FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Ginny Wagner
FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:00 PM
To: billingh@rootsweb.com
Subject: gen-ancient-L admin
Evidently the admin of the current list has taken a hard stand against one
of our long respected and active, helpful members. As admin of the whole
shooting match, I'd suggest that you write Ms. Asche and suggest that she
apologize to the list as a whole and the gentleman whom she treated so
cavalierly.
She probably didn't stop and think about what her actions might cause
before she put her foot down. Unfortunately, she has put her foot in an ant
hill and if she doesn't apologize and make nice she will find herself brick
walled for the rest of her life in the genealogical world. It would be easy
enough to appoint someone else but I think she deserves a chance to change,
because if she doesn't, she will have burned a bridge that she may need very
badly at a later time in her life.
How hard is the job? Does one need specialized knowledge to do it? It
seems to me that all that is needed is a little tact in order to administer
a list for heaven's sake. If she hasn't learned it yet, she needs to now.
And if she is so stubborn that she refuses, then someone else needs to take
over that job.
Sincerely,
Ginny Wagner
To: billingh@rootsweb.com
Subject: gen-ancient-L admin
Evidently the admin of the current list has taken a hard stand against one
of our long respected and active, helpful members. As admin of the whole
shooting match, I'd suggest that you write Ms. Asche and suggest that she
apologize to the list as a whole and the gentleman whom she treated so
cavalierly.
She probably didn't stop and think about what her actions might cause
before she put her foot down. Unfortunately, she has put her foot in an ant
hill and if she doesn't apologize and make nice she will find herself brick
walled for the rest of her life in the genealogical world. It would be easy
enough to appoint someone else but I think she deserves a chance to change,
because if she doesn't, she will have burned a bridge that she may need very
badly at a later time in her life.
How hard is the job? Does one need specialized knowledge to do it? It
seems to me that all that is needed is a little tact in order to administer
a list for heaven's sake. If she hasn't learned it yet, she needs to now.
And if she is so stubborn that she refuses, then someone else needs to take
over that job.
Sincerely,
Ginny Wagner
-
Todd A. Farmerie
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
A few things need to be clarified here (not specific to the post to
which I am responding just because it is the most recent).
First, just to be clear, it is the GEN-ANCIENT list that is being
discussed, not the GEN-MEDIEVAL list, where this discussion is now
taking place. I point this out just to make it clear (some people do
not read carefully, and some of the posts have been vague enough that it
is probably worth highlighting).
Second, it is the longstanding policy of RootsWeb that the listowner has
virtually unlimited latitude in managing/moderating their list. While
the examples posted here may not be what you have been used to on the
list, and may be virtually certain of driving the list into the ground,
I see nothing that would cause RootsWeb to intervene - no commercialism,
no pornography, etc. (this is the case in USENET as well). I know of no
instances a Listowner was 'bounced' for egomaniacal or idiosyncratic
moderation, and I wouldn't anticipate any change in this case. It is
unfortunate that the new listowner is so unpleasant - tough luck, but
you're stuck with it.
Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe you
(us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and if
you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or start a
new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little motivation
to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
taf
which I am responding just because it is the most recent).
First, just to be clear, it is the GEN-ANCIENT list that is being
discussed, not the GEN-MEDIEVAL list, where this discussion is now
taking place. I point this out just to make it clear (some people do
not read carefully, and some of the posts have been vague enough that it
is probably worth highlighting).
Second, it is the longstanding policy of RootsWeb that the listowner has
virtually unlimited latitude in managing/moderating their list. While
the examples posted here may not be what you have been used to on the
list, and may be virtually certain of driving the list into the ground,
I see nothing that would cause RootsWeb to intervene - no commercialism,
no pornography, etc. (this is the case in USENET as well). I know of no
instances a Listowner was 'bounced' for egomaniacal or idiosyncratic
moderation, and I wouldn't anticipate any change in this case. It is
unfortunate that the new listowner is so unpleasant - tough luck, but
you're stuck with it.
Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe you
(us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and if
you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or start a
new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little motivation
to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
taf
-
Ray Montgomery
RE: gen-ancient-L admin
Very wise indeed.
