions Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked Nick Arnett wrote: Reasons for blocking acces for a valued member of this community Let me say this: I fully realise that Nick has the absolute right and power to do this. It is afterall his list and he can do as he pleases wether I like it or not. But I just wish he'd be honest about the motives and not hide behind that facade of doing it for the greater good of the list. I think he is already being honest. And I *don't* think he is. But we are entitled to different opinions based on different points of view. shrug I for one am willing to accept yours... so ... how tolerant are you? :o) I honestly dont feel that Jeroen is being treated unfairly. Good for you. But judging from this respons I'm afraid that you haven't read my post very well. It is so easy to assume things based on what we think we know. :o/ I for one don't feel that we need protection by the almighty listowners. Complain as we may, we are afterall all grown-ups. Or at least I thougth we were. Nick has proven me totally and utterly wrong and this list just got a nanny. I'm tempted to go back through Yahoo and throw some of the complaints that were generated from your house, some of the threats, and calls for action, back on your plate. If you do, please don't forget to research your part in making assumptions and acting on them. From my point of view you are making a whole bunch of in my opinion invalid ones about me, my situation and my relation with Jeroen right here and now. It would however be very nice if you first checked their validity. But I dont want to point this at you directly, even if you are getting involved in this crap. Yes you are. And no I'm not. I am however entitled to an opinion. Worse I'm even (for now still) entitled to voicing that opinion, independent of what Jeroen or anybody else thinks, says or does. :o) Sonja GCU smileys are our friends ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Assumptions Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten responded: But I dont want to point this at you directly, even if you are getting involved in this crap. Yes you are. And no I'm not. I am however entitled to an opinion. Worse I'm even (for now still) entitled to voicing that opinion, independent of what Jeroen or anybody else thinks, says or does. :o) Sonja GCU smileys are our friends And that's the best news I've heard all day... I'd hate to miss out on your next plumbing adventure. I'm waiting to hear that having sorted out the water supply, the drains are all broken, or the floor has collapsed, or any of those misadventures that seem to befall us when we get too adventurous... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: J. van Baardwijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Recipient list suppressed Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 6:09 PM Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked This is message #13 that the censors (Nick Arnett and Julia Thompson) did not want you to see. __ (Note that by this most recent attack by Arnett, I have now essentially been banned without having been unsubscribed. Although I can still *receive* messages, I cannot *send* any messages, which (very conveniently for Arnett) makes it impossible for me to defend myself on-list against any attacks. And of course, he denies any responsibility and refuses to discuss the matter. What happened to transparency and accountability?) At 10:13 04-12-2002 -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Yesterday, Jeroen van Baardwijk posted about 40 messages to the list and its administrative address, all of which were re-postings of previous messages that were not acceptable under the list policies or were repeats of previous demands regarding the complaints that he has voiced on and off the list. I know we cannot trust Arnett to give an accurate account (because it would be detrimental to his cause), so I will provide it here. I re-sent the 12 messages that Arnett so far has refused to forward to the list, because he has no right whatsoever to block them. This action resulted in twelve identical messages from Arnett, in which he informed me that he refuses to forward the messages. I subsequently replied to each of these messages, informing him that he has no right to do what he is doing. As he has no right to block my messages, I then sent the twelve rejected messages again. I also re-sent the list censors an off-list message in which I asked them a couple of questions (that is the message that Arnett calls repeats of previous demands). This message was re-sent because the censors consistently refuse to answer any questions about this matter and refuse to even discuss it. That adds up to a total of 37 messages, 24 of which were re-postings of twelve previous messages. After discussion with Julia, I sent the following message to Jeroen. -- Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. I does not surprise me that Arnett conveniently leaves out my reply to his message, so I will include it here: - Message