|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 335 responses total. |
janc
|
|
response 249 of 335:
| 
Oct 30 02:48 UTC 2001 |
I don't know. I think we could raise a lot of money selling "heckling passes"
to a Bowl-a-thon featuring non-bowling bowlers.
|
jp2
|
|
response 250 of 335:
|
Oct 30 02:52 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
eeyore
|
|
response 251 of 335:
|
Oct 30 04:42 UTC 2001 |
You know, I wonder if we should start taking this idea to Syl....:)
|
krj
|
|
response 252 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:22 UTC 2001 |
I was ruminating this morning about the possibility of a member proposal
to bar Jamie from membership in Grex, on the grounds that his DMCA
threats demonstrate that he does not support the peacable exchange
of information and ideas, as declared in the Preamble and the Membership
sections of the bylaws. Any interest?
So far it's just a thought.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 253 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:24 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, banning people from membership because of their political views
_really_ supports the "peaceable exchange of ideas." Sounds more Stalinist
than anything to me.
|
jp2
|
|
response 254 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:26 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 255 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:26 UTC 2001 |
No, he said "threats," not "political views." Maybe you were standing
too far away.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 256 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:28 UTC 2001 |
So it's to become the official policy of Grex that people who assert their
rights under Federal law are not welcome?
I assume you'll be making sure women and minorities are also barred from
membership.
|
jp2
|
|
response 257 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:29 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
tfbjr
|
|
response 258 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:34 UTC 2001 |
I don't believe his views are the matter, but his approach which includes
legal threats including what I perceived to be implied legal threats against
members.
|
jp2
|
|
response 259 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:36 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 260 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:37 UTC 2001 |
Yes, because Grex has violated his rights under Federal law.
|
jp2
|
|
response 261 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:39 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 262 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:42 UTC 2001 |
Show of hands: who cares if Jamie is being oppressed? Didn't think
so. (Democracy in action!)
|
jp2
|
|
response 263 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:43 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 264 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:47 UTC 2001 |
Are you eternally grateful on each such day? I mean, that's a *lot* of
grateful. Oh, wait! This is the Mandelbrot thingie you were talking
about, isn't it?
|
jp2
|
|
response 265 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:50 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 266 of 335:
|
Oct 30 18:58 UTC 2001 |
I think we should leave it for a courtroom to decide if rights have been
violated. It would make me wonder why anyone would wish to join a BBS they
are making veiled threats to, but if Jamie wants to join and he doesn't
actually sue or otherwise damage Grex, I don't personally have a problem with
it.
|
krj
|
|
response 267 of 335:
|
Oct 30 19:46 UTC 2001 |
You realize, brighn, that your resp:266 is totally incoherent,
because the first and second sentence contradict each other?
|
krj
|
|
response 268 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:11 UTC 2001 |
pthomas in resp:256 :: Free speech is a political goal.
(Just ask any number of people in less fortunate countries.)
So Grex is a political organization, even if it is a wimpy and
non-partisan one, in much the same way that the EFF and the NRA are.
A large number of people in the computer community, including me,
believe strongly that the DMCA is the most anti-free-speech law
to come down in decades.
I would not require the NRA to take me as a member, since I advocate
strict gun control; I would not require the Young Americans
for Freedom to accept an avowed Stalinist.
I do not believe Grex is obligated to accept
a member who, by his own actions over the last few months, demonstrates
his belief that copyright claims should be adjudicated summarily over
any free speech concerns.
|
jp2
|
|
response 269 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:18 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
krj
|
|
response 270 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:29 UTC 2001 |
Revision of my last paragraph in resp:268 ::
"I do not believe Grex is obligated to accept a member
who acts to summarily adjudicate copyright claims overriding
clear free speech concerns."
Resp:269 :: *exactly* what the Scientologists say.
|
slynne
|
|
response 271 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:37 UTC 2001 |
I dont think it would be good for grex to bar someone from getting a
membership because they dont like their views unless you guys really are
ready to admit that grex really does have "insiders" who get treated
differently than everyone else.
Just curious. What would you guys do if a bunch of jp2 types really
started becoming the majority here?
|
jp2
|
|
response 272 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:38 UTC 2001 |
This response has been erased.
|
pthomas
|
|
response 273 of 335:
|
Oct 30 20:39 UTC 2001 |
268: Grex is a political organisation? Whoa, better call the IRS...Grex
has 501(c)(3) unlike those other groups are mentioned. They have a duty to
not engage on political issues that do not pertain to their survival, and
a duty not to discriminate against individuals because they believe in
following the law.
The DMCA lays out a mechanism for dealing with disputes regarding
copyrighted material without going to the courts. It goes something like
this: the complainant has to ask for his materials to be removed before he
can sue. Mr Howard has done that. If Grex insists on violating the law, it
will pay the consequences of violating the law.
|
