🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 2 Jul 1998 16:50:40 GMT, cr764@torfree.net (Kurt Wismer)
wrote:

>: >thank you, i'm sure we all appreciate the demonstration of how 
>: >"interpretation" can be a bad thing...
>
>: I'm not sure what you're getting at.
>
>it was about how what seemed to be your responce to marc's draft brought 
>up issues that didn't appear in marc's draft - ie. an interpretation of 
>marc's intent...

[snip]

>from my vantage point it had to do with misdirecting your reply... 

[snip]

The part of Marc's article that I quoted was:

	> I think what some people in this 'debate' fail to understand
	>  is that it is our right (and that of any member) to put a
	>  motion before the membership for  voting. Like it or not
	> (And obviously, some people do NOT like it very much) 
	> there will be an Acceptable Use Policy before the membership
	>  next AGM to vote on. 

And I prefaced my response with:

	Fine and good, in that case I will make the following
	 statement of intent so that you all know what you are getting
	 into:

While I certainly regret any misunderstandings, the reason I posted
the way that I did was because Marc was saying that come hell or high
water there was going to be a  motion and seemed to be saying that
"debate" (his quotes) was pointless, because it would not effect his
resolve, basically saying that from his point of view the case was
closed.

Therefore, I stated  my position for the record as well, not because I
wanted to debate his draft, but because I wanted it to be known what
my position was.

While I can understand how a misunderstanding can happen, even in
retrospect I think the context of my message was correct.

>if you 
>feel you need to make a point to censorious board members, then it would 
>be best to reply to articles in which those specific board members made 
>censorious suggestions...

I have, do and will, That was not the only article I responded to,
plus parts of the debate were on the boards internal mailing list.

It was Marc's insistence that there *WILL* be a motion that I was
responding to. If there is to be a motion, I would like all involved
to know how I feel about the issue. Most importantly that I will act
against the TFN adopting censorious policies no matter how they came
to be, and I will consider all possible actions, possibly even the
gravest; working towards the downfall of this new censorious Free-Net.

>marc got the impression you were directing your criticisms at him - and 
>no wonder, you followed up his post and quoted his text when you did it...

Even so, I fail to see how I have criticized *HIM*

I have expressed ideas that are different from his, but how that
justifies being called a coward, a cretin, a terrorist, "worse than a
KKK member", stupid, evil, and saying that he was "ashamed to know me"
and speculating that I "sold my soul" not to mention  many other
delightful smears, is not clear to me.

What's worse, is that he immediately and repeatedly claimed my actions
were "Illegal," and therefor actionable under the AUP he was
presenting, meaning that his AUP could be used to silence me and the
ideas that I am presenting.

His over-the-top hostility clearly demonstrates that if such an AUP
were in place he certainly WOULD HAVE used it to punish me, claiming
he was upholding the law. 

Forcing *ME* to *PROVE* that my actiones were *NOT* illegal.

I guess "innocent until proven guilty" is not a concept that we wish
to preserve in this new medium. Gone like the pony express as we rush
into the digital era with only the Board of Directors of our local
Free-Net holding the keys to justice.

Welcome to Napoleon's new domain.

I really can't think of clearer example of the folly built in to the
thinking he's promoting than this Board member's  own actions in this
debate.

>anywho, it's good that your intent has been clarified - perhaps some of 
>the hostility will be abated...

I hope so.

Cheers,