start - At 11:08 03-12-2002 -0800, you wrote: Jeroen, We're not going to discuss your concerns further. The list policy is clear and we have answered all the questions that we're going to answer. What you are doing is not *list* policy, it is *Arnett Thompson* policy. If you check your archives, you will see that the list has repeatedly agreed that listowners are not supposed to take actions against listmembers without discussing the matter on-list and without getting the list's consent. You have neither first on-list discussed taking actions against me, nor has the list given its explicit consent. You are therefore not *following* list policy, you are *violating* list policy. Demonstrate that you are abiding by the list policies and your messages will be handled like any other member. And how exactly am I supposed to demonstrate that? What the hell do I have to do to get rid of this ridiculous censoring of my posts? How long do you intend to keep that up? A month? A year? Forever? You sent 40 messages this morning, every one of which was redundant. Stop sending messages repeatedly and any other form of harassment. Stop censoring my posts then. Your actions are doing more harm than good to the list. Jeroen - Message end - (Note: this reply has been sent to the list censors twice so far, and they still refuse to respond to it.) This morning, we received another 17 similar messages from Jeroen. Of these messages, 12 were re-postings of messages that did not meet the censors' approval. Two messages were off-list messages (one of them a reply to the message Arnett quotes above), which were re-sent because the censors refuse to reply to them. As for the remaining 3 messages, I do not recall sending those. In response, I have blocked access to the mccmedia.com mail server for the e-mail address [EMAIL PROTECTED] (from which those messages messages originated). This means that no mail with that return address will be accepted at mccmedia.com. And once again, Arnett abuses his listowner powers for his personal vendetta against me. Mr. Arnett, although I know that you will not give a damn, this is my FINAL
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least 5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently, through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list as a whole. Adam ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
meeces
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/ When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men. Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not switched on in humans. About 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse, said Eric Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one counterparts. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meeces
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:53:53PM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of The Fool ... http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/ When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men. Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not switched on in humans. Uh, could it be? Now *that* would be a prank! I wouldn't mind having a *prehensile* tail. A useless drooping one wouldn't be so useful, though. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: meeces
The Fool wrote: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/12/04/coolsc.coolsc.mousegenome/ When it comes to DNA, it turns out there's not that much difference between mice and men. Mice and humans each have about 30,000 genes, yet only 300 are unique to either organism. Both even have genes for a tail, even though it's not switched on in humans. Nick replied: Uh, could it be? Now *that* would be a prank! I seem to remember reading something back in the early 1990's about the genome of an amoeba being something like 80% genetically similar to human DNA. Does anyone else remember this? Dan, can you find a link ;-)? Reggie Bautista It's all in what genes are switched on Maru _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
thought control
http://cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/science_shopping/ http://cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/money/science_shopping/index2.html Corporations are going to new lengths to probe the minds of consumers. A company in Atlanta is scanning people's brains with MRIs, in an effort to record our subconscious thoughts about products and ads ... Theoretically, if you could possibly not only understand how people respond in a laboratory situation to a buying stimulus, then it will certainly help marketers forecast behavior. Well, if it works which by the way I don't think it will I mean, you get to 1984, and more importantly, Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meeces
Erik Reuter wrote: I wouldn't mind having a *prehensile* tail. A useless drooping one wouldn't be so useful, though. Imagine the boost to the fashion industry... A whole new world of possibilities... Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Forged headers, etc.
