Joop, I was under the impression that New Zealand spoke a variant of
English as its primary language and that that variant was no more extreme
or strange than the American variant.
Hence I am at a loss to understand how you could interpret the referenced
note as sarcasm. It was a direct statement of a direct reaction. I did
put in a tag line, quite incidental to the main comment, which offered a
silly explanation for the bizarre situation. Yes, that tag line was in the
form of sarcasm. Can it be that you missed the entire paragraph of
serious, simple, direct comment that preceded it and was clearly the
primary focus of my note?
>For that kind of flagrant disregard for list-rules anyone will get kicked
>off, not just from our list.
Please cite the documentation of list rules that we all were afforded prior
access to. As with Kent, I have been unable to locate them. If you are
going to take a legalistic approach and claim that rules have been
violated, you need to be able to point at those rules and ensure that
participants have been able to be aware of them.
At 03:53 PM 6/14/99 +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >Roeland, your note is a good demonstration of the very deep problem with
> >the kind of censorship being pursued.
> >
>Sheesh, Dave. More myth in the making. Censorship being pursued? I have
>not removed anybody from the list, not even revoked write privileges. I
Again there seems to be some misunderstanding about relatively simple
English. "Being pursued" is not the same as "having taken place". It
means that there is an attempt to exercise censorship undwerway, not that
it has already been performed.
Having a group vote to exercise censorship does not make it something other
than censorship. It is an exercise of power to stifle speech, and the term
is particularly significant with respect to "political" speech".
>have proposed that the members vote on *asking* both of you to do the right
>thing and go voluntarily.
Your language about voluntary departure was your own direct request that we
leave of our own effort, as a matter separate from the vote. The exact
language you used in the portion of your note requesting a vote was:
"I must ask you to consider ostracizing two people who have
invaded our list..."
Ostracism is not a voluntary step performed by the target. It is a
coercive step performed by the community.
>Are we already a public body of ICANN? With what yardstick are we being
>measured?
You seek recognition as a representative body in a public process. As I
commented earlier, recognition should come from an operational basis. If
you cannot sustain criteria applied to public processes now, why would one
expect you to later?
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/