🚀 go-pugleaf

Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

: >   that does not tolerate some often-*legal* things like swearing at
: >   and denigrating and insulting TFN members (or possibly others);
: >   that should get rid of most of the problem.

: Fine, as long as this policy only applies to volunteers when they are
: on TFN property and actively performing their volunteer duties or
: using volunteer role accounts.

: The TFN has *NO* right to censer our volunteers *INDEPENDANT* use of
: the Internet or even TFN.

Censorship has nothing to do with it. Acceptable conduct is not 
censorship. 

: >Few if any posters have cited any external concrete foundations
: >for their opinions.

: Including yourself, I have read no foundations for your opinions in
: your long winded message.

: >And bt351 and others who seem to be associated with TFN administration
: >and operation are notable frontrunners in such personal attacking.

: I strongly disagree that bt351 is clearly in the forefront of personal
: attacking, this just shows your bias.

No. Geoffrey has changed his account so as not to show his name. This is 
abnormal in TFN accounts. I believe that no formal approval was given to 
do this. He simply abused his 'privileges' to do it. It is high time this 
is corrected.

: Geoffrey's "voice" maybe be a little more raving than you would like,
: but his content is no more insulting or attacking then his more hoity
: toity detractors.

You fail to understand the point. May be you are not defending Geoffrey here.

: In fact I find their assuredness that their biased preferences and
: sense of decorum are inherently superior to be among the most
: offensive bunk around.

: What you say is far more important that how you say it, and using this
: metric Geoff is far less offensive than his critics.

: >And TFN's continuing to permit itself to be associated with such
: >persons contributes to its image as a group of unprofessional
: >untrustworthy nerds with an uncommon sense of what's "acceptable".

: "Unprofessional, untrustworthy, nerds"

: A little biased eh?

What is the bias? I believe R. Brown is a neutral outsider.

: Do you hear your credibility going the drain, or are you deaf?

This is the kind of thing that should not come from a board member. You 
failed to read the responses before posting this. 

: Kindly have the courage to identify exactly who you believe fits the
: above the description, make sure to give us a list since your
: accusation is plural.

This is taking a perfectly honest thoughtful opinion to a persnal feud. I 
know that R. Brown would not fall for the trap. His/her post is self 
explanatory.

: >Few if any organizations allow *everything* that is legal.

: Well, first off, this is a total non argument, there was once a time
: where few if any organisations held genders and races as equals.

And your point? Was that right. What this has to do with NOW.

: Secondly, please share your research with us, I would like to know
: exactly what statistical breakdown lead to your choice of the term
: "Few if any" -- Please give us your numbers, given your condemnation
: of poor research, I trust you are not merely sharing your preconceived
: opinion

If you cannot defute the message kill the messenger. Well this is the 
same thing as asking you to provide statistics of your supporters among 
the TFN members. What R. Brown states is something you can see even in 
the small corner variety store in treating customers. It needs no statistics.

: >If TFN ran a restaurant, would it allow its waiters to walk on their
: >hands in the aisles and insult patrons, or anybody?

: TFN does not run a restaurant and your examples are, respectfully,
: idiotic.

Insults again.

: >(The Bell analogy is also imperfect; let's not digress to discussion
: >of validity of analogies, though.)

: The Bell analogy *IS* a good one.

: Bell enforces *IT'S OWN RULES* not the laws of the land, Bell will not
: take action against a user for breaking a law until the charge is no
: longer in dispute (i.e. a confession or a conviction) nor will they
: act against things like harassing phone calls without the direction of
: the law enforcement system.

His analogy was not regarding 'users rights', it was about Bell staff 
treatment of clients; certain things are not allowed for an employee in 
interaction with clients.

: Read the damn tariff, it's in the front of your phone book, Mr
: Informed Opinion.

: Bell will only take action if you violate it's own rules, which are
: clearly stated.

You completely miss the point and resort to personal attacks.

: They have no blanket policies of law enforcement or control of
: content, in fact the hands-off "common carrier" point of view comes
: from the policies of telecom companies such as Bell.

: Nor does Bell have any rules governing how their employees use the
: phone when they're *NOT* working.

If not interacting with clients and if not 'public', may be not even 
using work lines for personal calls.

: >That many of the TFN-associated people who are the worst offenders
: >are able to be civil and helpful for periods of time before reverting
: >to being disgusting when it pleases them, actually makes their conduct
: >*more* offensive.  Those who are incapable of realizing or controlling
: >their antisocial behaviour might be pitied, but those who realize it
: >and deliberately choose to turn it on and off without regard for their
: >victims, are clearly behaving intentionally and are all the more
: >responsible.

: Blah blah blah.

: Thanks for making your poorly thought out biases so clearly apparent.

: Yet another freak who believes his personal sense of decorum is
: inherently superior, and those that don't follow it are "antisocial."

: Oh well, rednecks still abound I guess

That is exactly the same behaviour R. Brown is referring to (freak, 
rednecks?) 

<rest of post snipped, it makes no point to waste disk storage>
-- 
Nabil M. El-Khodari. 
"Men use thought to justify their injustices, and
speech to conceal their thoughts"        Voltaire