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: Ginny Wagner [mailto:ginnywagner@austin.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:30 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:00 PM
To: billingh@rootsweb.com
Subject: gen-ancient-L admin
Evidently the admin of the current list has taken a hard stand against one
of our long respected and active, helpful members. As admin of the whole
shooting match, I'd suggest that you write Ms. Asche and suggest that she
apologize to the list as a whole and the gentleman whom she treated so
cavalierly.
She probably didn't stop and think about what her actions might cause
before she put her foot down. Unfortunately, she has put her foot in an ant
hill and if she doesn't apologize and make nice she will find herself brick
walled for the rest of her life in the genealogical world. It would be easy
enough to appoint someone else but I think she deserves a chance to change,
because if she doesn't, she will have burned a bridge that she may need very
badly at a later time in her life.
How hard is the job? Does one need specialized knowledge to do it? It
seems to me that all that is needed is a little tact in order to administer
a list for heaven's sake. If she hasn't learned it yet, she needs to now.
And if she is so stubborn that she refuses, then someone else needs to take
over that job.
Sincerely,
Ginny Wagner
Ray
-----Original Message-----
From: Ginny Wagner [mailto:ginnywagner@austin.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 1:30 PM
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Subject: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 12:00 PM
To: billingh@rootsweb.com
Subject: gen-ancient-L admin
Evidently the admin of the current list has taken a hard stand against one
of our long respected and active, helpful members. As admin of the whole
shooting match, I'd suggest that you write Ms. Asche and suggest that she
apologize to the list as a whole and the gentleman whom she treated so
cavalierly.
She probably didn't stop and think about what her actions might cause
before she put her foot down. Unfortunately, she has put her foot in an ant
hill and if she doesn't apologize and make nice she will find herself brick
walled for the rest of her life in the genealogical world. It would be easy
enough to appoint someone else but I think she deserves a chance to change,
because if she doesn't, she will have burned a bridge that she may need very
badly at a later time in her life.
How hard is the job? Does one need specialized knowledge to do it? It
seems to me that all that is needed is a little tact in order to administer
a list for heaven's sake. If she hasn't learned it yet, she needs to now.
And if she is so stubborn that she refuses, then someone else needs to take
over that job.
Sincerely,
Ginny Wagner
-
D. Spencer Hines
The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists" --
Bingo!
Which goes to show, yet again, that Chico is doing PRECISELY the right
thing by voting with his feet.
Free-Standing Genealogical "Lists" are clearly an Invitation To Tyranny.
The only reason we have Freedom Of Speech here on SGM is that the
GEN-MEDIEVAL LIST is yoked to a Siamese Twin -- soc.genealogy.medieval.
If it were not --- taf and Don would have been tempted to exercise the
same sort of Tyrannical Regime HERE long ago.
Men and Women with unchecked power are inherently corruptible -- and the
desire for Comity, "Civility", Tranquility and Order will ALWAYS win out
over Truth, Accuracy, Democracy and Freedom -- if given any sort of
opening.
Our Founding Fathers wisely understood all that -- but the folks at
RootsWeb do NOT -- so boycott them.
Rosa Parks was right....she refused to move to the rear of the bus and
sit with the "other colored folk."
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:42544f33@news.ColoState.EDU...
| Second, it is the longstanding policy of RootsWeb that the listowner
has
| virtually unlimited latitude in managing/moderating their list. While
| the examples posted here may not be what you have been used to on the
| list, and may be virtually certain of driving the list into the
ground,
| I see nothing that would cause RootsWeb to intervene - no
commercialism,
| no pornography, etc. (this is the case in USENET as well). I know of
no
| instances a Listowner was 'bounced' for egomaniacal or idiosyncratic
| moderation, and I wouldn't anticipate any change in this case. It is
| unfortunate that the new listowner is so unpleasant - tough luck, but
| you're stuck with it.
|
| Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe you
| (us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and if
| you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or start a
| new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little
motivation
| to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
|
| taf
Which goes to show, yet again, that Chico is doing PRECISELY the right
thing by voting with his feet.
