Re: Sadly, you've been mislead about what the issue was
I explicitly stated that I read EVERYTHING
Rick wrote:
Yes, but your post then misrepresented the substance of it.
AND
Well, no. You misrepresented the issue, and misrepresented what I said. Oh well.
Show me examples of misrepresentation, and please cite. :)
Correct. I did not state that dropping someone from the list roster out of pique is OK. Quite the opposite.
Nor did I ever state that you said it was. :)
You say "flaming" again. Denied. Again, I invite you to cite. Otherwise, you're just yet another one of the attack-the-critic crowd.
I cited 6 examples, want more?
And, if by "biggest argument" you mean it was my main point that picking a big-ass hoohaw with Karsten over causing several Web-site access tokens per year to be sent to the list is disproportionate and dumb, you are correct.
I agree the fight itself was dumb, but the issue it was about, was not. Karsten did not take into consideration the wishes and opinions of the list members, and simply did what he did and announced it, not asked.
Now, if you'd just stuck to that and made it clear, rather than haring off after a mistake about a listadmin malfeasance that everyone agreed was such -- even Karsten, pretty much immediately after he did it -- we could have had a reasonable discussion rather than wasting your time and mine (to the accompaniment of mob ritual approval from the usual suspects).
My discussion was quite reasonable. :) Yours on the other hand....
Since you mention that, what he'd been asked to do was to post a notice before doing it. And, actually, he did so. Now, you're the gal who says she goes back and reads everything minutely: Go ahead. You can confirm that for yourself.
I saw his notice. Posting a notice that you are doing something, and consulting with others before doing it are two entirely different things. He should have run the whole idea by the list before using the address for anything.
From my own perspective, who the hell cares about "posting notices" and "asking the list", when all we're talking about is someone registering a username/password pair for Web-site access? Sheesh. If he'd been doing ten of those a day, maybe. But with maybe a half-dozen over a year, the mail volume simply isn't significant, and the notion that some precious collective resource is being consumed or used in that process is simply crazy. Hello? It's just postings of Web-site access passwords!
I would. I would care alot about being asked, because then I would feel like my opinion counted. Some people don't want ANY messages they haven't asked for, and they have that right. Some people have fears about the list address getting misused, and they would be right to be cautious about any use it might get other than to deal with list messages between members. I agree with a majority of people who posted on the list that if they wanted these passwords, they could have simply asked for them, rather than notifying everyone of them. Still, had Karsten asked, or consulted with them, the whole situation might have been different.
Owl wrote:
You repeating over and over that it was a dumb idea in the first place to expect him to ask...
Rick wrote:
Incorrect. I didn't say this even once. You might want to re-read.
I'll go back and find examples. :)
I didn't attribute such a statement to you. I merely said you appeared to be confused about the nature of the issue that had been under discussion.
You seem to fail to understand there was more than one issue under discussion. There was a) Karsten's use of the list address for these subscriptions. b) A discussion of Karsten's PREVIOUS use of the list address for similar purposes, (something I have not yet located in the list archives, but if someone would give me a date this occurred, or where to look, I will), c) Karsten's disrespect for other Admins, including Peter and Scott and Rob, in taking actions without consulting them, BOTH about the use of the address, AND removing a member without just cause. and d) Whether or not the list members had the right to speak up and have a voice or state their wishes.
Those are the 4 MAIN issues, and there were also a few minor ones, such as Peter's treatment by Karsten, and some incident that occurred on something called Lugod, (something else I have not located how to read about yet).
Cite, please. There was a great deal of noise in the thread, but the only reason that would make any sense in context was his wrongful attempt to drop MikeV from the list roster. That was abuse of admin access. The other thing was just a few messages a year with Web-site access tokens.
That would have been the main reason, I agree, but many many people stated Karsten had done other things that abused his Admin priveleges in the past, and as soon as I can figure out where to read about them, I will indeed cite them. For now, I have to trust that all those people aren't wrong. If you would point me to whatever date or site I can read about Lugod, or anything else Rob mentioned in his post, I would be happy to go read it.
No, I did not state this at any time. What I said was that bellyaching about several messages a year with Web-site access tokens was piddly-ass shit not worth fighting over.
Fine, bandy over semantics. You didn't say "nothing wrong" you said, "Caused no harm" Bottom line, you didn't say he shouldn't have done it.
1. The term "taking any actions" is so vague as to render the entire sentence meaningless in this context. Fortunately, nobody suggested Karsten (or any other listadmin) "ask the list before taking any actions".
