[conspire] OT freekenneth.com Urgent. Please help. Thanks.
john_re at fastmail.us
Mon Aug 27 21:25:42 PDT 2007
Hi Rick - I hope you are well. Thanks for all you work, like this
mailing list. I'm not being facetious or sarcastic.
I've way too little time to do justice to a proper reply to all your
points, so I must limit myself to just a few issues.
(In short summary, I guess I'd say these involve cultural issues that
you seem to consider rather completely settled, & my view is that they
are _definitely not_ settled, and are in fact still undergoing cultural
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:43:31 -0700, "Rick Moen" <rick at linuxmafia.com>
> Quoting john_re (john_re at fastmail.us):
> > Here is an urgent situation that enables you to do some good in this
> > world.
> Inappropriate posting, in my view, and your "OT" isn't sufficient to
> excuse it. But you knew that in advance.
I feel I must reply for the record: No, I _didn't_ know that "your "OT"
isn't sufficient to
> excuse it. " & still don't know, cause there _is no logical way_ to conclude from the evidence insufficiency.
IIRC (I've already deleted your original emails to me cause of storage
limits on my mail account, else I'd quote your emails for accuracy. If
you care to fw to me the mails we communicated on, I might could find
the relevant parts. But, that's not really the important issue to me.)
IIRC, in our phone conversation, or the emails, you said you thought the
original post was "well meaning, but inappropriate for the list". My
values cause the different conclusion, the post _is_ appropriate for
this list, given the important values for the world in total, in which
the conspire list exists, & is merely a part. I recall you've posted
recently about that people should not be shy to state their opinions.
er, so, in my values I must do as my values indicate, which is that the
post was _definitely_ appropriate & withing the bounds of acceptable
cultural norms, your opinions/beliefs recognized & disagreed with by me.
> 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
No problem - it's your list, and IIRC I read the list description,
"This is a general discussion forum for the San Francisco Bay Area's
CABAL Linux user group. It is also gated to the cabal.conspire local
NNTP newsgroup. (Please write to postmaster at linuxmafia.com, specifying
your fixed IP address, if you want access to our NNTP news server.)
Per list policy, our (subscriber-accessible) membership roster and
public message archives display unobscured posting addresses. If you're
trying to hide your e-mail address from spammers, avoid this list.
While we appreciate the need for jobs postings, they easily overwhelm
this small mailing list: So, you must submit them via e-mail to the
listadmin, who'll decide whether to post them on your behalf. Reasons
why the answer has been "no" in the past have included their having
already been posted to other local LUG mailing lists. (We get tired of
seeing the same posts everywhere.)"
Note: This is a _general_ discussion forum for the San Francisco Bay
Area's CABAL Linux user group.
Also note: Doesn't say "technical" discussion forum.
Also note: CABAL meetings involve discussion of _many_ topics beyond
Now, if your online culture presumes that limitation regarding
newsgroups, fine. But this is a multicultural _world_, and especially
being that newsgroups are new to humanity, even fully technically
competent people haven't accepted what you proscribe as the only proper
Exhibit in point: Darlene values positively the occurance of my post.
Let alone the views on newsgroup ettiquite (sp?) by intelligent but not
> 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.
Yeah, ok, hold that thought for the next paragraph:
> 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.
Ok, recap: Rick is "tolerant, not upset". There are no posted rules
(where there easily could have been - much more easily than your
interesting sugggestion of getting the names & mailing offlist [problem
there being life is so short that won't be done, & the communication
won't be sent.] ) Rick thought the original post was "well meaning".
"really just a matter of common sense and courtesy"
And, yet "blitzing" (Really, rick, that is hyperbolic inflamation) (& I
believe I am behaving in a common sensical & courteous fashion (although
my values differ from your - in the absence of devine revelation, were
both entitled to values that give due respect to community boundaries,
it's a question of where the proper boundaries are)
Further, you conclude my actions fall within _your_ common sense
boundaries! ["John, I'm willing to tolerate this sort of thing once in a
long while"] )
"basically I'm behaving like an ass." Er, Rick, that seems _really_ non
sequiter to me. <8-0
> 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.
Err, but you've already posted a rule for off topic behavior re job
posts (thats why I quoted the entire thing above.) So, ok, you don't
_want_ to do that - ok, fair enough. But, it would have been, I think,
_very_ easy for _you_ to have done so. You are a fast & prolific
writer, both with posts & your website knowledge base. (Seemingly to me,
you aare much superior to myself in that capability.) (&, again, not fos
(abrev for "facetious or sarcastic" I'm not telling you you're wrong for
not posting such a rule.) )
> 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,
Now with that word, "bait", I see two potential _serious_ problems, that
I can't _possibly_ imagine you, with your large intelligence (agin, I'm
being serious herek, not facetious or sarcastic) & immense communication
experience & expertise, (specifically re whaqt I conclude from reading
your writings you _must_ know about rhetoric & sophism)
How can you possibly call what I postede "bait"? Bait for what?