Free-Standing Genealogical "Lists" are clearly an Invitation To Tyranny.
The only reason we have Freedom Of Speech here on SGM is that the
GEN-MEDIEVAL LIST is yoked to a Siamese Twin -- soc.genealogy.medieval.
If it were not --- taf and Don would have been tempted to exercise the
same sort of Tyrannical Regime HERE long ago.
Men and Women with unchecked power are inherently corruptible -- and the
desire for Comity, "Civility", Tranquility and Order will ALWAYS win out
over Truth, Accuracy, Democracy and Freedom -- if given any sort of
opening.
Our Founding Fathers wisely understood all that -- but the folks at
RootsWeb do NOT -- so boycott them.
Rosa Parks was right....she refused to move to the rear of the bus and
sit with the "other colored folk."
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:42544f33@news.ColoState.EDU...
| Second, it is the longstanding policy of RootsWeb that the listowner
has
| virtually unlimited latitude in managing/moderating their list. While
| the examples posted here may not be what you have been used to on the
| list, and may be virtually certain of driving the list into the
ground,
| I see nothing that would cause RootsWeb to intervene - no
commercialism,
| no pornography, etc. (this is the case in USENET as well). I know of
no
| instances a Listowner was 'bounced' for egomaniacal or idiosyncratic
| moderation, and I wouldn't anticipate any change in this case. It is
| unfortunate that the new listowner is so unpleasant - tough luck, but
| you're stuck with it.
|
| Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe you
| (us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and if
| you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or start a
| new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little
motivation
| to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
|
| taf
-
Rick Eaton
Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists"
Oh, please!
Todd has been most reserved and discreet to boot; a perfect gentleman
despitge the wish of many that he ban certain people for life and axe murder
them while he is at it.
I know this to be the case because I personally expressed consternation over
inappropriate, and even lascivious, comments made be some list members about
others, these ranging from their sexuality to their mental competence and
professional accumen. I continue to believe that there should be place on
this list for such comments and that "taf" bends over backwards to
accommodate the unkind as well as those who just go about their business.
Contrary to being tyrannical, my believe is that he is lenient; "guilty" of
kindness to a fault.
Your charges against the list owners are not founded in the facts, I am
afraid, and you might consider a first: recanting them.
You are right about Rosa Parks, however. Good for you.
Rick Eaton
Todd has been most reserved and discreet to boot; a perfect gentleman
despitge the wish of many that he ban certain people for life and axe murder
them while he is at it.
I know this to be the case because I personally expressed consternation over
inappropriate, and even lascivious, comments made be some list members about
others, these ranging from their sexuality to their mental competence and
professional accumen. I continue to believe that there should be place on
this list for such comments and that "taf" bends over backwards to
accommodate the unkind as well as those who just go about their business.
Contrary to being tyrannical, my believe is that he is lenient; "guilty" of
kindness to a fault.
Your charges against the list owners are not founded in the facts, I am
afraid, and you might consider a first: recanting them.
You are right about Rosa Parks, however. Good for you.
Rick Eaton
Bingo!
Which goes to show, yet again, that Chico is doing PRECISELY the right
thing by voting with his feet.
Free-Standing Genealogical "Lists" are clearly an Invitation To Tyranny.
The only reason we have Freedom Of Speech here on SGM is that the
GEN-MEDIEVAL LIST is yoked to a Siamese Twin -- soc.genealogy.medieval.
If it were not --- taf and Don would have been tempted to exercise the
same sort of Tyrannical Regime HERE long ago.
Men and Women with unchecked power are inherently corruptible -- and the
desire for Comity, "Civility", Tranquility and Order will ALWAYS win out
over Truth, Accuracy, Democracy and Freedom -- if given any sort of
opening.
Our Founding Fathers wisely understood all that -- but the folks at
RootsWeb do NOT -- so boycott them.
Rosa Parks was right....she refused to move to the rear of the bus and
sit with the "other colored folk."
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
Deus Vult.
