[conspire] OT freekenneth.com Urgent. Please help. Thanks.
freepalestin at dslextreme.com
Mon Aug 27 11:28:17 PDT 2007
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting john_re (john_re at fastmail.us):
>> Here is an urgent situation that enables you to do some good in this
> Inappropriate posting, in my view, and your "OT" isn't sufficient to
> excuse it. But you knew that in advance.
> John, I'm willing to tolerate this sort of thing once in a long while,
> so I'm not annoyed -- but I don't want to see another non-Linux politics
> advocacy posting from you, of any kind, until year 2008. We'll figure
> out, at that point, how frequently will be considered excessively
> There is no posted rule for "conspire" requiring this, and there won't
> be (nor, of course, will any undisclosed rule be applied). It's really
> just a matter of common sense and courtesy.
> That is, permit all online forums indulge some percentage of traffic
> being off-topic digressions, and they tend to be somewhere between
> welcome and indulgently tolerated to the extent they're some combination
> of brief, infrequent, humourous, non-annoying, and non-contentious.
> Blitzing Linux mailing lists with political advocacy posts fails several
> of those tests. Basically, John, you're behaving like an ass, and
> abusing our tolerance. Not smart.
> No listadmin (or, well, none I'd respect) _wants_ to have to post rules
> regulating offtopic behaviour, as that would tend to devolve to (or at
> least be perceived as) heavy-handed thuggery. For one thing, we expect
> people to show a bit of perspective and common sense, without needing to
> be required to do so.
> Meanwhile, as listadmin, I hereby convey my regrets to everyone else
> annoyed by this intrusion. IMPORTANT: If any subscriber needs help
> crafting a killfile rule, having decided to filter out future postings
> from John Regan's address, ask me off-list, and I'll try to help.
> Please do _not_ rise to John's bait, on-list: Filter him before
> considering that. (That is not an order, but is a request.)
>> Form where you can send the message:
> (For context: John attempted to post this stuff earlier, and found he
> was unable to, because his inital text triggered my MTA's anti-chain-letter
> filters. He complained to me, offlist, asking help getting his mail
> through -- and I explained that, no, my filters were working exactly as
> intended, and he should understand that his posting would be, in my view,
> completely inappropriate for _any_ LUG technical mailing list. That
> was a week or so ago. He has apparently revised his text to evade that
> filter -- without heeding my warning about appropriateness. One notes,
> in addition -- see above quoted line -- that it's still essentially a
> chain letter.)
I appreciated that John posted this request. I do not
view it nor perceive it as a chain letter. I don't know
how John could have reached the audience of this email
list by other means. Perhaps there are others on this
list who want to take action per the information in
John's email. I certainly encourage people to use their
conscience to decide whether to act or not as opposed
to being irritated that this is not Linux related.
More information about the conspire