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Erik Reuter ... On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 05:46:57PM -0800, Nick Arnett wrote: Jeroen (which also allowed it to slip by sendmail's access block). That message also contained a forged hostname: notebook.mccmedia.com ([212.83.87.23]) Are you sure? My reading of the headers is that it didn't go through your system at all. Jeroen just sent it out to everyone from the old Brin-L list that he had (recipient list suppressed). I guess he BCC'd it. Yes -- it came to me at the same time as others received it. I put the domain name in sendmail's access database, rather than bothering to figure out what networks they're using. So it sailed right by. See the headers of the message I received below. It allegedly originated at notebook.mccmedia.com, which is obviously forged, then it went to amsfep15-int.chello.nl, Jeroen's ISP's mailserver. Then it went directly to me. It doesn't look to me like your listserv processed it at all. You're right, it didn't go through the list server. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. The listserver can't be fooled quite so easily. It came to me just as it came to you. I thought about including the entire headers in my message, but didn't want to have to explain the whole thing... as you kindly did. Gotta wonder what'll be next. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
the all seeing eye that the bush white house / congress plans
http://cryptome.org/tia-eyeball.htm http://sfweekly.com/issues/2002-11-27/smith.html/1/index.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Nick Arnett wrote: This is an action that I take only with GREAT reluctance. However, neither Julia nor I is willing to endure harassment of this kind. ... I imagine that you have collect a lot of interesting material for your study of internet communities and how they deal with a crisis. Or maybe not - probably the listmembers that would support Jeroen are silent, because this is not a conflict between common listmembers, but between a listmember and the list Overlord. Alberto Monteiro Hey, you forgot the emoticons! : ( I guess that I support Nick's action, anyway I gave up and killfiled Jeroen for keeps weeks ago. We keep kicking around ideas on easy ways to collectively deal with individuals who don't respect etiquette. But until we do come up with one that works, the listowner and overlord has to step in. ---David All Hail the Mighty Listowner! : ) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Bush Seeks To Roll-Back Clean Air Rules
At 11:48 PM 12/1/2002 -0500, you wrote: On 11/27/02 6:29 AM, Kevin Tarr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Your posts are too few and far between Matthew, but quality makes up for quantity a hundred-fold. You, my friend, have earned yourself a beer if we ever get the chance to meet. And if you are in the western part of PA, that could be sooner than you think. But you are going to have to tell me the secret of buying beer in PA. Make mine a Yuengling, Matthew Bos How to buy beer? After coming from another state it can be frustrating and confusing. My cousin is up from North Carolina. There are no bars in his town, and only a small number of restaurants can sell wine with a meal, but he can get beer on a Sunday in Wal-Mart. I like the laws myself. Like it's a big freedom to be able to buy liquor at 5am on a sunday. O my rights are being violated. Kevin T. Sorry, little rant there. Harrisburg to State College and points north, that's my range ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
So how much is the participation on a mailing list worth?
Apparently, it's worth $1,000,000. I had no idea you could sue for being banned from a free Internet mailing list. You learn something new every day. Jim PS: FWIW, I don't know that Jeroen hasn't gotten the shaft just a little, but he makes it darn hard to take his side. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So how much is the participation on a mailing list worth?
- Original Message - From: Jim Sharkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 9:03 PM Subject: So how much is the participation on a mailing list worth? Apparently, it's worth $1,000,000. I had no idea you could sue for being banned from a free Internet mailing list. You learn something new every day. Jim PS: FWIW, I don't know that Jeroen hasn't gotten the shaft just a little, but he makes it darn hard to take his side. Exactly what I told him earlier this evening. xponent Sad Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: meeces
On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Russell Chapman wrote: Imagine the boost to the fashion industry... A whole new world of possibilities... To hell with fashion. Porn! Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, David Hobby wrote: I guess that I support Nick's action, anyway I gave up and killfiled Jeroen for keeps weeks ago. We keep kicking around ideas on easy ways to collectively deal with individuals who don't respect etiquette. But until we do come up with one that works, the listowner and overlord has to step in. At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to say so. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Not that this will be a surprise to anyone, but I completely support Nick and Julia. Jon GSV ...For The Good Of The List... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marvin Long, Jr. Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, David Hobby wrote: I guess that I support Nick's action, anyway I gave up and killfiled Jeroen for keeps weeks ago. We keep kicking around ideas on easy ways to collectively deal with individuals who don't respect etiquette. But until we do come up with one that works, the listowner and overlord has to step in. At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to say so. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
Which makes that the second time my new Outlook program has double-posted something I only sent once to the list. My apologies. I'll try and fix the sucker this evening. Jon GSV Now Where's That Blowtorch? From: Jon Gabriel [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 22:39:03 -0500 Not that this will be a surprise to anyone, but I completely support Nick and Julia. Jon GSV ...For The Good Of The List... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marvin Long, Jr. Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Admin: Server access blocked On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, David Hobby wrote: I guess that I support Nick's action, anyway I gave up and killfiled Jeroen for keeps weeks ago. We keep kicking around ideas on easy ways to collectively deal with individuals who don't respect etiquette. But until we do come up with one that works, the listowner and overlord has to step in. At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to say so. Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: meeces
And the result? Tail Envy! Jon GSV insert your own well-endowed squirrel joke here VFP *shudder* -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Marvin Long, Jr. Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: meeces On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Russell Chapman wrote: Imagine the boost to the fashion industry... A whole new world of possibilities... To hell with fashion. Porn! Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
Marvin Long, Jr. wrote: At this point I'd say that if someone disagrees, it's his obligation to say so. If we are talking about a permanent ban, then I'd have to disagree. As much as I think he doesn't know when to just say he's sorry and admit he might have been wrong in his approach, I still can't vote for that. Don't ask me why; I'm not sure myself, other than that I think he might be getting just a little bit of a raw deal. Yes, I know he's gone off the deep end, and that he doesn't know when it's better to just not say anything. But I can't shake the feeling that he's getting the business just a little bit, even though, as I said earlier, he makes it as hard as possible to want to take his side. Jim ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: meeces
Or the way things have been going lately, it'll be subpoenas envy. (A joke recycled from the '60s.) Nick -- Nick Arnett Phone/fax: (408) 904-7198 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jon Gabriel Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:52 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: meeces And the result? Tail Envy! Jon GSV insert your own well-endowed squirrel joke here ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Adam going 5 by 5
In a message dated 12/4/2002 6:13:40 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please accept my apologies for this - I have started sending at least 5 replies to Jeroen for every spam I get, and he has apparently, through a simple (and childish) trick, ensured they come to the list as a whole. Adam Por favor aceitar my justificativas dali Eu hei iniciado enviando pelo menos 5 respostas a Jeroen para todos spam Eu havia , e ele há ao que parece , através um simples ( e imaturo ) truque , assegurado as senhoras vêm à lista como um todo. But did you use five different languages? http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran? Useful for when you have no idea what the book you have is about. Except they don't do Latin. William Taylor --- Hic hoc hokum ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Sharkey ... If we are talking about a permanent ban, then I'd have to disagree. As much as I think he doesn't know when to just say he's sorry and admit he might have been wrong in his approach, I still can't vote for that. Don't ask me why; I'm not sure myself, other than that I think he might be getting just a little bit of a raw deal. I don't believe in permanent bans. Or the death penalty, or life in prison, or anything else that smacks of ruling out changes of heart and mind. So that won't happen. I don't want the list to be about all this mess, but some discussion perhaps is in order (as long as we keep talking about mutant tails and such). I'm a bit concerned about escalation, so I've been somewhat patient in responding to each new problem. However, today, when I saw the attempts to gain unauthorized access to the mccmedia.com server, I didn't see much choice but to act immediately. My business depends on that system and others here. If someone got at the data I use for my work, I could be out tens of thousands of dollars in a hurry. There are backups, etc., but even an interruption is costly. List admin is an interruption that I chose to accept, but there are limits to that, as well. Thank goodness for Julia, who keeps it from being too much of a distraction. Yes, I know he's gone off the deep end, and that he doesn't know when it's better to just not say anything. But I can't shake the feeling that he's getting the business just a little bit, even though, as I said earlier, he makes it as hard as possible to want to take his side. I'll acknowledge that I have plenty of sympathy for the frustration any active member would feel at being stifled. And having been a journalist and publisher most of my life, I certainly support freedom of speech. And I don't think an on-line community like ours would tolerate overbearing management. It seems that Jeroen imagines I'm out to take over brin-l.com, an idea I've done my best to dispel. That's a bit odd, since when he asked me to host it, I told him I would only do so if David Brin owned the domain name. Yet even David is unwilling to pay much for it, so that's probably not going to happen. That all happened off-list just before his moderation began, so I suppose that's why the two may be related in his mind. I hope that helps somehow. I'm always open to suggestions on how to make the difficult trade-off between list governance and free-ranging discussion, self-determination as a group, etc. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Admin: Server access blocked
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Nick Arnett wrote: I hope that helps somehow. I'm always open to suggestions on how to make the difficult trade-off between list governance and free-ranging discussion, self-determination as a group, etc. A while ago an escalating series of temporary bans - a week, two weeks, a month, etc., for each successive suspension - was floated. I don't know if we want to be that formal, but I think fairness suggests that the current suspension be set at a modest and finite number of days. It might also be reasonable to set as a minimum preconditon to reinstatement that one refrain from attacking the list's server Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
world-mart: how wal-mart is destroying the economy and remaking theworld
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12962 http://www.rense.com/general32/myths.htm http://www.clevescene.com/issues/2002-09-04/feature.html/1/index.html ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So how much is the participation on a mailing list worth?
