Re: Sadly, you've been mislead about what the issue was

Post #125,422 by rickmoen 11/12/03 7:45:22 PM Reply	Re: Sadly, you've been mislead about what the issue was Nightowl wrote: A choice to disagree cannot be a mistake. You seem to be choosing to ignore my point, that it is founded in fundamental error. I beg to differ. Granted. I've shut off the orbital mind-control lasers, for now. ;-> I explicitly stated that I read EVERYTHING Yes, but your post then misrepresented the substance of it. I addressed it fine. Well, no. You misrepresented the issue, and misrepresented what I said. Oh well. I told you that I had gathered that you thought what Karsten did... (Referring to his having several Web-site username/password tokens mailed to the mailing list over about a year.) ...was no big deal, caused no harm to the list, and that you repeatedly said it was dumb. Correct. I did not state that dropping someone from the list roster out of pique is OK. Quite the opposite. That was your biggest argument, throughout the entire list exchange in between flaming and fighting with others. 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. And I told you that I disagreed, that it was NOT dumb to expect Karsten to ask the list before taking any actions, and it was in fact, the thing he should have done. 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 never said your comments about a dumb idea related in any way shape or form to the removing his admin status. 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. Read Rob's post again. He lists SEVERAL reasons as to why he chose to remove Karsten's admin priveleges, and it wasn't just because of removing someone. 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. Nope, I don't think so. I'll spell it out again. a) You were stating that Karsten did nothing wrong by using the list address for whatever he was doing with 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. b) You insisted it was dumb to expect him to ask the list or consider the list members before taking any actions. 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". 2. Consequently, no, I did not insist "it was dumb to expect" something that was never discussed. 3. What I said was dumb was raising a stink over Karsten having several Web-site tokens per year posted to the mailing list. c)You agree that it was okay to remove his admin priveleges because he got mad and removed Mike, "Agreed"? Hell, I said what Karsten did was disproportionate and unmerited. You don't completely understand why his admin priveleges were removed, and it was because of a series of transgressions, not just removing Mike. 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. Four people out of 50 plus DOES constitute a democratic decision, if the 4 people speak up and the 46 others do not. I need not comment further on this assertion: It's self-parodying. 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. You said he was not doing anyone any harm... That is correct. ...but you cannot speak for everyone... Nor did I purport to. ...and some people obviously felt different. Four people flew off the handle and felt that a notification message embodied "harm". Yes. That was nutso. 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." Do you need any more? ;) 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?) See? You STILL flame people. Now you are calling them wack jobs. 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. EVERY member of the list deserves to have a voice, nuff said. And who the hell was deprived of a "voice"? Not the four screamers, that's for bloody damned sure. I will substantiate anything you like.... And yet you don't. You post defamatory factual claims, and then refuse to substantiate them. Oh well. Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.com If you lived here, you'd be $HOME already.
Post #125,436 by Nightowl 11/12/03 10:24:52 PM Reply	Re: Sadly, you've been mislead about what the issue was Owl wrote: 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# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!" "illegitimi nil carborundum" Comment by Nightowl
Post #125,494 by Nightowl 11/13/03 12:11:41 PM Reply	Here you go, Rick! December incident with Karsten and Aberdeen: Rick wrote:>>This is now the third time I'm asking you to show me where previously Karsten abused his listadmin access.<< FROM THE MAILING LIST: Date: 7 Dec 2002 01:51:23 -0000 Message-ID: <20021207015123.26731.qmail@web11.cheetahmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 From: "Aberdeen Group" <confirm-192110296-0-73417168-2qevqbv5fzruq@adm.cheetahmail.com> Reply-To: confirm-192110296-0-73417168-2qevqbv5fzruq@adm.cheetahmail.com To: iwe@vtluug.org Subject: [Iwe] Aberdeen Group Registration Confirmation - Please REPLY Sender: iwe-admin@www.vtluug.org Errors-To: iwe-admin@www.vtluug.org X-BeenThere: iwe@www.vtluug.