response 1 of 97:

Nov 4 20:24 UTC 1996

Two recent threads from items 130 and 131....
 
>#61 of 63: by John H. Remmers (remmers) on Mon, Nov  4, 1996 (13:14):
> (Just an aside here: Richard, with his wild chains of logic based
> on incorrect suppositions and misfacts, leading to suggestions that
> are blatently inapproriate, impractical, etc., long ago convinced me
> that he has little of value to contribute to this conference. Numerous
> people pointing this out has resulted in no change in behavior, but
> rather heated denials from Richard that these characterizations are
> accurate. So a long time ago I decided that it is pointless to argue
> with or criticise him. Nowadays I mostly just skim his text and limit
> my responses to short corrections when I notice factual errors.
>
> Folks who are bothered by his behavior might take comfort in the fact
> that he has had virtually zero success in obtaining support for any of
> his positions from anyone -- board, staff, members, users, you name it.
> Although it would be disastrous to adopt his ideas, there is no chance
> that this will happen, and therefore he is not dangerous. I classify
> him as an eccentric with an irritating manner but no power, and
> therefore harmless. I'd suggest to participants in this conference
> that the next time they are tempted to put time and energy into
> responding to Richard, they ask themselves whether that time and
> energy might not be channeled more productively in some other
> direction.)
>
>#63 of 63: by Richard Wallner (kerouac) on Mon, Nov  4, 1996 (13:31):
> Remmers, Im justa user who contributes his opinions.  If you are not
> accepting of others views, you are the one who is unfit to be in this
> conference.    I have never ridiculed John Remmers or Jan Wolter or
> anyone else and they've had their share of bad ideas too.  There is
> something called civivility and respect.  Ifyou dont like my ideas, fine,
> say so, but dont make this personal and try to ridicule my intentions.
> I like and support grex and am trying mybest in the way I can to
> participate.  I'd like John Remmers to apologize.  set drift=off.
 
-----
 
>#75 of 79: by Jan Wolter (janc) on Mon, Nov  4, 1996 (13:24):
>
<...beginning part snipped...>
>
> But everytime we start discussing an issue, you latch on to some stupid side
> issue and start yammering about it, apparantly perfectly oblivious to the
> fact that nobody agrees so there is no chance that the discussion is going
> to lead to any productive result.  You've got to take your noble stands and
> defend them to the end, and if everyone is opposed than that only makes you
> more rightous and heroic.  Meanwhile, you've managed to completely jam all
> attempts to actually discuss anything that actually matters.  That hurts
> Grex a hell of a lot more than these fantasies about tiny flaws in the
> bylaws leading the the overthrow of Grex.
>
>#76 of 79: by Richard Wallner (kerouac) on Mon, Nov  4, 1996 (13:39):
> Not true.  I accept when any idea I have is unworkable.  Andmore to the
> point, I dont waste my time attacking people likeyou just did Jan.  Your
> last response has no place in this item   Yo could have sent me email
> ifyou wanted to gripe.   Maybe I do get carried away sometimes but th e
> vast majority of myposts are as constructive as anyone elses's.  Just
> because I suggest an ideaa doesnt mean I think its necessarily better than
> anyone elses, but that I think its worth discussing.  Like I made several
> suggetions in the "wha t to do about email" item.  I dont know if my ideas
> are workable, but it doesnt hurt to discuss them and such suggestions are
> in the context of tha titem.   Why do I have todefend myself for just
> participating in this conference?
>
>#77 of 79: by Rob Henderson (robh) on Mon, Nov  4, 1996 (13:48):
> You don't attack anyone?  Funny, I seem to recall a three-screen-long
> response a few weeks ago saying that I was the reason Grex was so
> screwed up, me and my libertarian philosophy.
>
>#78 of 79: by Richard Wallner (kerouac) on Mon, Nov  4, 1996 (13:56):
> I diddnt mean that to be a personal attack, I was atackking the
> libertarian philosophies that Ithink too many folks around here have, which
> gets in the way of grex acheiving its goals (IMO of course)    I have
> never questioned anyone's right to participate in this qconference or the
> value of anyone's contributions.
>
> The sort of flaming that remmers and jac are dircting at me is something
> Imight have expected in mnet in the old policy conf where it was thenorm.
> But I really did think there was more of an air of mutual respect around
> here.
>
>#79 of 79: by Valerie Mates (popcorn) on Mon, Nov  4, 1996 (15:02):
> Normally there is.  And normally remmers and janc are two of the most
> polite and respectful human beings I have ever met anywhere.  The fact that
> you've provoked them into entering some of the responses you see here
> speaks volumes.

response 3 of 97:

Nov 4 22:16 UTC 1996

No, kerouac, you are just a user who wastes staff and board time and 
energy.  And you seem completely insensible to the effects you have.

response 5 of 97:

Nov 4 22:30 UTC 1996

   Richard, all this commentary on the wording of the bylaws sickens
me.  Jan is perfectly right that any time spent here is time taken
away from something useful.