Jim Sharkey wrote: Apparently, it's worth $1,000,000. I had no idea you could sue for being banned from a free Internet mailing list. You learn something new every day. Did I miss something? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: So how much is the participation on a mailing list worth?
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 11:36 PM Subject: Re: So how much is the participation on a mailing list worth? Jim Sharkey wrote: Apparently, it's worth $1,000,000. I had no idea you could sue for being banned from a free Internet mailing list. You learn something new every day. Did I miss something? Julia You didn't get the email threatening you and Nick with a $1,000,000 lawsuit and any damage to your career that he can arrange? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Admin: Server access blocked
- Original Message - From: Marvin Long, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 10:39 PM Subject: RE: Admin: Server access blocked A while ago an escalating series of temporary bans - a week, two weeks, a month, etc., for each successive suspension - was floated. I don't know if we want to be that formal, but I think fairness suggests that the current suspension be set at a modest and finite number of days. It might also be reasonable to set as a minimum preconditon to reinstatement that one refrain from attacking the list's server I think that your last statement addresses the crux of the matter. Right now, the outlook that Jeroen's attitude, as exhibited in his emails, is that Nick has whatever harm befalls him from this coming because of the terrible things that he has done. This is a theme we've seen for years now: others are responsible for Jeroen's behavior. Given this, should Nick trust Jeroen with access to his server before Jeroen exhibits clear evidence of a change in attitude? I certainly wouldn't risk my business in order to be nice to Jeroen. Further, recalling the violent images that Jeroen used in previous altercations (telling Eric that he should put a bullet in his head, and mentioning a grenade and this list in the same phrase), I see a very scary pattern. Even though most people who exhibit warning signs do not go through with actions, warning signs are still warning signs. Let me put it simply. With the rage that I see in the emails of Jeroen, would people expect, given the opportunity to get even by bringing Nick's entire network down, costing him tens of thousands, for Jeroen to refrain from doing it because Nick doesn't deserve it? My answer is maybe/maybe not. If it were my system, I wouldn't risk it until the answer is no. Trying unauthorized access into a computer system is crossing a line. Behavior should have logical consequences. Being denied access to that system until one no longer poses a threat seems extremely reasonable to me. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
logic Vs faith
http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=26483 True believers are incapable or coming to correct logical conclusions. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Techno Dance Itch
Last week, being then employed and interested in social activity and exercise, I took a free dance lesson from an acquaintance. The main thing I learned was that music is a scarce and precious commodity in a dance studio. You can only put one, or at most two, sets of music over the loud speaker systems. Personal systems are *too* personal. A couple cannot coordinate walkmen or even mp3 players. WANTED: a wireless audio system for very local broadcasting -- to be used in dance studios and dance departments. (Ideally, somebody already makes this. If not, have Motorola give me a call.) TARGET MARKETS: Dance studios and dance departments or schools. Gymnastics coaches. Figure skaters and coaches. Personal or small-group trainers who teach rythm aerobics. Other markets for mini-cast audio. COMPONENTS: Information Appliances (2): Personal headset unit with compact receiver and powersource. Compact remote control unit. Base unit (3 sub-components) To be housed on PC, eventual migration to central info-appliance possible. Wireless LAN. Broadcaster software. == RECIEVER UNIT (RU): Low bulk, low weight. Useable by serious amatuer and professional dancers, gymnists, aerobicizers, and otherwise friendly to atheletes and interpretive artists