RE: [ga-abuse] Fw: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and suspension.

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Patrick,
Jeff Williams is already suspended.
This post was not in the GA list, only in ga_full (which is unmonitored), or
received by cc + bcc addressees.
Roberto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au]
> Sent: Thursday, 19 April 2001 2:12
> To: [ga-abuse]
> Subject: [ga-abuse] Fw: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and
> suspension.
> 
> 
> List Monitors
> 
> Complaint against Jeff Williams (see below)
> Grounds:  Flaming, Insults and Slander
> (a)    That I regularly violate the rules
> (b)    That I am dishonest and deceptive
> (c)    That I betray my official mandate
> 
> >   I must concur with Eric here.  The old logical fallacy of 
> "Appeal to
> Authority"
> > is or was definitely exercised here in the extreme.  
> Therefore I would
> > like to register a complaint against Patrick Corliss for 
> this obvious
> violation
> > of the very rules to which he purports to support, yet we 
> have now seen
> > on three different occasions in the past three weeks he does not
> > intend to adhere to himself...
> 
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: Eric Dierker <ERIC@hi-tek.com>
> Cc: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>; Babybows.com
> <webmaster@babybows.com>; David Farrar <david@farrar.com>; 
> [GA] <ga@dnso.org>;
> dnso abuse <ga-abuse@dnso.org>; DNSO Secretariat 
> <DNSO.Secretariat@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:51 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Rules and Procedures for voting and suspension.
> 
> 
> > Eric and all remaining assembly members,
> >
> >   I must concur with Eric here.  The old logical fallacy of 
> "Appeal to
> Authority"
> > is or was definitely exercised here in the extreme.  
> Therefore I would
> > like to register a complaint against Patrick Corliss for 
> this obvious
> violation
> > of the very rules to which he purports to support, yet we 
> have now seen
> > on three different occasions in the past three weeks he does not
> > intend to adhere to himself...
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Chair:
> > >
> > > I use this heavily snipped message of Mr. Corliss to try 
> to convince you to
> take
> > > action before it is to late. This is the alt-chair 
> writing this post and
> after
> > > taking away the several pages of him defending himself it 
> is clear that our
> own
> > > alt-chair does not even have a handle on the concepts of 
> rule of order.
> Within the
> > > same message he contradicts himself as to material 
> rules/policies/practices
> and
> > > custom.
> > >
> > > You must immediately if not sooner establish rules which 
> must be followed
> and
> > > followed by the letter not by subjective and biased 
> determinations of
> individuals. A
> > > monarchy is a rule of man and what we need is not another 
> king but a rule of
> law.
> > > This last problem was so transparently a fight between 
> Corliss and Walsh and
> Corliss
> > > winning because he has position that it is shocking.
> > >
> > > Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > >
> > > However, you do have a valid point.  In this respect, I 
> would advise that
> there
> > >
> > > > has never been any intention to enforce the daily limit 
> blindly.  The
> intention
> > > > of the restriction was to reduce the overall "noise" on 
> the list.
> > > >
> > > > Thus if a person occasionally goes over the limit, and 
> posts six or even
> seven,
> > > > emails, I would personally not consider this of utmost 
> gravity.  But what
> we are
> > > > talking about here, as far as I can see, is a 
> systematic and deliberate
> breach
> > > > of list protocols.  This is exactly the problem, and 
> the harm, that the
> posting
> > > > rules were introduced to combat in the first place.  It 
> is not a minor
> matter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The above shows a complete lack of knowledge of the 
> differences between
> rules,
> > > suggestions, custom and practice not to mention intention 
> and motivation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There are many examples of "flame wars" on this and 
> other lists.  My
> feeling is
> > > > that we have constructive work to do and even your post 
> is not assisting
> that
> > > > task.  I have, for example, spent much of the past week 
> working on list
> research
> > > > and debate.
> > > >
> > > > To make it clear I am not just talking about an hour or 
> two, here or
> there, I am
> > > > talking about sustained effort for days and days.  With 
> very little to
> show for
> > > > it.  In fact, I genuinely feel this is very much a 
> wasted effort unless we
> have
> > > > your support.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The above illustrates the labor intensity required when 
> making up and
> justifying
> > > rules on the fly. It also shows the extent to which men 
> will go to prove
> themselves
> > > right instead of enforcing a rule.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > As I have been named (and now warned) I have checked my 
> posts for the days
> in
> > > > question.  This is not a trivial task because I am in 
> Australia and
> perhaps 19
> > > > hours difference in time from the West Coast of the 
> States.  The details
> are
> > > > below for ease of checking by anyone on the list who 
> feels they need to do
> that.
