🚀 go-pugleaf

Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:

<snip>
: Other ISPs are not publicly funded, are not volunteer supported, do
: not posses the status of a charity, their responsibility is to their
: stake holders, *OUR* responsibility is to the greater good of our
: community, and unless we serve as a vanguard of free speech and
: justice, we are *NOT* working in the best interest of our community.

Now you are discussing. Much better than threats IMHO. The TFN being 
publicly funded makes it more responsible to the public and not vice 
versa. 

Who said that the TFN is a "vanguard of free speech and justice"? I do 
not recall seeing that in any of the documentation. May be this is 
Dmytri's TFN, but not TFN the community network that it was intended to 
be. 

I find that your last paragraph is ...... We should be working to the 
best interest of our community; that best interest includes giving the 
chance to any group with something to say - whether or not we agree with the 
subject or the substance - a forum (a menu item) to express their view. 
They can also have their 'special/own' newsgroup to interact with users. 
Through this peaceful way of discussing ideas exchanging arguments and 
other means of civil exchange can 'bad' ideas be exposed and actually 
this would be a 'safety valve' preventing these groups from resorting to 
other forms of action (violence or any other illegal outlet).

Having said that, this does not by any means give the right to groups or 
individuals to push their ideas to the users by posting in irrelevant 
newsgroups or by using unconsented mailing lists. They also cannot resort 
to defamation, insulting, be-littling, etc of any one who has a different 
opinion and/or present different data that does not support the group's 
issues. This is totally unfair. It is a silencing technique which leaves 
the 'battle field' - IMHO an intellectual one -  to those with the 
sharpest tongue (or worse still with the technical wizzardy to post fake 
posts looking as they have originated from their 'opposition'). We have 
seen that so many times in the short history of TFN and we have seen no 
action taken in all of them. 

We need to have clean newsgroups. If it is impossible to clean the 
current newsgroups from the weeds that are preventing the useful crops 
from flourishing, then by all means we should allow moderated newsgroups. 
This is not censorship as those who participate in these groups are 
welcoming the 'rules' of such newsgroup. It is more like 'freedom of 
association' of decent - or may be on the opposite some indecent people 
who do not want flame of their believes = people. I believe this is a 
positive action, a win/win situation; those who want the status quo has 
it, those who want a rather 'controlled' forum should have it.

I do not think that the discussion of AUP would bring any concensus, but 
may be discussion - and call for moderators - of moderated groups will 
bring much better results.
-- 
Nabil M. El-Khodari. 
"Men use thought to justify their injustices, and
speech to conceal their thoughts"        Voltaire