who need access to audio mini-cast to a small group. Note that when I discussed this with my dancer friend she immediately thought it would be good for personal use. Thus, a version of the reciever appliance will be able to store audio in non-volitile memory. It will include the basic command functions listed below. (That is, in addition to participating as a reciever in a LAN mini-cast, some models of reciever unit *must* act exactly like current Mp3 players.) Reciver units shall have unique serial numbers (eg. MAC addresses) that can be aliased by the broadcaster software. SNs will be used to assign reciever appliances to broadcast groups. *THE* reason for the mini-cast system is to provide synchronized music to small groups in areas with high audio congestion. Therefore, users must be able to configure RUs into mini-cast reception groups. All recivers in a mini-cast group will get the same audio broadcast. Therefore, system implementers will be *very* cautious about using cached data when as RU is a member of a reception group that contains any other RUs as members. An RU cannot be restricted by line-of-sight. COMPACT REMOTE CONTROL UNIT (CRCU): Used by coaches and instructors, the remote control units will provide basic music control functions such as select song, make bookmark, goto bookmark, pause, stop, fast forward, reverse, and--never to be forgotten--play. The designer will *NOT* put excess function into the CRCU. Each button shall have one, and *ONLY* one function. The RU and CRCU may be integrated into a single assembly. It is marginally desirable that a palm-top augmented with appropriate software and hardware be able te emulate a CRCU. A CRCU cannot be restricted by line-of-sight. BASE UNIT (XMITer): Early versions of the base unit will be implemented from an Intel or Apple computer using mircrowave or RF wireless LAN (eg wireless ethernet). Line-of-sight technologies are inappropriate for this application. The wireless LAN must have sufficient bandwidth to support seamless, high quality broadcast of at least 5 simultaneous audio programs. The ability to add wireless LANs on slightly different frequencies, thereby expanding the system, is moderately desirable. Software will be included to manage the system (the App). The Application Administrator will be able to control storage and access to copywritten material, user access, where data is stored, and so on. Approprate interfaces will be provided to the App Admin. A critical job for the App Admin will be naming RU and CRCU appliances. *NOTE* that the App Admin is likely to be one or several small business owners with limited legal or computer expertise. Power users (coaches, instructors, and so on) will be designated by the app admin. They will need to manage their own music, access studio owned music, assemble programming for a given class, and so on. Most importantly, power users will need to define a group of RUs that will receive a mini-cast. They will also need to designate the CRCU that will control the mini-cast. The only domain expert consulted thus far seemed very interested in a personal RU with storage capablity. While the intital prototype may require aliasing a fixed set of RUs and CRCUs, the system will be designed to add and drop RU and CRCU appliances _ad hoc_. Adding new RU-CRCU appliances and designating a group should be fast--taking under five minutes for initial production versions of the system. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: world-mart: how wal-mart is destroying the economy and remakingthe world
Quote:Wal-Mart is now the world's biggest corporation, having passed ExxonMobil for the top slot. It hauls off a stunning $220 billion a year from We the People (more in revenues than the entire GDP of Israel and Ireland combined). I had no idea that Wal-Mart was so big - it's only 40 years old and a purely traditional empire, not relying on a new product/concept like MS, Intel and Cisco. It's a fairly arbitrary measure of course. Many sources I searched listed GE, Intel, Cisco and MS as the biggest (presumably using market capitalisation) depending (again, presumably) on the share prices of the day. Australia doesn't have a single Wal-Mart, though we have K-Mart and Target. Quote: Of the 10 richest people in the world, five are Waltons--the ruling family of the Wal-Mart empire. S. Robson