Re: ASA re-visited

[Sylvain Robitaille <syl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim wrote:

> ... You HAVE to stand up and speak up for what is right or you relagate
> yourself to servility.

I don't disagree with any of what you've said, in principle, yet I still
feel that what you're saying does not necessitate personal attacks in
any way.  One can object to another's conduct without resorting to
objectionable conduct themselves.

>> ...  I no longer believe that a "new" document would be necessary,
>> but rather that a summary of existing documentation would suffice.
>
> I anxiously await that happening..

I'll try to make time to work on it this weekend.

(group proposal ...)

> I doesn't say what should be done if ignoring doesn't stop the
> intrusion.

True.  My interpretation is that it specifies that the only thing
expected to be done is to ignore such posts, and to continue ignoring
them.  I can't imagine that anyone would find it contrary to the spirit
of the proposal if folks were to point out to newcomers that they should
tread carefully when entering with dealings with this individual, based
on his conduct in the newsgroup.

> ... You can bet that a 1000 word "charter" is not going to be read by
> every newcomer either.

That will depend on the newcomer, I agree.  On the other hand, I'm also
not expecting to create a 1000 word document either.  A charter need not
(and in fact in most cases shouldn't) be a long document.  It should be
clear and concise, and I hope to propose one that people will agree is.

> without pointing out that Bass is breaching it, it will serve no
> purpose.

Again, my point is not so much with the message, as it is with the way
that message might be delivered.

> Uhhhh your memory is VERY short.

Not that short.  I have nothing to sell either, yet I have a web page,
and I can think of ways in which I could have designed web pages so that
my own name is not closely associated either with the page or with the
domain name where it's hosted.

> All I can say is ....... that if you'd come here during a time that
> Bass was participating and you started this kind of subject I would be
> right there bashing you out of the group with every bit of opposition
> that I could marshal.

I might (probably would) have been less inclined to make the proposal
in the heat of the moment.  Generally, I do believe that people reap
what they sew, when it comes to newsgroup participation, but I also
believe that there are ways to get a point across about someone else's
objectionable behaviour without resorting to similarly objectionable
behaviour.

> A heavy blade need not be sharp.

:-)

> What you haven't noticed is that the people who I beleive foster Bass's
> continuation of his behavior, have had very little or nothing to say in
> this thread.

Why do you keep concluding that I lack basic observation skills?  I have
noticed that you and I are the only ones who have pursued this
discussion so far, yes.

>> ... I'm willing to put in the time to compile it from the existing
>> documentation, discuss it here with others, and more importantly (in
>> my opinion) to setup an automatic frequent posting of it, but there's
>> no way it would have any meaning in this newsgroup unless it were a
>> document agreed upon by those people for whom this group exists ...
>
> Then lets' get it on!
> I'm doubful, but cooperative at this point. Let's see what happens.

Alright.  As I stated above, I'll try and make time to work on this over
the weekend.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvain Robitaille                              syl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Systems and Network analyst                       Concordia University
Instructional & Information Technology        Montreal, Quebec, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------