Re: ASA re-visited

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

Sylvain Robitaille wrote:
> 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.

That's the first approach. When that doesn't work, after a great number
of times over a long period of time, then only a reply that is
stronger, than
that which you are objecting to, will suffice. You may disagree, but
you know
what the rule is. ...... This is an alt group ...........  etc.


>
> >> ...  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.

I have no reason to have a web site. I install alarm systems and other
low voltage
wiring. I have an unlisted telephone number. After 35 years,  I have
enough clients and referrals to keep me busy for years.

>
> > 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.

You've never met a man you didn't like ...... more than Robert Bass.

>
> > 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.

Sorry don't mean to make it appear that way. In this case however, it's
not lack of observation skills. It's lack of familiarity. You don't
know who's who. I know that some who are not responding are in accord
so far. I know that there are others who are not. I know that there are
some that just don't care. You don't know which is which. I do.
It's quite possible that  the number of those who would actively
participate could be
out numberd by those that just don't care. Then again,  I have a strong
feeling that it's just not going to matter in the long run, because
even if more agree to participate than who descent, this isn't a
majority rule fourm. And I have to say for myself, even if everyone
agrees and we try it, and Bass returns and ignores it and it goes on
too long,
eventually I'll not hesitate to take him on again, full bells and
whistles. If he or anyone blatantly and purposefully breaks the rules
of engagement with other human beings in a group enviornment, with
contempt and arrogance, (as only Bass can do),  it WILL revert to chaos
again.

>
> >> ... 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.

Thanks. I truly hope it isn't a work in futility.

And don't forget that Steve Ryckman made an offer to assist.