🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 15 Jul 1998 00:30:59 +0200, me@NOSPAMistar.ca (R Brown) wrote:

>0 summary

My summary is that you make a few good point here and there, I agree
with you about the language stuff, but your attempt at taking an
objective stance is not convincing giving the huge amount of bias your
post shows, it also undermines your attempts to claim that your
opinions are based upon some kind of (unstated) expertise.

>Because an Acceptable Use Policy ("AUP") is the principal issue and
>because the rest of this posting isn't short, here's the summary of
>the part on AUP and AUP-like things:
>
>   Draw up and enforce a relatively-permissive acceptable behaviour
>   policy for Toronto FreeNet ("TFN")  volunteers/employees, but one
>   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.

>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.

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.

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?

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

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.

>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.

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 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.

>(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.

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.

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.

>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

>Requiring decent behaviour of those associated with TFN administration
>and operation, towards TFN members and on TFN facilities (such as newsgroups),
>is not overkill; it's the minimum sort of thing that other organizations
>require of those associated with them.

The desire to control the conduct of employees or volunteers outside
of their conduct *AS* employees or volunteers is disgusting.

>And it is precisely because of this that few organizations other than
>TFN would...

More unresearched hot air.

>The "are we a technically-driven organization or a more mature
>semi-professional and well-organized organization" question
>raised by Wendy Guy is spot on.

Please remind me what Wendy's professional qualifications are.

I seem to be under the impression that the technical folks in the
debate had the clear edge in professional experience.

If I'm wrong, then give me some evidence or quit trying to pull rank,
even if it is on behalf of others..

>Only tech-driven organizations accept all behaviour short of illegality.
>Mature organizations (and make no mistake about it, only mature
>organizations survive) have AUP's, or AT LEAST employee/volunteer
>behaviour codes of some sort.

Yet more unsubstantiated horse shit.

Please back up your "facts" -- you seem to use the words "most" and
"only" quite indiscriminately.

>it hopes to grow out of being: a collection, largely, of immature
>tech-types

Once again, he who is so high and mighty in his denouncements of the
attacks of Geoffrey, will you have the courage to identify the
"immature tech-types"

>Opinions on organizational matters are not all deserving of equal
>respect, any more than opinions on technical matters are all
>deserving of equal respect. Wendy Guy's and Jim Butterfield's and
>Ken Smith's voices are among the few voices of maturity and reason
>(and, dare I say it? -- experience in society) at TFN.

ROTFL.

IMO, the people you list are the most likely to hold biases, attack,
insult and carry on in a self righteous manner at TFN, I guess there
clumsy sugar coating has you fooled.

To you these are the voices of maturity and reason? What a joke.

And (dare you say it) experience? Man... I ask again please remind me
of these people's experience in "society." and illustrate how it is so
clearly superior to mine and that of, Richard Van Abbe, Peter Selk,
Bruce Becker & Colin McGregor.

A person with your commitment to well researched oppinions couldn't
just be ASSUMING that these people have more experience because there
opinions are similar to YOUR OWN right?

>Ignore them at your own peril. And to those prone to misunderstand: no, that
>is not (sigh) a threat.

But they can ignore, belittle and vilify the opinions of others as
much as the want because they, of course, have all the experience and
maturity. Yeah right.

You obviously are having some difficulty distinguishing between
maturity and hot air.

>: Actually, I'd suggest you check your Canadian law. A citizen witnessing an
>: illegal act and doing nothing is liable for accessory to the act.
>
>No.
>
>Being a witness, and/or simply doing nothing, is not what constitues
>the offence of being an "accessory" after the fact or before the act.
>And Canada has no *general* "good samaritan" law (a law requiring one to
>render or seek assistance).
>
>I think France might.

Well, I guess Marc took the last episode of Seinfeld quite seriously.

>Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:
>
>   (my loose paraphrase):
>         a. Don't enforce legal standards because TFN isn't the police.
>         b. Don't enforce any other standards because until there's
>            a formal determination that something's illegal, that would be
>            draconian and, in any event, "vigilantism".
>
>These views are naive and unworkable in the extreme.

