re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions
jared said:
You, sir, are a troglodyte whose opinions aren't given much heed to many here.
isn't it strange how everyone's calling me "sir" these days? and marcello's obsession, doing google-searches on me and all, is quite a tribute, don't you think? i mean, i know he likes me and all -- if i were ever feeling lonely, i'd know all i'd have to do is to make a post, and bingo!, just minutes later i'd have a reply, and have any of you had someone put up a "fansite" for you? -- but like i said, y'all might want to consider _pacing_ yourselves. i can keep up this pace. i am a fast typer, and i've written up these ideas so many times already i can do it in my sleep, plus i always keep my cool in the flamewars, since i buy the kind of fire-retardant foam they use on the airport runways and i get it really cheap because i buy it by the tanker-truckload, but you, you guys, you're getting all emotional with terms like "slimeball" and "troglodyte", and i'm afraid one of you might blow a gasket. you might want to take a deep breath, relax, count to ten... :+) -bowerbird
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
and marcello's obsession, doing google-searches on me and all, is quite a tribute, don't you think?
And a big fat search it was ... I simply googled for "bowerbird intelligentleman" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=bowerbird+intelligentleman&btnG=Search and the second result did yield that pretty picture. (There's also his address, if somebody thinks punching him on the nose is worth the airfare.)
i always keep my cool in the flamewars, ... but you, you guys, you're getting all emotional with terms like "slimeball" and "troglodyte", and i'm afraid one of you might blow a gasket.
While you get emotional with terms like:
you tarking naugshlocks here have often accused me of "kissing michael’s ass". ---- Bowerbird 21 Oct 2004
-- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
Could we just ban him from the list and get on with the work? PLEASE? -- Karen Lofstrom
Yes please. On 9/29/05, Karen Lofstrom <lofstrom@lava.net> wrote:
Could we just ban him from the list and get on with the work? PLEASE?
-- Karen Lofstrom
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
Could we just ban him from the list and get on with the work? PLEASE?
The "powers that be" seem strangely reluctant. In any case, if list regulars would just stop responding, that would make a huge difference. Meanwhile, it's easy to filter mail from the list -- though that doesn't help folks getting the digest, which is a major drawback. (And, it's been less useful lately since so many people are joining in.) If an outright ban is still out of the question, here's another idea: create a new list, perhaps gutvol-bb. Auto-subscribe bb and everyone who has responded to him more than n times in the past m months. (Naturally, any of those can unsub, and anyone else can sign up.) Then, having provided a new outlet, ban bb from this list. -- Cheers, Scott S. Lawton http://Classicosm.com/ - classic books http://ProductArchitect.com/ - consulting
On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 12:42:22AM -0400, Scott Lawton wrote:
Could we just ban him from the list and get on with the work? PLEASE?
The "powers that be" seem strangely reluctant.
Speaking as a P.T.B., you are correct. Targeted/selected moderation is a little too much like censorship. Complete moderation is too much work. But see my last paragraph below. We do, however, encourage individuals to manage their own email: - set up personal filters based on message headers or content - respond judiciously - be considerate of others A few people have received private notes from me (and a few others might receive such notes in the future) asking them to be more civil and patient. I am always happy to accept suggestions for people who might need such a reminder, if you do not feel comfortable sending one yourself.
In any case, if list regulars would just stop responding, that would make a huge difference.
Indeed.
Meanwhile, it's easy to filter mail from the list -- though that doesn't help folks getting the digest, which is a major drawback. (And, it's been less useful lately since so many people are joining in.)
If anyone is interested in doing some Mailman hacking (via the fine folks at GNU), or knows folks who do, I would love to have an option that allows subscribers to set personal filters on the Mailman server....this could include "never send me a message from YYY again," as well as "add !!! to ZZZ's messages, since I want to make sure I see them," or "after NNN messages in a thread, bundle them together," or certain action keywords...features that many email clients have, but mailing list server software doesn't.
If an outright ban is still out of the question, here's another idea: create a new list, perhaps gutvol-bb. Auto-subscribe bb and everyone who has responded to him more than n times in the past m months. (Naturally, any of those can unsub, and anyone else can sign up.) Then, having provided a new outlet, ban bb from this list.
We've tried something like this with gutvol-p, to shunt some of the implementation talk away from gutvol-d. I still think this is a good idea, but somehow conversations often end up back on gutvol-d. Possibly because it's a bigger soapbox, with a larger subscribership. Here's a suggestion, for anyone interested: How about a "best of" list, where only selected messages get posted? That's how this type of issue has been handled on the cypherpunks list. As some people have seen me write before, I am generally opposed to new lists (at least on the servers I manage) without a strong evident need. For a moderated list, I would very strongly recommend at least a team of two moderators -- preferably three or more. In case anyone wonders "why can't we do this for the 'posted' list, or the weekly newsletter?," the answer is: you can! But I still would prefer to have several moderators/editors. -- Greg
A very reasonable person typed:
Targeted/selected moderation is a little too much like censorship.
I totally respect the good intentions behind this belief. (Really! That's one reason I suggested an alternative.) But, I think you've fallen into a trap that is very common today: good intentions are no substitute for clear-headed analysis. Allowing the boorish behavior of one guest (made worse by those who fan the flames) is de facto a choice to lower the value of the list for many, many others. As Doug pointed out, we are ALL guests here. It's not censorship to insist on abiding by rules that keep this a pleasant community. And, unlike 20 years ago, there are lots and lots of other places where bb can go to find or create an electronic community where he fits in. ... Even if you can't help but think of banning (or moderating) bb as censorship, it's no different than forbidding posts that are clearly spam (a litany of subjects that I won't mention so as not to get caught by a spam filter). The list is already "censored"; the only question is what's signal and what's noise. I think it's clear that lots of people consider bb to have an unacceptably high level of noise. -- Cheers, Scott S. Lawton http://Classicosm.com/ - classic books http://ProductArchitect.com/ - consulting
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 If I might contribute, even though I've clearly been a part of the problem, for which I apologize and promise to watch my self in the future, I think banning him is the right move here. It has been claimed by Bowerbird and others that this would be censorship of his ideas. I don't believe that this is the right way to look at it. I don't know about everyone else, but I think that his ideas shouldn't be censored. However, I do feel that his attempts to start flame wars and unprovoked attacks on Anne, Juliet, and others should be censored. The problem is that the two are inseparably linked. Bowerbird refuses to present his ideas in a respectful and productive manner, so you clearly can't have one without the other. The question then becomes, which do we value more? Do we want a list without such pollution, or one where all ideas are shared, no matter what might come attached to them? If however, the persons with the final decision making capabilities are not willing to take the step of banning him, then perhaps we should form a list-wide consensus not to respond to him, and ask new comers to do the same. I realize that we've attempted this in the past, but perhaps if we formalize it by a vote, written agreement, or other means, then we might be able to make it stick more effectively. Thoughts? Sincerely Aaron cannon - -- E-mail: cannona@fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.959 Comment: Key available from all major key servers. iD8DBQFDPXY6I7J99hVZuJcRAuHfAJ4pZq0/f65p5Mf7IKud66Nxqe4AYQCgu2gf GKaKcnmCGYdoavHND56tmns= =rh+g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (7)
-
Aaron Cannon -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Greg Newby -
Karen Lofstrom -
Marcello Perathoner -
Melissa Er-Raqabi -
Scott Lawton