[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

re: ideals, guidelines and rules

On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 3:08 PM, MJ Ray <mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote:

>> Can you see the trend?

> Yes.  According to that, things appear to be getting better.

Oh yeah?
Because of the part you dont quote, that cyber execution of uncomfy
people is the prefered method for fixing social problems?

>> [...] since the Hans Reiser Syndrome (this could become my first ever
>> contribution to wikipedia) we know that hundreds of Debian project
>> members have not only a very high potential to grow social violence
>> within all kinds of groups (and the victims then need to be shot).
>> We also see a huge problem with trust, right?

> Not huge, but a problem.  Also, there is no Hans Reiser Syndrome in
> wikipedia at this time.

"this could become my first ever contribution to wikipedia" means that
I still have not made any contributions, yes.

> [...] The open approach is very good for security.

But limited to code only?
Or tell me please, why are people removed to report massive social
problems, as trustable people is one of the main component of security

Why is the mechanisms around the cabal, gossip and slander used
to keep the community together instead of a clean, transparent and
functional leadership structure?

>> Will you buy a new computer with Debian [...]

> I'll still buy computers with debian on because simply asking
> questions doesn't make one like Paddy.

There can be only one real Paddy who might have alternative cyber
identities, but you better not become me. Thats right.

> You'd need to threaten legal action to other related projects and
> then complain that the debian project won't help you participate
> in those other projects, while also failing to address the
> outstanding legal threats.

Please. You play that game quite well, but you flash that card since
15 months and its still not hitting the nail.

After a years old cyber battle with certain people, chats have seen
full of creativity of this kind:

Example 1:  * Ganneff has forced your nick to "retarded"
Example 2:  <vorlon> i have 3 world class os releases to my credit
                              you little worm
Example 3:  * Closing Link: (autokilled: i did your mom)

To that time sir David Graham was jerking me as reaction to a
(helpless) help request and I found it suitable to explain to him,
that the good old IRC tradition, to put in the server motd text
like "we can terminate your connection anytime we like without
any reason given" is plain bullshit when you know a little bit
about the law situation in europe.

And I hold that opinion up till today.

When you use ircop priviledges because you love it how people
fall from the server although they did not violate any policy, and
later you have to make up slander to backup your abuse, then
we have that situation that clowns have seen somebody on IRC
who made a legal threat.


But do you seriously imply the leadership of SPI Inc. refuses to
talk to me because of such cat poop?

Good comedy. I have 2 more questions then.

Harassment usually violates the network policy, right?
Why do we have hundreds of cases in the last years where
OFTC Staff tells victims of harassment:

"Dont take IRC so seriously, grow up!"

or -

"use /ignore" and when the person insists they ban the guy
who reported abuse?


Why are channels like #debian and #debian.de famous for
torturing newbies?

Also very interesting:

Since 1-2 years I sometimes sit on irc.oftc.net all silent.
And while I sit on several channels I frequently see people
who get banned with the comment

"muahaha, must have been Patrick Frank the troll"

Very appealing.

Reply to: