Not according to Amadeu.
> Discuss@dnso.org is open. If you
> are concerned about reaching people on participants@dnso.org, just copy your
> messages there.
As I said before many times, we have no way of knowing if the participants
are reading that list or not. Amadeu and others have said that they are not
subscribed to discuss, and from the lack of response on the participants
list, they may not be reading there, either. This is a situation that has
been created by the DNSO.org people have been running these lists, not me.
But I am very concerned about being out of touch with the people I met in
Monterrey, particularly the South Americans and the French, whom I grew to
trust. I don't like it. Not one little bit.
> I am surprised to hear you arguing for a closed list.
I am not arguing for a closed list, and you have no right to accuse me of
it. It's an outrageous, unfair, and insulting accusation. I was the first to
protest against the closed nature of the participants list, even before
Roberto, who if he is honest will admit that it was my postings that
provoked him into protesting. It is all in the archives, in any case, so if
anyone pretends otherwise it can be checked.
I don't remember you speaking up at the time, so perhaps you'd better stop
and think before you accuse others. I think I can make a pretty good case
that you didn't give a damn about the closed nature of certain DNSO lists
until recently, when you seem to have decided you could gain a little
political benefit with the new subscribers to the discuss list by jumping on
the bandwagon. So don't go pretending to be the self-righteous champion of
freedom and democracy, please.
I am arguing for the participants being able to stay in touch with each
other. I don't like the idea that the people who were at Monterrey may not
have the chance to read all the drafts and debate them. I don't like it all.
Dumping the original people, who made an effort to go to Monterrey and with
whom I worked hard for three days and came to respect, is much worse than
not making provision for new people, which in any case isn't being done,
since there is the discuss list. What I am arguing for is not cutting off
the participants. I am surprised to hear you arguing for that.
(snip) I agree with the rest of your little speech for democracy.
> Trust may evolve, but it's not there now, and it won't be
> gained through anything with even the slightest whiff of secrecy.
Nor will it be gained by betraying the people who came to Monterrey.
> I agree with Roberto wholeheartedly; if you have something to say, say it on
> an open list.
I always try to do so. You are attacking the wrong person. I don't know why,
maybe because you see so many others who attack me that you think I'm an
easy target. You'll find out that you've been mistaken.
And another thing: I've had enough of being given orders by you or anyone
else in the DNSO.org. I owe you nothing. You are nobody to me, just another
human being, no worse perhaps and certainly no better. If you feel you want
to give orders to someone or something because it helps you to feel
important about yourself, go give them to your girlfriend or your dog, who
are probably used to it. I am not. Don't do it again, please.
> If you are afraid that there are those who for whatever
> reason are not subscribed to the discuss@dnso.org list, just copy them
> to the participants@dnso.org list.
I'm not sure what you mean by this; I don't think you are either; in any
case it doesn't make sense. I have explained numerous times that the
participants don't seem any more to be reading the participants list, since
they aren't responding or posting there. What's the point of copying
messages to a list that's either defunct or isn't being read by the people
you want to communicate with? I suppose that you can understand this if you
try, can't you, Antony? It's not so hard.