Taking any actions = doing anything that might affect the list, i.e.: changing the way it is run, changing the content that comes to it, using it for anything other than the list itself, removing people, changing statuses of people, etc. etc. etc. It is COMMON COURTESY when co-moderating any group to ASK the other Admins about anything you want to do when changing or using the list/group for anything other than it's original purpose.
3. What I said was dumb was raising a stink over Karsten having several Web-site tokens per year posted to the mailing list.
So you are now saying it's dumb for people to express their opinion if they don't like something? I agree it was a "dumb fight" but the members expressing their desires for him not to use the list address, was not dumb.
Again, you are merely regurgitating someone else's vague and disreputable accusation. Once again, I call your attention back to my point: If you are going to go around making derogatory assertions of fact of this sort, you need to substantiate them. This is now the third time I'm asking you to show me where previously Karsten abused his listadmin access. Telling me that someone else (Rob or whoever) claimed that to be the case merely means you are prepared to repeat gossip as fact.
And I stated before, tell me where to go read about the incident "last December" or where to go read about Lugod, or better yet, give me Rob's email and I'll write him and ask, and I'll be happy to research some more and cite examples when found. I don't consider something gossip when it's stated by many more than one person and in more than one place, I start to give it credence and check it out.
You have already declined twice to back up your assertion with evidence, and this is now your third time. If you decline that one, too, I'll be left to conclude that you are fine with launching attacks on people's integrity behind their back, and refusing to back them up when challenged. That would be unfortunate.
I never declined anything. I told you, tell me where to read about it. That stands for anyone, tell me where to read, and I'll do it. I've launched no attack on you, I've not flamed you once, I've not insulted you once. I've simply read at length, a long drawn out series of posts and made observations about them, and not JUST about you.
Owl wrote:
I disagree. ANYTHING that affects the list, comes to the list, appears on the list, or otherwise interacts with the list that was not already known about by all, is a change.
Rick wrote:
So, each and every post to the list is, itself, "a change". I see.
In one sense, yes, it is. Every post in every group on the internet "changes" the group's content. However, I said a change not already known about by all, as in "not a regular member post". Does that make it clearer?
Four people flew off the handle and felt that a notification message embodied "harm". Yes. That was nutso.
If it bothered them in any manner, it is deemed "harm" to them. Go read a law book, and you'll see.
What exactly is your point? I told people they were behaving stupidly. If you are confusing that with personal attack, you are simply mistaken. (Perhaps you're used to AOL and other refuges for extreme hypersensitivity?)
No, you didn't JUST tell people they were behaving stupidly. You used derogatory adjectives, demeaning comments and outright snide remarks. I'll demonstrate how you could have told people they were behaving stupidly below:
Cite 1) To Brad: "Go for _multidimensional_ chump status, Brad: You know you want to."
Instead of Cite 1, you could have said: "I know you are trying to get under my skin, but I won't let you."
Cite 2) To Brad: "I'm just rubbing your nose in what you wrote -- pretty much the exact way one would with a misbehaved puppy."
Instead of Cite 2, "I'm just trying to get you to see why I think what you said is wrong."
Cite 3) To Beep: "Which means you've gratuitously intruded thumb-sucking soap opera in place of rational discussion. Congratulations."
Instead of Cite 3, "I don't think you are being very rational here."
Cite 4) To Mike & Peter: "Mike, I've just had a truly depressing realisation. It's depressing because I had assumed you were a bright sort. Ditto Peter."
Instead of Cite 4, "I thought you were both pretty smart, are you telling me you really do NOT get this?"
Cite 5) Also to Mike and Peter: "I was being _charitable_ in assuming you two were merely a few gears shy of a working clockworks. The alternative is that you're more than a bit nuts."
Instead of Cite 5, "I don't think you know what you are talking about"
Cite 6) To Brad: "For example: What kind of freak name is 'Yaz'? Get that crud out of my mailbox, Brad; it's pissing me off." That's piddly-ass annoyance."
And instead of Cite 6, "What does Yaz stand for, and I don't want this email in my email box, Brad."
I say people are being wack jobs when they behave like wack jobs. I say *I'm* a wack job when I behave like a wack job. If by some bizarre chance you think I was making a literal assertion about need for psychiatric attention, then you are profoundly mistaken.
Justifying why you are flaming someone does not make it not flaming them. I didn't mean you meant they needed mental help, I knew your intent, which was to demean them, and you did.
In fact, I threw that in there just to see if you would go for it, and call it "flaming", specifically so I could make that point.
Kewl. :)
I will substantiate anything you like....
And yet you don't. You post defamatory factual claims, and then refuse to substantiate them. Oh well.
Just point me to the threads in question. Thanks.
Nightowl >8#