Re: *plonk* Re: Code of Conduct (was Re: Totally [OT] Re: Opium)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:50:09 -0800
"Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> on Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 04:49:14AM +0000, ben (ben_foley@web.de)
> wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:23:48 +0800
> > csj <csj@zapo.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:54:17 -0800,
> > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > >
> > > > on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 09:19:48AM +0800, csj (csj@zapo.net)
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 08:48:14 -0800,
> > > > > Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [...]
> > > > >
> > > > > > As several (in or out of the) closet anarchists have replied
> > > > > > that self-control is apparently beyond their mein, I'll
> > > > > > remind them that consequences for actions are also their
> > > > > > responsibility. Including finding themselves ignored by
> > > > > > those who value s over n.
> > > > >
>
> > while some of us may have got carried away on the exuberance of our
> > collective velocity, where colin requested that the thread be
> > closed, i think that there were only one or two respondents who
> > failed to respect that request. karsten's manner, on the other hand,
> > comes across as an order,
>
> I'd individually contacted most (all I could find) participants of the
> thread, after it had persisted for several days. Most of these either
> didn't respond (but ceased posting to the thread) or replied
> apologetically.
yeah, i was one of those to whose addresses you felt yourself obliged to
reply, off list--despite the fact that there is a defacto rule in
existence among those who've been a certain time with the list, that
unless a private response is specifically requested, the same is
undesired. but, never mind--that's just one of the expectations one
might have. it seems worth pointing out that colin's presentation of his
disgruntlement with the thread received a favorable response, in that
only one schmuck (okay, one and a half) [incidentally, bigger problem:
how does one regard one and a half? it's not exactly three quarters of
two--is it? really?] made the mistake of not recognising that when colin
points out that enough is enough, he's not asking anybody to remember
any rules--he's appropriately chiding us for having tested the patience
of the list, full in the knowledge that we know, and that we know that
he knows that we know. are you still with me?
>
> Several disputed the basis of my request. Which is:
>
> - List charter: "Help and discussion among users of Debian".
> - Code of conduct: ""
>
> > and, as such, is damn near guaranteed to raise the ire of anyone
> > with a brain. particularly, comments such as the anarchist reference
> > above are totally unwarranted
>
> Several of the individuals who chose to dispute (at length) my request
> with me made specific reference to anarchist principles.
which magically entitles you to daub everyone with the same brush--as,
apparently you don't hold a lot of regard for anarchists (or perhaps its
only the closet anarchists with whom you have an issue)?
> I'd recommend you speak of what you know. In this case, you are
> beyond your depth.
what is that supposed to mean? the issue is your manner; not what ever
power you imagine yourself to have, whether real or otherwise. thanks
for the advice. here's a thought in return: go outside more often; get
some air while the sun is still up.
i don't know if you've noticed but you've kinda already stepped in the
same stuff you're accusing others of not cleaning from their shoe.
>
> > and indeed no less of an indulgence than participation in the thread
> > itself. furthermore, the threat of "consequences" strikes me as a
> > tad too authoritarian for this particular list.
>
> Consequences are simply a matter of mutual respect. If you show
> respect of others on the list by following posted and general
> Netiquette guidelines, you'll find your postings receive a reading,
> and possibly, a response.
the thread that provokes your outrage swiftly evaporated in response to
colin's request. my position is that your approach to the issue provokes
resentment at the tone of your communication, rather than that it
accommodates mutual respect.
and, sorry, the phrase "consequences are simply a matter of human
respect" is just not working for me. that's getting way too beyond
buddhist, even for me. you must be right. i must be in over my head. so,
like, how much respect do you figure it takes for the right thing to
happen? how does one actually work with that proposed axiom, there?
c'mon. lighten up. it's like how the best-reared and best-bred kids in
the world sometimes go out and get plastered drunk, no matter what their
rules or potential. sometimes one just busts out and breaks some
mendable, and has some fun. never stole your daddy's car, eh?
>
> If you choose to abuse the list and its subscribers, you'll find that
> people chose to ignore your postings, either on a case-by-case basis,
> or by technical means, including killfiles. I also specifically
> forwarded at least one message to a Debian project member as the
> individual more or less explicitly begged to be removed from the list,
> and I was unable to fulfill the reqeust.
what? want to fill us in on "more or less...?"
>
> As several individual failed to show respect to the list, and
> specifically showed a studied lack of respect to either myself, Colin
> Watson, or both, I felt that the favor of a reply or reading was no
> longer warranted.
i rest on the previous points above regarding the difference in the
response to you and to colin.
>
>
> > on the other hand, thanks to colin for pointing out that
> > debian-curiosa exists.
>
> Colin wasn't the only person to mention this, if you'll check the
> record.
well, colin's response made me remember and realise the sense of the
rule, and, had you put it as he did, i'd be remembering that, too.
>
> > perhaps we can arrive at a rule whereby the third, fourth, or fifth
> > response to an off-topic thread would be directed--on the list--to
> > make use of debian-curiosa as a more appropriate venue.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> Peace.
considering some of the phrases above, i seriously wonder if you mean
that. nonetheless, flame off. if you want to discuss this more, let's do
it off-list.
ben
Reply to: