Well, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken.

Er, that's not what your post said. But let's continue.

Er, no, it did not: Nobody thought Karsten attempting to drop MikeV from the list roster was appropriate, and nobody said boo about him being removed from the listowner roster over it.

Er, "my issue" was the issue, and you didn't address it at all.

See, there you go again, getting confused between two things. It's too bad Bill Patient pulled that shit in this thread, because that one sentence reveals that you're still confused: (1) I "didn't consider inappropriate" Peter (I think it was) changing the listadmin password, thereby dropping Karsten as a listadmin, because, as I've said innumerable times, Karsten's attempted dropping of MikeV from the list roster was uncalled-for. ( The "he should have asked" stuff was dumb because it was trivial shit not worth fighting over.

No, the listadmin password was changed because of Karsten's abuse of listadmin privileges in his attempt to whack MikeV off the list.

See above. You've confused entirely different things.

Well, I'm sorry, but you've got it wrong, and you've basically missed the entire matter under discussion.

Misrepresentation. I was pointing out that it's flamboyantly erroneous to claim, as Rob did, that four people out of fifty-plus constitutes the voice of a "democracy". Moreover, I denied his equally transparently bogus assertion that no listadmin could ethically ignore such an alleged mandate merely on grounds of his considering their view dumb. (I gave the example of Reply-To munging.)

1. Getting username/password Web-site tokens mailed to the list isn't "making changes" to the list. Dropping members out of peevishness, by contrast, is clear and outright abuse of listadmin status.

2. I didn't "support his right" to generate a half-dozen Web-site-token e-mails per year to the mailing list. I said it was piddly-ass stuff not worth fighting over.

I just reviewed all of my posts to that that thread. I said about three or four people appeared to be going batshit crazy. I said that particular things people said were "feeble and juvenile attempts at character assassination

and complete crap". I said one of the most out-of-control people was a "loser" for talking about signing me up for junkmail. I described blatantly deliberate ignoring of points as "tactical [feigned] stupidity".

Now, what, above and beyond those references to things people say being in my view dumb or crazy, are you referring to? Please cite. (I'm not holding my breath.)

Can we cut the crap, please? Jesus. What the fsck is this stuff about them being "allowed a voice"? Have you entirely lost it, too? Not only were they "allowed a voice" but also killed millions of innocent electrons in the process. My ghod, I can hardly imagine anyone less needing to be worried about being "allowed a voice" than those wack jobs.

In other words, when politely called on it, you decline to substantiate your derogatory personal shot at someone not present to defend himself. I see. Oh well.

I explicitly stated that I read EVERYTHING

Yes, but your post then misrepresented the substance of it.

Well, no. You misrepresented the issue, and misrepresented what I said. Oh well.

Correct. I did not state that dropping someone from the list roster out of pique is OK. Quite the opposite.

You say "flaming" again. Denied. Again, I invite you to cite. Otherwise, you're just yet another one of the attack-the-critic crowd.

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.

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).

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.

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!

You repeating over and over that it was a dumb idea in the first place to expect him to ask...

Incorrect. I didn't say this even once. You might want to re-read.

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.

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.

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.

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".

3. What I said was dumb was raising a stink over Karsten having several Web-site tokens per year posted to the mailing list.

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.

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 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.

So, each and every post to the list is, itself, "a change". I see.

Four people flew off the handle and felt that a notification message embodied "harm". Yes. That was nutso.

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?)

Cite 1) To Brad: "Go for _multidimensional_ chump status, Brad: You know you want to."

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."

Cite 3) To Beep: "Which means you've gratuitously intruded thumb-sucking soap opera in place of rational discussion. Congratulations."

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."

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."

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."

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.

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.

I will substantiate anything you like....

And yet you don't. You post defamatory factual claims, and then refuse to substantiate them. Oh well.

1). That the noise over the incident would evaporate.

2). Karsten would come back. His is a voice that I don't relish going away - IMHO, he's a top notch open source advocate.

3). Solve the problem: Set up an email account for iwethey.org as some have suggested for the purpose that Karsten proposed. I think Karsten has a valid idea. Still, it's probably best not to bother the vtlug.org list with such things.

Perhaps your analysis can be used to further these ends. But I'm not one that particularly cares to assess blame. Either there's a solution or there's not. But that's problem just the boolean logic coming from the programmer in me.

You'll note that the list archive monthlies stop from sometime mid-2002, and resume mid-2003. Ish. The only way to see those messages is to download the entire archives in mbox format (linked at the top of the archives page, I believe), and scroll through 'em that way.

(If you'd gone back far enough in the archives, you would have seen my spat with him.)