Sam, if you attempt to take over the mailing list I will proceed in the
following manner. I am the sysadmin of a major ISP and so I have the
means to carry out the following:
1. I will select a group of individuals who are respected by all and ask
them to prepare a set of by-laws.
2. I will prepare an arrangment, with checks and balances to insure
against cheating, to tally votes.
3. I will set up a mailing list server, most of which I've already done
for other projects.
4. I will put to a vote who the moderators should be and what version of
the bylaws will be chosen etc etc etc. I will NOT be in control.
To suggest that you will take control of the group, which I've been
saying for two days is your entire goal anyway, is absolutely
outrageous. You've demonstrated nothing but malice toward everyone who
even suggests that your approach should be tempered with reason. I can't
imagine how you could be a fair and impartial moderator or how such a
group, if moderated or controlled in any way by you, could be anything
other than a means for you to stroke your own ego and have victims upon
which to rain down inappropriate wrath.
Everything that you accuse others of and insist that they stop doing, you
yourself do. I do not intend this as an insult but as a statement of
fact, which can be proven or disproven in an appropriate manner, but I
can come to no reasonable conclusion but that you are actually mentally ill.
I can see no other alternative based on your continuously outrageous and
consistently malicious behavior wherein your accusations of ill behavior
are a precise description of your own behavior.
At this point, and I genuinely mean this not as an insult but as a
compassionate gesture, I can only say that I feel sorry for you.
In light of this I can only implore the current constituency of this
mailing list and the powers that be (Bill) NOT to turn over control of
this group to you in any way, shape or form. To do so would be like
throwing baby chicks to the fox.
I have no wish to have personal control of the list in any way shape or
form but I will be happy to provide the means for those who would
genuinely run the group in the best interests of the group to do so. My
ISP has been in business for 4 years and I have a long-term committment
to work there and the authority and latitude to allocate resources to an
APPROPRIATELY SELECTED group of moderators but only if the bylaws and
moderators are chosen by a fair vote.
Anthony Clifton - Wirehead
On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Sam Ismail wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 1998, Bill Whitson wrote:
>
> > I encourage you to organize as you desire, by whatever
> > means you can agree on if you haven't already done so.
> <...>
> > Please don't count on me for anything at this point. I
> > think classiccmp is great and I'm glad to have done the
> > initial arrangements, but I don't even know when I'll
> > have the time to just read it again.
> >
> > If current arrangements are unworkable and someone else
> > would like to take over with their own listserv, it would
> > be simple to just transfer the subscription list, I think.
> > If you can live with the current level of administration,
> > I have no problem continuing to host the listserv.
>
> Ok fine. Until I'm able to take over ClassicCmp completely, we can put a
> few issues to a vote. I thought we already decided a couple months back
> that the definition as it stands in the FAQ of what is acceptable to
> discuss was appropriate. If there is going to be a need to re-visit this
> issue every 6 weeks then you may as well call this mailing
> list alt.off-topic.
>
> Here are the issues I propose:
>
> 1. The current definition of what is acceptable to discuss in ClassicCmp
> is fine: YES or NO
>
> For reference:
>
> 1.1 What is ClassicCmp?
>
> It's a mailing list for the discussion of classic computers. Topics center
> on collection, restoration, and operation. It is also an appropriate place
> for stories and reminiscences of classic computers. Lofty discussions
> dealing with the philosophical and/or metaphysical aspects of computers are
> often better handled in private e-mail.
>
>
> Well, I guess that sums it up. If we can agree to a referendum on this
> single issue then we can put it to a vote and see what happens. If a
> clear majority votes NO then we can vote on a new definition of the FAQ.
>
> My vote is to avoid this whole mess by having people respect the
> guidelines of the existing definition.
>
> Sam Alternate e-mail: dastar_at_siconic.com
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Computer Historian, Programmer, Musician, Philosopher, Athlete, Writer, Jackass
>
> Coming Soon...Vintage Computer Festival 2.0
> See http://www.siconic.com/vcf for details!
>
Received on Wed Mar 18 1998 - 18:18:46 GMT