On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 23:50, Karsten M. Self wrote: > on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +0000, ben ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800 > > csj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800, > > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800, > > > > > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have replied > > > > > > that self-control is apparently beyond their mein, I'll remind > > > > > > them that consequences for actions are also their > > > > > > responsibility. Including finding themselves ignored by those > > > > > > who value s over n. > > > > > > > > while some of us may have got carried away on the exuberance of our > > collective velocity, where colin requested that the thread be closed, i > > think that there were only one or two respondents who failed to respect > > that request. karsten's manner, on the other hand, comes across as an > > order, > > I'd individually contacted most (all I could find) participants of the > thread, after it had persisted for several days. Most of these either > didn't respond (but ceased posting to the thread) or replied > apologetically.
Yes, oh dear moderator. > Several disputed the basis of my request. Which is: > > - List charter: "Help and discussion among users of Debian". > - Code of conduct: "" As you wish, as you are never wrong. > > and, as such, is damn near guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone > > with a brain. particularly, comments such as the anarchist reference > > above are totally unwarranted > > Several of the individuals who chose to dispute (at length) my request > with me made specific reference to anarchist principles. Hmmm... interesting you would take exception to this. > I'd recommend you speak of what you know. In this case, you are beyond > your depth. There are places, I am sure, you are out of your depth. > > and indeed no less of an indulgence than participation in the thread > > itself. furthermore, the threat of "consequences" strikes me as a tad > > too authoritarian for this particular list. > > Consequences are simply a matter of mutual respect. If you show respect > of others on the list by following posted and general Netiquette > guidelines, you'll find your postings receive a reading, and possibly, a > response. That is the Pot calling the Kettle Day-Glo Orange. Or maybe a flamage fest. > If you choose to abuse the list and its subscribers, you'll find that > people chose to ignore your postings, either on a case-by-case basis, or > by technical means, including killfiles. I also specifically forwarded > at least one message to a Debian project member as the individual more > or less explicitly begged to be removed from the list, and I was unable > to fulfill the reqeust. I am sure you know first hand by the sound of it. > As several individual failed to show respect to the list, and > specifically showed a studied lack of respect to either myself, Colin > Watson, or both, I felt that the favor of a reply or reading was no > longer warranted. My pot is Blue and Kettle Chrome... please advise. > > on the other hand, thanks to colin for pointing out that > > debian-curiosa exists. > > Colin wasn't the only person to mention this, if you'll check the > record. As you wish, my Cop-e-tahn. > > perhaps we can arrive at a rule whereby the third, fourth, or fifth > > response to an off-topic thread would be directed--on the list--to > > make use of debian-curiosa as a more appropriate venue. > > Agreed. Good. No response expected. -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