> > > >
> > >
> > > > However, I am now left with 10 postings on 17 April  
> 2001.  This was, of
> course,
> > > > the day that I tried to bring the list to order in my 
> official capacity as
> > > > Co-Chair.
> > > >
> > > > By my count, five of these namely (2), (3), (6), (7) 
> and (8) were clearly
> > > > official
> > > > And without checking, I think you'll find that I signed 
> them as such.
> > > >
> > > > So this brings my posting to the exact limit of five on 
> 17 April also.
> > > >
> > > > It is clear that I have taken great care to maintain my 
> posting rate at
> exactly
> > > > the five posts per day limit.  The fact that I reminded 
> other people about
> the
> > > > limit shows the genuine nature of my compliance.  I ask 
> the the Chair to
> lift
> > > > the warning
> > > >
> > > > You noted that Christopher Ambler breached the posting 
> limit on 12, 14, 15
> > > > April.  You will also recall that much of this was a 
> debate with Mr Walsh.
> I
> > > > leave each of you to make your own judgment on its 
> merits.  Mr Ambler is
> not now
> > > > subscribed.
> > > >
> > > > However, it was to minimise such unnecessary posting 
> that I posted the
> onlist
> > > > reminder of the posting limts on 16 April, my local 
> time.  I also
> intervened the
> > > > next day.  It is as clear to me as could be that 
> officials are entitled to
> > > > expect some co-operation and goodwill from those who 
> only so recently
> elected
> > > > them.
> > > >
> > > > Many reference have been made to the posting limit and 
> it was clearly
> adopted by
> > > > the present administration by my posting addressed to 
> Mr Ambler and Mr
> Walsh.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This has got to take the cake, if it is the poster's 
> local time which
> determines the
> > > 24 hour period then why did Mr. Corliss have a hard time 
> here? Doesn't he
> have a
> > > sent file that can list time and dates for himself? If it 
> is a list 24 hour
> then
> > > what?
> > > We are talking freedom of speech here in a supposedly 
> bottom up method.  Top
> dogs
> > > don't just make rules by posting something in a bottom up 
> method. Since when
> does a
> > > Chair and alt-chair become an administration.
> > >
> > > It is irresponsible alt-chair posting like this that then 
> gets later cited
> by some
> > > records genius as establishing a rule.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
> > > > To: Christopher Ambler <cambler-dompol@iodesign.com>; 
> William X. Walsh
> > > > <william@userfriendly.com>
> > > > Cc: [GA] <ga@dnso.org>
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 2:19 PM
> > > > Subject: [ga] Excessive Postings
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Everybody
> > > > >
> > > > > I can see this particular issue taking quite a few 
> more postings to
> resolve.
> > > > > For the sake of list decorum,  perhaps we should all 
> try to keep to our
> five
> > > > > postings per day limit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Meanwhile I'd ask the Chair Elect to call for 
> volunteers to act as List
> > > > Monitor.
> > > >
> > > > In case it is not still not clear, I again remind 
> everybody of this list
> that
> > > > there is a limit of five postings per day.  This is 
> calculated on the
> basis of
> > > > the posting party's own local time ending at midnight.  
> The List Monitors
> are
> > > > given the discretion to allow minor and occasional breaches in
> circumstances of
> > > > genuine attempts to comply.
> > > >
> > > > List Monitors should also consider the "harm" that this 
> ruling is designed
> to
> > > > address when applying their discretion towards postings 
> over the daily
> limit.
> > > >
> > > > Note:    Although this posting contains an official 
> reminder I must
> include it
> > > > in my daily posting count.  Supporting documentation 
> about my postings
> follows:
> > > >
> > >
> > > This last is so blatant as almost all of the snipped 
> portions of this post
> are in
> > > defense of the writer's own wrongful postings.
> > >
> > > This has got to stop!  Mr. Younger you must establish 
> written rules that are
> posted
> > > that we can read and abide by or suffer consequences when 
> violated.  They
> must be
> > > put in place and then argued over and modified based upon 
> written procedure
> for such
> > > matters.
> > >
> > > We must have firm voting rules.
> > > We must have firm list decorum rules.
> > > We must have firm modification of above rules.
> > > There must be restrictions placed upon the obscene use of 
> position that Mr.
> Corliss
> > > is trying to manipulate.
> > >
> > > Oh and hand picking the monitors - no, no, no, no, no!
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Eric Dierker
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
>