Very careful wording as usual. You did have plenty to do with his being condemned by not raising your voice against the indecency of using a private communication publicly. Further, it is the evolutionists that started the food fight on this thread, the Christians have just been defending themselves against the lies and hypocrisy of the evolutionists which has been thoroughly detailed by me in Post 2496, Post# 2541, Post# 2619 , Post# 2688, and Post# 2692 of the Phoebe Debates thread.
So neither you nor any other evolutionist or fellow traveller has any moral authority to condemn anyone. The ink was not dry on the agreement when you and your fellows used it against the specic purpose which the agreement had been founded on - to end disruption of these threads. And you and your fellows have continued in the same mode ever since.
OK, I'll raise my voice. I don't see this a problem. There used to be a tacit rule on usenet against posting private email, but even there it did not apply to insulting or harassing email. I am unaware of even an informal rule on FR against posting FReepmail.
Speaking for myself, I would generally err on the side of respecting someone's confidence, but would regard myself under no obligation to do so if the email were abusive, threatening, insulting, or otherwise objectionable. And I certainly would not apply some personal unwritten rule of this sort to others.
Very careful wording as usual. [Yeah, very careful. I said, in post 567 "I had nothing to do with ALS's freepmail. Nor have I 'persecuted' ALS." Those were sweeping denials of the allegations, with no loopholes.] You did have plenty to do with his being condemned by not raising your voice against the indecency of using a private communication publicly. Further, it is the evolutionists that started the food fight on this thread, the Christians have just been defending themselves against the lies and hypocrisy of the evolutionists which has been thoroughly detailed by me in Post 2496, Post# 2541, Post# 2619 , Post# 2688, and Post# 2692 of the Phoebe Debates thread.How many violations of the agreement to we find in this post? First, there is no retraction or justification of the post which originally triggered this "agrement action." That was the claim (post 546) that VadeRetro was without honor. I was raised to regard that as one of the most serious insults imaginable. G3k tossed it out casually, which is genuinely outrageous behavior.So neither you nor any other evolutionist or fellow traveller has any moral authority to condemn anyone. The ink was not dry on the agreement when you and your fellows used it against the specic purpose which the agreement had been founded on - to end disruption of these threads. And you and your fellows have continued in the same mode ever since.
575 posted on 08/17/2003 7:40 PM EDT by gore3000
Moving along to the baseless accusations against me, the original accusation, still unsupported, was (post 554) You used the agreement to persecute ALS. Part of which persecution was accomplished by the totally immoral publication of a private e-mail. I want everyone to understand that g3k has given no supporting evidence for that charge.
So the original accusation is bogus, and not retracted. In its place we have a new and different accusation, that I didn't "raise my voice" after the freepmail was already disclosed. But there was much discussion of the incident, and it was generally agreed that the freepmail had to be disclosed, and that there is no rule against doing so. Thus, I had no duty to "raise my voice," and this newest accusation by g3k is without merit.
g3k also rants about lies, hypocracy and food fights, but provides zero evidence to support his accusations against me (except cites to his many posts where he rants about evolutionist in general). He further accuses me and my "fellow travelers" of using the agreement against its purpose of ending disruption. This is clearly an accusation that I have been causing disruptions. Again, no supporting evidence.
Gore3000 had his "polite warning" in post 551, and was urged to return to compliance with the agreement. His disruptive conduct continued, as was detailed in post 567. His conduct has persisted after that, as detailed in this post. All the terms of the agreement have been met. Therefore gore3000 is a "non-compliant poster," and he may hereafter be called a provocateur, troll, spammer, or disruptor, and doing so will not be a violation of the agreement.
Further, as a "non-compliant poster," g3k is no longer protected by this provision of the agreement:
We will not use obscene or belittling words to describe another complying poster or whatever that poster believes ...One final point. Gore3000's status, having now been established, does not apply merely to this thread. It's a done deal. In other threads the same rules continue to apply. His non-complience doesn't have to be established all over again. His conduct has placed him outside the protection of the agreement.
It's most convenient that all of this has happened within one 50-post session. I'm saving it. Even if the thread is pulled, it can be reproduced. Gore3000 will hereafter to be treated exactly as he deserves to be treated.