"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]
"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
news:42544f33@news.ColoState.EDU...
| Second, it is the longstanding policy of RootsWeb that the listowner
has
| virtually unlimited latitude in managing/moderating their list. While
| the examples posted here may not be what you have been used to on the
| list, and may be virtually certain of driving the list into the
ground,
| I see nothing that would cause RootsWeb to intervene - no
commercialism,
| no pornography, etc. (this is the case in USENET as well). I know of
no
| instances a Listowner was 'bounced' for egomaniacal or idiosyncratic
| moderation, and I wouldn't anticipate any change in this case. It is
| unfortunate that the new listowner is so unpleasant - tough luck, but
| you're stuck with it.
|
| Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe you
| (us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and if
| you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or start a
| new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little
motivation
| to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
|
| taf
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists"
It is the very Cybernetic STRUCTURE which we have here ---- and which
Free-Standing USENET NEWSGROUPS also have -- that creates the Conditions
Necessary For Freedom.
THAT'S The POINT.
DSH
--------------------------------------
"Rick Eaton" <eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BE79FE91.2C51%eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net...
<twaddlesnip>
Bottom Line:
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
Since SGM and GEN-MED are YOKED together -- "Listowners" cannot ever
become tyrants. They cannot CONTROL or CENSOR what is posted -- nor
SHOULD they.
Such is NOT the case on a Free-Standing LIST -- NOT yoked to a
NEWSGROUP.
We Have It Better -- Whereas LISTS Are Condemned To Mediocrity,
Homogeneity, Banality -- And Frequently Degenerate Into Tyranny.
Ergo, anyone who foolishly joins a Free-Standing Genealogical LIST --
where the "Listowner/s" can "MODERATE" and "DISCIPLINE" the posters at
a whim -- deserves what he or she gets.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
| > Bingo!
| >
| > Which goes to show, yet again, that Chico is doing PRECISELY the
right
| > thing by voting with his feet.
| >
| > Free-Standing Genealogical "Lists" are clearly an Invitation To
Tyranny.
| >
| > The only reason we have Freedom Of Speech here on SGM is that the
| > GEN-MEDIEVAL LIST is yoked to a Siamese Twin --
soc.genealogy.medieval.
| >
| > If it were not --- taf and Don would have been tempted to exercise
the
| > same sort of Tyrannical Regime HERE long ago.
| >
| > Men and Women with unchecked power are inherently corruptible -- and
the
| > desire for Comity, "Civility", Tranquility and Order will ALWAYS win
out
| > over Truth, Accuracy, Democracy and Freedom -- if given any sort of
| > opening.
| >
| > Our Founding Fathers wisely understood all that -- but the folks at
| > RootsWeb do NOT -- so boycott them.
| >
| > Rosa Parks was right....she refused to move to the rear of the bus
and
| > sit with the "other colored folk."
| >
| > Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
| >
| > Deus Vult.
| >
| > "The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of
truth....
| > This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end
beyond
| > itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra
Gentiles"
| > [c.1258-1264]
| >
| > "Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et
arceo."
| >
| > Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
| >
| > Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae
coronat
| > opus.
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > Vires et Honor
| >
| > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
| > news:42544f33@news.ColoState.EDU...
| >
| > | Second, it is the longstanding policy of RootsWeb that the
listowner
| > has
| > | virtually unlimited latitude in managing/moderating their list.
While
| > | the examples posted here may not be what you have been used to on
the
| > | list, and may be virtually certain of driving the list into the
| > ground,
| > | I see nothing that would cause RootsWeb to intervene - no
| > commercialism,
| > | no pornography, etc. (this is the case in USENET as well). I know
of
| > no
| > | instances a Listowner was 'bounced' for egomaniacal or
idiosyncratic
| > | moderation, and I wouldn't anticipate any change in this case. It
is
| > | unfortunate that the new listowner is so unpleasant - tough luck,
but
| > | you're stuck with it.
| > |
| > | Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe
you
| > | (us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and
if
| > | you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or
start a
| > | new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little
| > motivation
| > | to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
| > |
| > | taf
Free-Standing USENET NEWSGROUPS also have -- that creates the Conditions
Necessary For Freedom.
THAT'S The POINT.
