Text 4759, 123 rader
Skriven 2007-07-21 08:52:09 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
   Kommentar till text 4745 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: R&R exchanging insults
==============================
Jeff Smith -> David Drummond wrote:

 DD>>>> Is Felten on his own in this "illegal" behaviour?

 JS>>>      No he is not alone in his behavior. I'm not sure why you
 JS>>> would call it "Illegal" but you are entittled to your opinion.

 DD>> Illegal - as in "against the law, the rules (of the echo)".

 JS>      I will attribute the use of "illegal" to a differance of opinion on
 JS> what constitutes an illegal act. Rules of an echo are not what I would
 JS> consider legal or illegal. But I think I understand what you were trying
 JS> to convey.

The rules of an echo are the laws of that echo.

[...]
 DD>> Are you suggesting that he was first, and, like little children, the
 DD>> rest followed his lead? Yeah, sure.

 JS>      No actually. I think that in the beginning of Felten's tenure as
 JS> editor and moderator. He did care about Fidonews and Fidonet and was
considerably
 JS> more active as moderator.

He has never done more than make polite requests of posters to tone down their
content. How do you feel he was "more active"?

 JS> But as he has stated here he got burnt out and
 JS> frustrated in dealing with the "idiots". And as I have told him I
 JS> understand
 JS> the frustration as I have been there too. When someone reaches that
 JS> point they either need to handle it or move away from the situation that
 JS> is causing the
 JS> frustration. A move that in this case would be as good for Fidonews as it
 JS> would be for Felten. Both would benefit.

It obviously doesn't bother him now - and there is nothing anyone can do to
alter the content of the messages (other than the posters themselves).


 DD>> The rules ARE the problem if everyone is ignoring them.

 JS>      Why are you choosing to avoid the real point here David? The rules
are
 JS> not the problem. Rules don't mean anything to anyone regardless of how
good
 JS> they might be if noone is enforcing those rules.

Why must they be enforced? Must you always be forced to do things just for the
sake of being forced?

  A law that the authorities
 JS> never enforce means nothing to the people and will get broken
 JS> constantly.

We, the posters, are the authorities here. If we decide to ignore the riles
then those rules should go. We are not little children constantly in need of
telling what to do. We decide what should be done! WE are the law here!

 JS> The same applies here. The rules are ok but if they do not get enforced
and
 JS> especially if they are visibly broken by the same person whoose job it
 JS> is to enforce them. Noone is going to take those rules seriously. As can
 JS> be seen in this echo.

The why must they be taken seriously? If no-one wants to take them seriously
they should be discarded.

 DD>> In that case they are not worth the paper they are written on, and
 DD>> should be discarded.

 JS>      Which would be convenient for who? Certainly not the users of this
 JS> echo I would think. Course that IS the moderator. Who has shown us how
 JS> hindering the rules are to his posting style.

Who wants to obey the current rules? Do those who want to obey them have to be
forced to obey them? Sorry, I come from a free society - we are not forced to
do anything here, we choose to do things.

 DD>> Do you remember the concept of "democracy'?

 JS>      When was Fidonet ever a democracy?

The hierarchical structure of the technical network never has been - however
some echoes (including this one) are.

[...]
 DD>> I don't have taps into his netmail so I cannot say the last time he
 DD>> sent a moderation message. Do you?

 JS>       To the extent that I have asked people on both sides and gotten
 JS> and gotten responses. Yes.


 JS>       When was the last time that Felten showed any attempt to moderate
 JS> anyone in this echo. Anyone from either side can claim the (non)existance
 JS> of private moderation netmails having been sent.

And anyone can deny that they were.
[...]

 DD>> Why do we have laws? If most people think a law is wrong, it _is_
 DD>> wrong.

 DD>> Just as what is "right" is what the majority consider to be "right"

 JS>      If the majority where you live decide it is right to steal and
 JS> kill. It is then right in your mind for them to do so?

If the majority decide that is right then it is right. That's how democracy
works.

Who do you think gets to decide what is right in your draconian model?

-- 

regards

David

---
 * Origin: Repeal the bad rules! (3:640/305)