Thanks for your opinion bub, you were saying something about
supporting options with facts... Well, your *MOTHER* is naive and
unworkable, there I said it.. It must be true.

In any case, your summarization is a gross over simplification of my
views, which you obviously haven't really bothered to think about.

>The result of adhering to these 2 principles is:
>        No standards,

I've never objected to the TFN having rules.

> and the extraordinary (read: generally does not
>        exist at other ISP-like things, nor elsewhere in society at
>        large)

I guess your use of the word "generally" is as fast and loose as your
uses of the words "most" and "only."

> slimepit that exists at times on TFN newsgroups.

Slimepit huh? Once again your narrow minded bias is obvious.

May I suggest that you and those who think like you found ther own
newsgroup and have Wendy moderate it, or is censoring this forum the
only thing that will satisfy your desire to control others?

>Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:
>
>: As a public service, we have *NO*  right to dictate what you *SAY* via
>: our system, or to determine the legality of that speech.
>:
>: We do however have a right to control *HOW* our system is used, what
>: services we make available, and to protect our equipment and
>: configuration from being damaged.
>
>The powers of the Board of Directors ....

I'm not saying the board doesn't have the power to do these thing, but
that it has no "right" to do these things.

I hope don't have to explain the difference.

Laws *UPHOLD* rights, not grant them.

>Vigilantism is mass illegal action.

Says you.

Vigilantism is enforcing the law without jurisdiction.

>  Adoption of an AUP, or a behaviour
>code only for TFN employees and volunteers, would be action that is
>neither "mass" nor illegal,

Punishing someone for a crime they have not been convicted of *IS*
vigilantism.

> but rather one of the very sorts of things
>that Boards of Directors (or corporate officers) universally do, and
>are intended to do.

Thanks, we'll add the words "Universally" and "intended" to the
bullshit list along with "generally," "most," and "only."

>It would be nice if people realized that what determines such matters is
>largely things such as Acts and Bylaws, and not merely their own opinions.

LOL. Yes we know, now go on berating us with *YOUR* mere opinions...

: This has nothing to do with interpreting the law or freedom of speech
>
>90% of the blathering by posters has precisely to do with that.

90% huh? Is that another scientific fact like "universally" and
"generally?"

>It is blathering because few have bothered to look to any source
>of information or rights or obligations outside of their own
>preconceived personal opinions.

You are, of course, including yourself if the above analysis.

>Dmytri Kleiner (dmytrik@syntac.net) wrote:
>
>: Stalking and sexual harrassement/abuse is a police matter, not one for
>: the Free-Net Board of Directors.
>
>It can be a matter for both, and it is, in all or nearly all organizations.
>No company or organization would permit *everything* until a court order
>or conviction.  For TFN to do so would be out of line. For TFN not
>to *realize* that it is out of line, would be even farther out of line.

For TFN to censor it's users would be out of line, for TFN to take up
vigilante law enforcement would be out of line.

And please, since you consistently denounced the use of personal
opinions without the inclusion of supporting external fact, please
show us your work as to how you came to the conclusion that it's "out
of line."

Oh, I forgot, only those with "maturity" and "experience" are allowed
to preach their preconceived personal opinion.

>Marc Bissonnette (dragnet@internalysis.com) wrote:
>: Well, folks, here you have it. Dmytri Kleiner, an elected board member to the
>: Toronto Free-Net, is threatening extortion and blackmail if he doesn't get his
>: way.
>
>: The funny thing about it is, if Dmytri sues or causes harm to the TFN, he,
>: himself is liable for it. The Corporations Act of Canada clearly states this.
>
>"Extrotion" and "blackmail" are legal terms as well as common phrases.
>Their use here in a legal context may or may not be appropriate.

Oh come now, Marc is certified legal expert, after all he is on the
all seeing and all knowing TFN board of directors, brave upholders of
decorum, tireless enemies of the unruly, fearless defenders of the
meek and victimized.

On a side note, did you know that the spanish inquisition removed a
sentence from Don Quixote? Anyone know what it said?