DSH
--------------------------------------
"Rick Eaton" <eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:BE79FE91.2C51%eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net...
<twaddlesnip>
Bottom Line:
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
Since SGM and GEN-MED are YOKED together -- "Listowners" cannot ever
become tyrants. They cannot CONTROL or CENSOR what is posted -- nor
SHOULD they.
Such is NOT the case on a Free-Standing LIST -- NOT yoked to a
NEWSGROUP.
We Have It Better -- Whereas LISTS Are Condemned To Mediocrity,
Homogeneity, Banality -- And Frequently Degenerate Into Tyranny.
Ergo, anyone who foolishly joins a Free-Standing Genealogical LIST --
where the "Listowner/s" can "MODERATE" and "DISCIPLINE" the posters at
a whim -- deserves what he or she gets.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
| > Bingo!
| >
| > Which goes to show, yet again, that Chico is doing PRECISELY the
right
| > thing by voting with his feet.
| >
| > Free-Standing Genealogical "Lists" are clearly an Invitation To
Tyranny.
| >
| > The only reason we have Freedom Of Speech here on SGM is that the
| > GEN-MEDIEVAL LIST is yoked to a Siamese Twin --
soc.genealogy.medieval.
| >
| > If it were not --- taf and Don would have been tempted to exercise
the
| > same sort of Tyrannical Regime HERE long ago.
| >
| > Men and Women with unchecked power are inherently corruptible -- and
the
| > desire for Comity, "Civility", Tranquility and Order will ALWAYS win
out
| > over Truth, Accuracy, Democracy and Freedom -- if given any sort of
| > opening.
| >
| > Our Founding Fathers wisely understood all that -- but the folks at
| > RootsWeb do NOT -- so boycott them.
| >
| > Rosa Parks was right....she refused to move to the rear of the bus
and
| > sit with the "other colored folk."
| >
| > Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
| >
| > Deus Vult.
| >
| > "The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of
truth....
| > This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end
beyond
| > itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra
Gentiles"
| > [c.1258-1264]
| >
| > "Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et
arceo."
| >
| > Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
| >
| > Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae
coronat
| > opus.
| >
| > D. Spencer Hines
| >
| > Lux et Veritas et Libertas
| >
| > Vires et Honor
| >
| > "Todd A. Farmerie" <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote in message
| > news:42544f33@news.ColoState.EDU...
| >
| > | Second, it is the longstanding policy of RootsWeb that the
listowner
| > has
| > | virtually unlimited latitude in managing/moderating their list.
While
| > | the examples posted here may not be what you have been used to on
the
| > | list, and may be virtually certain of driving the list into the
| > ground,
| > | I see nothing that would cause RootsWeb to intervene - no
| > commercialism,
| > | no pornography, etc. (this is the case in USENET as well). I know
of
| > no
| > | instances a Listowner was 'bounced' for egomaniacal or
idiosyncratic
| > | moderation, and I wouldn't anticipate any change in this case. It
is
| > | unfortunate that the new listowner is so unpleasant - tough luck,
but
| > | you're stuck with it.
| > |
| > | Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe
you
| > | (us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and
if
| > | you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or
start a
| > | new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little
| > motivation
| > | to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
| > |
| > | taf
-
Gjest
Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists"
Rick I must disagree. I know it's not in my nature but I must rise above that [insert smiley faced icon here]
I have faced the same sort of moderation from other list owners. Simply disagreeing with a moderator about their overly-zealous moderating is enough to get you moderated. So it's free speech as long as you don't go around saying anything against the moderator. That's not really free speech and hurting the feelings of the moderator should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated. Certain things are acceptable to moderate, like people posting pornography, get-rich quick schemes, and other things unrelated to the list.
Things like how the list is moderated is absolutely related to the list and should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated. I agree with Spencer below when he says that if you give a tyrannical personality a little power they will abuse it. Which is why I don't moderate any lists myself.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Eaton <eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:01:06 -0700
Subject: Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists" -- Or Any Other "List"
<snip>
Your charges against the list owners are not founded in the facts, I am
afraid, and you might consider a first: recanting them.
