🚀 go-pugleaf

Nathan Schmidt <schmidt@civl.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:

> > > private email, where I questioned why you posted other people's email, yo
> > > evaded the accusation by stating that it was *your* email, though it cont
> > > quotes from a multitude of others, myself included.  Pretty weak, dude. 
> > Well, that was just one of my comments. I accept your point.
> 
> Yeah, well, you accepted it in a pretty fuckin' unacceptable fashion.  When a
> you going to apologise and cancel it?    

As discussed with you in email, I don't see any need to apologise. I'll
cancel it if you wish. I don't think that would be helpful at this stage.

> Hey, *I* don't feel compelled to follow your rules;  I just thought since you
> reference them that you might.

As noted before, they are guidelines. Not rules.

> Has it changed since you referenced them? I'd have thought a pedant like you
> would be up to date on them.

Yes it did.

> > > > Let's take a simple case where we can get a YES/NO, nice
> > > > boolean answer: do you believe that this FAQ as it stands, accepts that
> > > > commercial for sale messages are acceptable in nz.general?
> 
> > > Of course not - they piss me off as much as anyone else.  The FAQ directs
> > > commercial posts to an appropriate newsgroup.  It seems, though, that 
> > And here you are being inconsistent. Gotcha!
> 
> Excuse me?  When have I ever said that I played by your rules?  I would have
> just hoped that *you* followed them.  When did *I* post a commercial post?

You have missed the point totally. Too much snipping. I think you have
lost this one, totally.

> > You can't one the one hand say the description for nz.general says it is
> > a wide ranging sewer, and criticise me for directing people to other more
> > appropriate newsgroups for their post
> > and then on the other hand, arbitrarily use other sections to justify
> > why commercial posts should not go in nz.general. 
> > > commercial posts are a small portion of what you've chosen to censor.  I 
> > 1. They are not censored. You've already conceded that argument by your
> > total fail to respond to it. Feel free to take it up again. I'd suggest
> > you first accept my definition of censorship, or offer an alternative, and
> > we can take it from there.
> 
> I think someone else has posted an acceptable definition of censorship.  You
> might not agree with it, but *any* cancellation is censorship by my definitio

What: "censorship is to censor"? Or are you referring to my own definition.
Well, what is your definition?

> Send an email to their postmaster.  CC it to your alleged offender.  Don't be
> a fuckwit and play games with them.

1. I really don't believe that is appropriate for someone simply making
a one-off first time commercial posting to nz.general
2. I'm not playing games with them. Really, unless you can identify what
the problem is (and you didn't respond at all to the cases and outcomes
that I presented), then I can't accept your argument.

> Wayne, just admit that you have *no* mandate to cancel posts and stop doing
> it.

In have already said that I have no mandate (although that may well depend
on your definition of "mandate"). I will stop doing it if a net total
of three people ask me to.

> > > Have you been elected moderator?
> > No.

> That's the second or third time you've admitted this.  Why not accept that
> you're out of line?

Because I don't think that I am. I think that a line in the sand has to be
drawn: that this is to extreme and appropriate action taken to stop it.
I believe that the nz.* charters already define what is acceptable and
what is not.

> >   [that Wayne McDougall is making a mockery of nz.general]
> > Really?  Care to quote them?
>
> Lessee... So far Simon Lyall, Geoff McCaughan, Stephen Judd, Brian Harmer,
> Scooter, Jeremy Taylor, David Mcloughlin and Steve@actrix.gen.nz have all
> spoken out against your unilateral cancelling of posts.  You can read their
> posts yourself.

Yes, but that is not the same as them saying that I "have made a mockery
of nz.general". The onus of proof remains with you on this point, I am
afraid.

It is interesting to note how few people are concerned.

Follow-ups set to nz.net.admin


--
system@codeworks.gen.nz  Wayne McDougall ICHTHUS <*> Impeach President Clark!!
        A U C K L A N D   D E B A T I N G   A S S O C I A T I O N   (Inc)
Interested in debating, public speaking or adjudicating in Auckland?
Send me email or write to President@ada.org.nz, or ADA, P O Box 3233, Auckland