1) I didn't post it for bait, I posted it to politely inform members of
this community who might
1a) have not know it, &
1b) would appreciate knowing it, &/or hearing it as a matter of
importance to the world, & from the self selecting membership in the
CABAL/conspire list community.
2) I can't believe that (& I'm sure willing to be corrected if this
supposition of mine is incorrect) you were able to use that word & not
consciously think to your self as you wrote it something like "this is
an inflamitory word to use here, not a factual word.") Which is not in
accordance with youyr above stated "tolerant, not upset"
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
Ok, rick, big problem with incorrectness/accuracy here:
> He complained to me, offlist,
1) No complaint _at all_. Just sending you a polite note in case you
were unaware of an apparent _inconsistency in _your__ system. (along
with an implied "did I miss something here?")
2) I was surprised that your system seemed to be inconsistent, given
your expertise in system administration. CF:
a) the bounce message said to email "verified-" prepended (I can't
recall exactly the requirement) if the sender thought this was an
improperly filtered email, yet
b) you system failed to accept that email.
asking help getting his mail
Er, not a complaint then asking help - I just thought I'd try to find
out if it was your system that was failing to be consistent, or had I
failed to follow it's directions properly (no - I'd followed them
correctly, you system _was_ inconsistent. No big deal to me, as far as
I'm concerned. As you said - the maiil filtering is a large system, &
you don't bother to edit it. I would think you'd like to be informed of
an inconsistency between it's operation & what it instructs users to do.
(Recall you said you eliminated the ability the message suggested, the
"verified-" prepend due to potential abuse.))
-- 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
Er, again whith the inflamatory "evade". _No_. You told me tat you
desired the prohibition of requesting posts to be forwarded, fine.
_Two_ things happened:
1) I _removed_ the forward request sentence, to be in compliance with
that rule/desire of your/your_system.
2) I added information specifically relevant to the GNU/Linux community
that was a new development since my 1st message. (re RMS.)
Point: not _evade_, insted "respect that aspect of listadmin's wishes".
Note: Before sending my second message, I'd actually spent time thinking
about our conversations, & emails, & the values you stated & implied for
the list, & my values, & many options of how I couold behave respecting
my values that would be good for the world, & within reason for
compliance with my understanding of your values & wishes & desires. At
several points it occured to me that I might try to rewrite the request
that readers forward it on so in a way that would evade your systems
filter, but always concluded that would not be the appropriate thinng to
So, correctly: I specifically consciously decided it would be _wrong_ to
try to evade, & so I didn't do that, even though I definitely wanted to
keep that in the message, & I certainly could have tried.
-- without heeding my warning about appropriateness.
1) Without heeding: Correct. After having given careful consideration of
the aspects, at occasional times, over several days, in moments between
doing many other things. I concluded we have a difference of values, &
that my values are valid, respectful of higher values for the community,
& though perhaps out of line with your values, not grossly out of line.
(& you said "> John, I'm willing to tolerate this sort of thing once in
a long while,
> so I'm not annoyed ")
> in addition -- see above quoted line -- that it's still essentially a
> chain letter.)
2) If you are referring to this: "> > Here is an urgent situation that
enables you to do some good in this
> > world."
er, My mind can't find a way to make that conclusion. Nor can I imagine
a way that could be logically concluded. But, (again, not sarcastic nor
facetious), if you do, well, ok, we're all different (humans, in
capability), maybe that's "essentially" concludable by you. ok for you.
But I think that statement of yours is unfair.
This took me as long to write as I feared it would. It is still
inclomplete. I can't afford more time. It is important. CF your mail
after this: we're both CA boys, "life's a beach."
Anyway - again, not fos, thanks for all your great effort for the
GNU/Linux community. I think it is an unsettled, & in our lifetimes
unsettelable, values isssue.
I just wanted to clarify & set the record straight on a few things.
I think some of your statements were innaccurate or inflamatory.
Although I don't appreciate thestuff I consider inflamatory, & I think,
that if that was you intent that that was wrong of you, I recognize life
is short & we all sometimes reasonably sacrafice accuracy for
accomplishment, I'll get over it.
Best wishes to you & yours. (& the lists.)
john_re at fastmail.us
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin
More information about the conspire