</snip>
Rick Eaton
I have faced the same sort of moderation from other list owners. Simply disagreeing with a moderator about their overly-zealous moderating is enough to get you moderated. So it's free speech as long as you don't go around saying anything against the moderator. That's not really free speech and hurting the feelings of the moderator should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated. Certain things are acceptable to moderate, like people posting pornography, get-rich quick schemes, and other things unrelated to the list.
Things like how the list is moderated is absolutely related to the list and should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated. I agree with Spencer below when he says that if you give a tyrannical personality a little power they will abuse it. Which is why I don't moderate any lists myself.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Eaton <eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net>
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:01:06 -0700
Subject: Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists" -- Or Any Other "List"
<snip>
Your charges against the list owners are not founded in the facts, I am
afraid, and you might consider a first: recanting them.
</snip>
Rick Eaton
Free-Standing Genealogical "Lists" are clearly an Invitation To Tyranny.
The only reason we have Freedom Of Speech here on SGM is that the
GEN-MEDIEVAL LIST is yoked to a Siamese Twin -- soc.genealogy.medieval.
If it were not --- taf and Don would have been tempted to exercise the
same sort of Tyrannical Regime HERE long ago.
Men and Women with unchecked power are inherently corruptible --
D. Spencer Hines
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists"
You are quite right.
Further, Eaton-san is utterly confused, having misread what I wrote.
I did not accuse OUR listowners of ANYTHING -- quite the contrary.
I simply said they would be TEMPTED to become tyrannical [as would ANY
of US, given the same circumstances since we are all HUMAN and therefore
CORRUPTIBLE by POWER] -- IF we had a Free-Standing LIST -- NOT yoked to
a USENET Newsgroup -- SGM.
Yes, Virginia, there REALLY is ORIGINAL SIN ---- even Sigmund Freud
recognized that -- indeed he refined our UNDERSTANDING of it.
Finally, as Eaton-san made quite clear, he has bitched, whined and
moaned to Don and Todd freely, whenever he sees something that pinks him
or sticks in his craw.
So do SCORES of OTHER bitchers, whiners and moaners.
However, Don and Todd have a PERFECT ANSWER.
They can simply say:
"We can't moderate what's posted here because we are listowners for a
GEN-MED yoked to an SGM -- a newsgroup -- and we don't have that sort of
power."
The IMPLICIT message, which doesn't even need to be STATED, is:
"Now that you have had the situation, the facts of life concerning the
structure of GEN-MED/SGM, explained to you, kindly bugger off!" --- but
they are polite and don't say that. <G>
WIN-WIN....
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8C7092E5E55AC14-DD8-F1CB@mblk-r27.sysops.aol.com...
| Rick I must disagree. I know it's not in my nature but I must rise
| above that [insert smiley faced icon here].
| I have faced the same sort of moderation from other list owners.
| Simply disagreeing with a moderator about their overly-zealous
| moderating is enough to get you moderated.
It may even be enough to get you canned, if you persist. -- DSH
| So it's free speech as long as you don't go around saying
| anything against the moderator.
| That's not really free speech and hurting the feelings of the
| moderator should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated.
| Certain things are acceptable to moderate, like people posting
| pornography, get-rich quick schemes, and other things
| unrelated to the list.
|
| Things like how the list is moderated is absolutely related to the
| list and should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated. I
| agree with Spencer below when he says that if you give a tyrannical
| personality a little power they will abuse it. Which is why I don't
| moderate any lists myself.
|
| Will Johnson
Further, Eaton-san is utterly confused, having misread what I wrote.
I did not accuse OUR listowners of ANYTHING -- quite the contrary.
I simply said they would be TEMPTED to become tyrannical [as would ANY
of US, given the same circumstances since we are all HUMAN and therefore
CORRUPTIBLE by POWER] -- IF we had a Free-Standing LIST -- NOT yoked to
a USENET Newsgroup -- SGM.
Yes, Virginia, there REALLY is ORIGINAL SIN ---- even Sigmund Freud
recognized that -- indeed he refined our UNDERSTANDING of it.