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: <[link\|mailto:iwe-request@www.vtluug.org?subject=help>\|mailto:iwe-request@w...org?subject=help>] List-Post: <[link\|mailto:iwe@www.vtluug.org>\|mailto:iwe@www.vtluug.org>] List-Subscribe: <[link\|http://www.vtluug.org/mailman/listinfo/iwe>\|http://www.vtluug.or...man/listinfo/iwe>], \t<[link\|mailto:iwe-request@www.vtluug.org?subject=subscribe>\|mailto:iwe-request@w...ubject=subscribe>] List-Id: IWETHEY Mailing List <iwe.www.vtluug.org> List-Unsubscribe: <[link\|http://www.vtluug.org/mailman/listinfo/iwe>\|http://www.vtluug.or...man/listinfo/iwe>], \t<[link\|mailto:iwe-request@www.vtluug.org?subject=unsubscribe>\|mailto:iwe-request@w...ject=unsubscribe>] List-Archive: <[link\|http://www.vtluug.org/pipermail/iwe/>\|http://www.vtluug.org/pipermail/iwe/>] ==================================================================== PLEASE CONFIRM: Aberdeen Group Registration ==================================================================== THANKS for registering to receive e-mail subscriptions from Aberdeen Group. In order to protect our subscribers from spam emails, we ask that you confirm your registration: CONFIRM BY EMAIL -> JUST REPLY ************************** From static@yceran.org Fri Dec 6 22:46:57 2002 Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2002 14:52:17 +1100 To: iwe@vtluug.org From: Wade Bowmer <static@yceran.org> Subject: Re: [Iwe] Thank You What's this rubbish and why has it let a mailing list successfully subscribe? Wade. ************************* From bbarclay@jsyncmanager.org Fri Dec 6 23:01:42 2002 To: "iwe@vtluug.org" <iwe@vtluug.org> Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 21:56:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [Iwe] Aberdeen Group Registration Confirmation - Please REPLY On 7 Dec 2002 01:51:23 -0000, Aberdeen Group wrote: Hey Everyone: >THANKS for registering to receive e-mail subscriptions from Aberdeen Group. >In order to protect our subscribers from spam emails, we ask that >you confirm your registration: \tWTF is this crap? Who registered this mailing list to receive this stuff? \tWhomever it was, I'm not particularily happy about it. If I wanted their junk, I'd register for it myself. ********************* From karsten@guildenstern.dyndns.org Sun Dec 8 02:45:45 2002 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 07:54:26 +0000 From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> To: "iwe@vtluug.org" <iwe@vtluug.org> Subject: Re: [Iwe] Aberdeen Group Registration Confirmation - Please REPLY I signed for an Aberdeen Group password. Their posts won't hit the list unless the sending address is subscribed. I manually approved the conf messages. I'll track down the unsub info when I'm tired of manually kicking any posts that come from their address. Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/] ********************** From ronelson@vt.edu Sun Dec 8 05:18:20 2002 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 05:23:44 -0500 From: Rob Nelson <ronelson@vt.edu> To: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>, iwe <iwe@vtluug.org> Subject: RE: [Iwe] Aberdeen Group Registration Confirmation - Please REPLY Is there a reason that it's being sent to the list? Rob Nelson ronelson@vt.edu ************************ From static@yceran.org Sun Dec 8 05:41:13 2002 Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 21:46:43 +1100 To: "iwe@vtluug.org" <iwe@vtluug.org> From: Wade Bowmer <static@yceran.org> Subject: Re: [Iwe] Aberdeen Group Registration Confirmation - Please Okay, now why is this useful? And why did you see fit to subscribe the list to them without consulting the other people subscribed to this list? I'm sorry, but I wasn't aware it was your personal mail list, Karsten. ********************** (SKIPPED IRRELEVANT POST, KARSTEN ANSWERS ROB) From karsten@guildenstern.dyndns.org Sun Dec 8 17:47:59 2002 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 22:56:48 +0000 From: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> To: iwe <iwe@vtluug.org> Subject: Re: [Iwe] Aberdeen Group Registration Confirmation - Please REPLY This list (or specifically: the administrator approval dialog, which is where the messages will end up) is being used as the contact point for this aberdeen account. Most significanlty, if there's a need to get a password reset or reminder sent, it will go to a known address. I subscribed to Aberdeen as one of several free-for-use-but-registration- required systems (The New York Times, LA Times, etc., are others). Aberdeen doesn't allow the iwethey/iwethey id/passphrase the key is email/passphrase -- iwethey@vtluug.org/iwethey. Peace. Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> [link\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/\|http://kmself.home.netcom.com/] ********************** (SEVERAL MESSAGES ABOUT THE ISSUE-- SNIPPED) From ronelson@vt.edu Sun Dec 8 23:20:41 2002 Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2002 23:26:13 -0500 To: "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com>, Subject: RE: [Iwe] Re: Aberdeen Group Registration Confirmation - Please REPLY FWIW, please remember that this mailing list and the forums do NOT overlap 100%. There are people on the boards that aren't here, and people on here that aren't on the boards. And, as a fellow list admin, in the future try and let at least me know what's up :) Sorry to hear about your problems, Karsten. If there's anything I can do (aside from make this my last comment in this thread!) let me know. Rob Nelson ronelson@vt.edu ********************** Rick, do you need more? There's a lot more. This clearly proves that Karsten had done this before, and is not gossip, it comes straight from the archives. Nightowl >8# P.S. Now I have some important things to do to get ready for therapy today, so I'll deal with the other parts I promised to research, later. "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!" "illegitimi nil carborundum" Comment by Nightowl
