2. You have never registerered any discontent about MO's words against
Arthur, only about mine. Why is that?
I don't rememember that also you have written words against Arthur? ;)
FYI, it meant that Arto's fairness is selective.
Does it mean you agree with MO?
Of course not. Where is
- Original Message -
From: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:55 AM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Ophee - his views
G.R. Crona wrote:
I must say, that I'm very disillusioned by this move to make what has
previously been an open forum
Dear lutenists
Howard wrote:
But the forum is no less open and no more censored than it was before.
The only difference is that one more person is now on the list of those
excluded from posting.
And Göran replied:
I don't understand, what kind of legal logic or lingo you refer to for
And while Roman's insults and bellicose language may be frequent, they
are hardly interminable. They are usually mercifully brief.
English is not my first language. Interminable, frequent, endless, call
them
what you will. He still gets to make them, while Matanya cannot anymore.
And
that
- Original Message -
From: Roman Turovsky [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Howard Posner [EMAIL PROTECTED]; G. Crona [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 7:30 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Ophee - his views
previously been an open forum, a censored one
May I ask, what in the world justifies letting Roman rant on with
his
interminable insults and obsessive, bellicose language when we can't
stand
Matanya's equally insulting postings? Why should there be a
difference?
I don't know that anything justifies some of Roman's more
Arto scripsit:
I agree with Göran; censorship is censorship is censorship! MO did not
spam, did not write much off topic.
I don't recall him to ever be on a lute topic.
He did use insulting words and wrote
as he thinks and sees, but he certainly is not the only one in the list
to do that.
In a message dated 9/1/2005 9:22:32 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Of course not. Where is your logic? Actually I had no time and interest
to find out what MO was fighting and why. Not very entertaining.
best regards,
Arto
Hi Arto,
All this folderol reminds me of the
On Aug 29, 2005, at 8:41 PM, G.R. Crona wrote:
What is at stake is the freedom of speech,
and when we start curtailing it, for whatever reason, we are being
no better
then those bullies who seemingly take over an international forum
which was
created for discussing lute-matters to
The lutelist is in no need of parenting and will be much stronger
and more honorable for it.
It could certainly do with a kind of minimum standard of civility
that we all agree upon when we join.
RMCG has no parenting and no standards of civility, and that is where MO
really blooms, in the
I would like to thank Alain for his perceptive and thorough explaination
of the Matayna Ophee situation. Alain, you have said almost everything
that I would say, and said it better than I could.
I would also like to add, for Mr Edwards benefit, the the conflict
between Mr Ophee and Mr Ness has
Dear Wayne and lutelist,
I must say, that I'm very disillusioned by this move to make what has
previously been an open forum, a censored one. It brings forth nasty
memories from the past, as well as orwellian ones. We are all perfectly
capable to decide for ourselves what we wish to read and
Goeran,
I've always considered you a friend, til now.
I guess I've made a mistake..
Oh well.
RT
May I ask, what in the world justifies letting Roman rant on with his
interminable insults and obsessive, bellicose language when we can't stand
Matanya's equally insulting postings? Why
Hi Goran,
Although we disagree on this issue, I see absolutely no reason not to
consider you still a virtual friend and a friend to the lute. I want
to ask you though what happened to your transcriptions of the Chilesotti
book that used to be freely available on Thomas Schall's WEB site? Are
14 matches
Mail list logo