Finally, as Eaton-san made quite clear, he has bitched, whined and
moaned to Don and Todd freely, whenever he sees something that pinks him
or sticks in his craw.
So do SCORES of OTHER bitchers, whiners and moaners.
However, Don and Todd have a PERFECT ANSWER.
They can simply say:
"We can't moderate what's posted here because we are listowners for a
GEN-MED yoked to an SGM -- a newsgroup -- and we don't have that sort of
power."
The IMPLICIT message, which doesn't even need to be STATED, is:
"Now that you have had the situation, the facts of life concerning the
structure of GEN-MED/SGM, explained to you, kindly bugger off!" --- but
they are polite and don't say that. <G>
WIN-WIN....
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
<wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8C7092E5E55AC14-DD8-F1CB@mblk-r27.sysops.aol.com...
| Rick I must disagree. I know it's not in my nature but I must rise
| above that [insert smiley faced icon here].
| I have faced the same sort of moderation from other list owners.
| Simply disagreeing with a moderator about their overly-zealous
| moderating is enough to get you moderated.
It may even be enough to get you canned, if you persist. -- DSH
| So it's free speech as long as you don't go around saying
| anything against the moderator.
| That's not really free speech and hurting the feelings of the
| moderator should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated.
| Certain things are acceptable to moderate, like people posting
| pornography, get-rich quick schemes, and other things
| unrelated to the list.
|
| Things like how the list is moderated is absolutely related to the
| list and should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated. I
| agree with Spencer below when he says that if you give a tyrannical
| personality a little power they will abuse it. Which is why I don't
| moderate any lists myself.
|
| Will Johnson
-
Dr. Brian Leverich
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
On 2005-04-06, Todd A. Farmerie <farmerie@interfold.com> wrote:
Hi all -
First, I'm not affiliated with RootsWeb in any way and haven't
been for years.
Following up on Todd's post, I probably would have said about
the same thing but with a different spin.
RootsWeb has historically (and I expect still does) listen to
the masses, prolly more than what's good for the institution. (:
However, it's utterly hopeless trying to manage lists and
listowners in such a way that everyone winds up being happy.
It's a physical impossibility. It just can't be done.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. (:
The way that RootsWeb has historically dealt with the problem
is allowing the creation of new lists covering the same topics
as the existing list. The genealogical community can then vote
with its feet, folks joining whichever list has a "personality"
that's most comfortable for them.
FWIW, if folks are serious about splintering GEN-ANCIENT-L, I'd
suggest you create the splinter list at RootsWeb. It's very
hard to get a list going anywhere else -- as someone noticed,
there's a Google list that's been in existence for some time
and it's quite moribund. At RootsWeb you have a better shot at
building a functioning genealogy-oriented community than at
random other general-purpose sites.
Cheers, B.
--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 leverich@mtpinos.com
Third, RootsWeb does NOT have to listen to the masses. They owe you
(us) nothing. They are doing you a favor by hosting the list, and if
you don't like it you can either discontinue participation, or start a
new group with a new listowner. Given that, they have little motivation
to involve themselves in every moderator spat that arises.
taf
Hi all -
First, I'm not affiliated with RootsWeb in any way and haven't
been for years.
Following up on Todd's post, I probably would have said about
the same thing but with a different spin.
RootsWeb has historically (and I expect still does) listen to
the masses, prolly more than what's good for the institution. (:
However, it's utterly hopeless trying to manage lists and
listowners in such a way that everyone winds up being happy.
It's a physical impossibility. It just can't be done.
Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt. (:
The way that RootsWeb has historically dealt with the problem
is allowing the creation of new lists covering the same topics
as the existing list. The genealogical community can then vote
with its feet, folks joining whichever list has a "personality"
that's most comfortable for them.
FWIW, if folks are serious about splintering GEN-ANCIENT-L, I'd
suggest you create the splinter list at RootsWeb. It's very
hard to get a list going anywhere else -- as someone noticed,
there's a Google list that's been in existence for some time
and it's quite moribund. At RootsWeb you have a better shot at
building a functioning genealogy-oriented community than at
random other general-purpose sites.