Post #125,745 by Ashton 11/14/03 6:46:14 PM Reply	Heads Up, Raptorous One (new thread) Created as new thread #125744 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=125744\|Heads Up, Raptorous One] "Anyone can become angry. That is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose and in the right way - that is not easy." -- Aristotle via Alex
Post #125,468 by drewk 11/13/03 9:27:29 AM Reply	Small point Rick: You say "flaming" again. Denied. Again, I invite you to cite. Otherwise, you're just yet another one of the attack-the-critic crowd. Rick (in the same post): 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. You admit that you put something in, that you did not mean literally, for the express purpose of provoking a reation. Then claim that's not flaming. You really are an unmitigated jackass. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #125,534 by Nightowl 11/13/03 4:40:44 PM Reply	Here's another one for you, Rick! Okay, since I can't seem to read Karsten's email attachment yet, I'll take care of this loose end instead. 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.<< Instances where you said expecting Karsten to ask was dumb: FIRST ONE Bill Patient wrote:>>However, the readership reacted to the first instance quickly and imo didn't leave alot of ambiguity...Karsten was asked to not do it again.<< Rick wrote:>>When one person makes a dumb and meritless request of me, I ignore it. When ten others join him, I ignore ten people. A hundred people ask? I ignore a hundred people. Perhaps your policy differs?<< SECOND ONE Brad wrote:>>What part of "please don't do it again" was unclear the first time?<< Rick wrote:>>What part of "it was dumb" was unclear at any time?<< THIRD ONE Brad wrote:>>We went through this once before.<< Rick wrote:>>And it was dumb then.<< All of these were taken from the November Archives on the mailing list. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!" "illegitimi nil carborundum" Comment by Nightowl
Post #125,542 by ChrisR 11/13/03 5:02:16 PM Reply	Personally, I wish 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.
Post #125,543 by Nightowl 11/13/03 5:04:40 PM Reply	Re: Personally, I wish 1). That the noise over the incident would evaporate. I hope so too. I think I covered the last thing Rick demanded me to validate. 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. I wish he would come back too, and that I could find out what the message was he tried to send to me. 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. I hope that can happen too. 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. I'm NOT trying to assess blame whatsoever. I have not even given a position on the original mess, I was just challenged by Rick to explain where my views were taken from, and I answered that challenge. I'm done, next move is Rick's. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!" "illegitimi nil carborundum" Comment by Nightowl
Post #125,557 by bepatient 11/13/03 6:59:56 PM Reply	That has alwas been the consensus 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 vtluug.org list with such things. Its easier to remember and it eliminates the need to have 50-odd people get confirmation messages they don't want. As long as iwethey.org remains intact, that account remains active. Even Rick has stated he would have done it this way. It is a technically superior solution in that... 1) Its easier for the users 2) Its standard addressing aligns with the web presence 3) Noone need see anything until Karsten has updated his resource list, at whcih point he can post once to the boards and once to the list to inform of any updates. Karsten does alot for this community and I know he considered this another valuable resource...and all the noise was not about anything other than methodology. I don't even pretend to understand the reaction. But I have been put in my place and will remain there until told otherwise. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #125,595 by folkert 11/13/03 10:17:04 PM Reply	This... iwethey@iwethey.org has been a valid e-mail address since March 14, 2003. Any ideas as to we can do with it? -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey*
Post #125,607 by bepatient 11/13/03 10:42:10 PM Reply	One or 2 things come to mind. Smartypants. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #125,619 by ChrisR 11/13/03 11:33:55 PM Reply	Any way to set up a web page... ...that echoes the messages received at that account?
Post #125,627 by folkert 11/13/03 11:51:39 PM Reply	Maybe... We shall see. Have to be Next week. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey*

Welcome to IWETHEY!