🚀 go-pugleaf

dnagle@wt.com.au (Dave Nagle) writes:

> system@codeworks.gen.nz (Wayne W. McDougall):
> 
> > 2. Why *should* I publicly post details of my activities?
> 
> It's considered good netiquette - I'm sure you are in favour of 
> that.

Look, I have already asked you in email for any pointer to back up your
opinion on this one. You failed to respond, because it doesn't exist.
But do feel free to not respond to this now public challenge.

> People have a right to know that you are filtering their news for 
> them.

Ummmm, nope. I'm not filtering their choose for them. Think about it.
People choose to filter their own news by say, subscribing to just
nz.general. If they didn't want a filter they would read every newsgroup.
What I am doing is to help defend their right to choose their filter and
to have that choice honoured.

Yes, I know it is a flip-side way of looking at it. It is just (I'd say
even more) valid as your way. After all, whose rights are being infringed
first?

> If you take the serious step of cancelling other people's posts
> then you need to be accountable both to the original poster 

which I am...

> (hence the email notification), and to the readership at large
> (hence the public notification).

...and here we disagree. I do not believe the readership at large needs to
know specific details about messages that it has already chosen as not
being messages it wants to see.

> I'm not sure of the ideal format for the public notification, you 

Uh huh. So you've been on my case to provide a report without any idea of
an "ideal format". So that explains no matter what I say, or do, it doesn't
measure up to any of your own personal, unbacked, standards.

Do you have any "non-ideal" formats?

> could start by looking in aus.net.news for inspiration.

which I don't read, and don't plan too.

> Dumping the contents of your email folder is not really what I 
> had in mind.

Sigh. Your comments really didn't leave me with any choice.

> Come to think of it, did you ask all those people if it was OK to 
> quote their private email on Usenet? Netiquette and all that.

Nope. It was a well-considered decision, where, in order to comply with
your increasingly strident requests, I considered the benefits outweighed
the costs. I think a specific review of the very small number of cases
would indicate that it can be justified. I don't expect you to agree.

> The misleading Reply-To: in the emails was also less than 
> impressive.

Ahem, is was *you* that I insisted that I contact their postmaster in
each and every case in the first instance. Where do you get this
"misleading" from? Just what mail reading software doesn't show you where
your replies are going? How do you respond to my simple outline of all (?)
possible outcomes of this "misleading" ?

> Regards,
> ...Dave


--
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