Walton is ranked by London's Rich List 2001 as the wealthiest human on the planet, having sacked up more than $65 billion (GBP45.3 billion) in personal wealth and topping Bill Gates as No. 1. Given that as at February, they were listed 6-10, and S Robson was listed at 8th. I find this difficult to believe. Even if one of the other Waltons died and left their entire USB20.4 to S Robson, that still only gives him USB41, compared to Bill's USB52.8. Of course, holding rankings 6-10 is no mean feat either. Setting aside for a moment all the issues raised by this report, it makes one wonder a bit about the future. Will government at some point become somewhat redundant or secondary in choosing the allocation of a nation's resources, given the way some of the corporations now control use of specific sectors of the earth's resources. Will a world government actually take the form of a mega-merger in boardrooms? Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Techno Dance Itch
Yeah. Well that's not quite _it_. The crucial feature is being able to *group* the receiver appliances into groups. What I observed was a single large dance floor. A divider effectively separated the floor into two rooms. For better or worse neither room was acoustically isolated. Each room had its own music played through loud-speakers. Room one had a class--that is one teacher with many students. Room two had a championship couple and their coach and three private instructors, each with a student. Music was played at a moderate volume because students and teachers needed to talk. Furthermore, other business needs might require verbal communication. In short, they had a maximum supply of two audio channels for music, they had demand for five channels of music. Furthermore, each coach or instructor needed to control the music so they and their student(s) got a synchronized musical program. Proposed Class in room one: 1 -- Audio 1: Loudspeaker 1.1 1.2 ... 1.n Sessions in room two (currently all listen to the same music): 2a -- Audio 2: mini-cast 2a.1 2a.2 2b -- Audio 3:mini-cast 2b.1 2c -- Audio 4:mini-cast 2c.1 2d -- Audio 5:mini-cast 2d.1 Plus my friend _might_ want to practice by herself, but at the studio, and using her mini-cast receiver. 2e -- Audio 6:mini-cast OR audio stored in reciver unit. On Wednesday 04 December 2002 11:37 pm, Russell Chapman wrote: Trent Shipley wrote: WANTED: a wireless audio system for very local broadcasting -- to be used in dance studios and dance departments. (Ideally, somebody already makes this. If not, have Motorola give me a call.) U - ever watched a band in concert recently? It is quite common for the band members, roadies and sound and lighting techs to all have an interconnected set of short range wireless headphones, some with mikes and some without. Well, it is here, anyway Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: world-mart: how wal-mart is destroying the economy and remakingthe world
Trent Shipley wrote: Actually, that's not really fair. There have been real advances in the technology of retail in the 19th and 20th Centuries, and I expect more in the 21st. OK - I should have said in a purely traditional sector. By comparison to MS and Cisco etc who leveraged new stuff, Wal-Mart had to create their empire in retail - the other oldest profession... How Wal-Mart has used centralised IT is ground-breaking, in a time when their competitors were distributing their IT. Their near-future proposals (eg implementing cheap chips instead of barcodes) could push this even further. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Techno Dance Itch
Trent Shipley wrote: Yeah. Well that's not quite _it_. The crucial feature is being able to *group* the receiver appliances into groups. I *think* that's what these systems do. Some hear only the backing track (ie the filler stuff not being played by anyone on stage), some hear the music in total, and some only hear the stage manager's instructions, but who hears what can be switched from the backstage console. I imagine that your dance floor proposal could be done much cheaper than these things, and would require less expertise to operate. Perhaps IR could be utilised, with ceiling mounted transmitters. IR receiving headphones are very cheap in department stores. Cheers Russell C. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