   My only suggestion for you Richard, is to find some like minded people
in the DC area and start up your own system which you may administer as
you see fit.  I daresay that some Grex staff might even give you some 
technical pointers.

   Although no Grex staff or board person will ever ask you to leave,
I honestly think you'd be happer elsewhere.  I've listened to you talk
in coop for more than a year now, and I just don't think you fundementally
"think" in the Grex way.  It's not the only way to think, to be sure.
But it is our way, inasmuch as anything that two or more Grexers ever do
might be considered a "way".

   You see the world differently.  Thats OK.  But wouldn't it feel better
to stop pounding your head against the wall here?  To find someplace that
is more compatible with your philosophies?

response 7 of 97:

Nov 4 22:46 UTC 1996

STeve, if grex is to be a real community, 8it has to have room for people
who think differentlhy, act differently.  If you really want grex to
thrive, you have to know that it cant be a clique.  Cliques die.
It is the vibrance that comes from different people being around that makes
a a community thrive.

If everyone here thought the same way, this would be a p[retty bporing
place.  If you are suggesting that I go away because my views are
different, that is not very democratic or healthy.

response 9 of 97:

Nov 4 23:24 UTC 1996

One of the problems which online governance has yet to solve is the 
need to have closure on a topic, the need to shut off drift or endless 
debate.  Essentially, we have the potential for the eternal filibuster, 
and this potential isn't just there for Kerouac; M-net's policy 
conference has the same illness.  
 
For a face-to-face meeting, we have Roberts Rules of Order.
What we need online is a way to get Kerouac to stop arguing after he's 
used up his allotted 5 minutes on the floor  (5 minutes being what you 
get on the floor of the US House).

response 11 of 97:

Nov 5 00:10 UTC 1996

  Re 8, the purpose for this item isn't to change kerouac or prevent him
from posting elsewhere, but to move discussion about kerouac (by everyone,
not just kerouac) from other items, where it was derailing other issues,
to this one, where it is the issue.  I've done the same for other topics
as well, to try reducing drift, and sometimes it seems to work.

response 13 of 97:

Nov 5 00:47 UTC 1996

The Board can't change the Bylaws.  It has to be by a membership
vote.

response 15 of 97:

Nov 5 02:38 UTC 1996

That would fly about as far as the Hindenberg, any such claim by a rival
board.
With or without legal registration.
Honestly, Richard, you come up with the oddest nits to pick.

response 17 of 97:

Nov 5 11:22 UTC 1996

Re #10: I learned that saying from your mother, and it's one of
my favorites. My earlier response (quoted in #1) was addressed
more to the other participants in this conference than it was
to Richard, and I guess it was an attempt to apply your mother's
advice here -- see in particular the last sentence.

<remmers notes that not everybody is heeding the advice...>

response 19 of 97:

Nov 5 17:04 UTC 1996

I'm not the one who entered this item, this item has no place 
here.  It was Janc and Remmers, who instead of addressing my 
arguments (why defintion of a freenet is relevant to whether grex 
gets a T1, and why any non-member could get confused by the 
bylaws)

I ha not provoked anyone and have only raised sincere concerns.  
I didnt ask Ajax to create a separate item so that users could 
flame me without interfering with other items.

I request that this item be frozen.  Item #138 addresses the real 
problems anyway.  And if this item is frozen, I believe I should 
have the right to ask that Ajax go into Backtalk and change the 
title of this item so that it does not reflect my name.  

response 21 of 97:

Nov 5 17:58 UTC 1996

Leave the item alone.  If there is nothing more to be discussed, then
the item will "freeze" on its own.  If there is more to be discussed,
then freezing it would be unfair.

response 23 of 97:

Nov 5 18:32 UTC 1996

I disagree.  I think that this item *is* an appropriate topic for coop, as
stated in 0.  If all of the discussion that gave rise to this item were in
another cf, then it would properly be dealt with in that cf.  However, it
arose here, in coop, so it should be delt with here, in coop.  Shunting it
off to another cf would, first, not work, because the interested parties are
here not somewhere else, and second be completely unrelated to that cf. 
However, I personally don't think that this topic needs any more discussion,
so I won't, barring unforseen circumstances, add anything else to it.