Cheers, B.
--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 leverich@mtpinos.com
-
norenxaq
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
The way that RootsWeb has historically dealt with the problem
is allowing the creation of new lists covering the same topics
as the existing list. The genealogical community can then vote
with its feet, folks joining whichever list has a "personality"
that's most comfortable for them.
FWIW, if folks are serious about splintering GEN-ANCIENT-L, I'd
suggest you create the splinter list at RootsWeb. It's very
hard to get a list going anywhere else -- as someone noticed,
there's a Google list that's been in existence for some time
and it's quite moribund. At RootsWeb you have a better shot at
building a functioning genealogy-oriented community than at
random other general-purpose sites.
Cheers, B.
what would be the procedure to create a new list?
-
Dr. Brian Leverich
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
On 2005-04-07, norenxaq <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote:
It's easy:
http://resources.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listrequest.pl
Cheers, B.
--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 leverich@mtpinos.com
The way that RootsWeb has historically dealt with the problem
is allowing the creation of new lists covering the same topics
as the existing list. The genealogical community can then vote
with its feet, folks joining whichever list has a "personality"
that's most comfortable for them.
FWIW, if folks are serious about splintering GEN-ANCIENT-L, I'd
suggest you create the splinter list at RootsWeb. It's very
hard to get a list going anywhere else -- as someone noticed,
there's a Google list that's been in existence for some time
and it's quite moribund. At RootsWeb you have a better shot at
building a functioning genealogy-oriented community than at
random other general-purpose sites.
Cheers, B.
what would be the procedure to create a new list?
It's easy:
http://resources.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listrequest.pl
Cheers, B.
--
Dr. Brian Leverich Co-moderator, soc.genealogy.methods/GENMTD-L
Angeles Chapter LTC Admin Chair http://angeles.sierraclub.org/ltc/
P.O. Box 6831, Frazier Park, CA 93222-6831 leverich@mtpinos.com
-
Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists"
I'll admit that I wanted to find an excuse to moderate someone when I was
the admin. of Gen-Ancient, just to try the mechanics of the function. But I
never saw anything to justify, (in my opinion), such a drastic move.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists" -- Or
Any Other "List"
to get you moderated. So it's free speech as long as you don't go around
saying anything against the moderator. That's not really free speech and
hurting the feelings of the moderator should not be grounds for getting
yourself moderated. Certain things are acceptable to moderate, like people
posting pornography, get-rich quick schemes, and other things unrelated to
the list.
Spencer below when he says that if you give a tyrannical personality a
little power they will abuse it. Which is why I don't moderate any lists
myself.
the admin. of Gen-Ancient, just to try the mechanics of the function. But I
never saw anything to justify, (in my opinion), such a drastic move.
----- Original Message -----
From: <wjhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists" -- Or
Any Other "List"
Rick I must disagree. I know it's not in my nature but I must rise above
that [insert smiley faced icon here]
I have faced the same sort of moderation from other list owners. Simply
disagreeing with a moderator about their overly-zealous moderating is enough
to get you moderated. So it's free speech as long as you don't go around
saying anything against the moderator. That's not really free speech and
hurting the feelings of the moderator should not be grounds for getting
yourself moderated. Certain things are acceptable to moderate, like people
posting pornography, get-rich quick schemes, and other things unrelated to
the list.
Things like how the list is moderated is absolutely related to the list
and should not be grounds for getting yourself moderated. I agree with
Spencer below when he says that if you give a tyrannical personality a
little power they will abuse it. Which is why I don't moderate any lists
myself.
Will Johnson
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Eaton <eaton.noble@sbcglobal.net
To: GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:01:06 -0700
Subject: Re: The Inherent Opportunity For Tyranny On RootsWeb "Lists" --
Or Any Other "List"
snip
Your charges against the list owners are not founded in the facts, I am
afraid, and you might consider a first: recanting them.
/snip
Rick Eaton
Free-Standing Genealogical "Lists" are clearly an Invitation To Tyranny.
The only reason we have Freedom Of Speech here on SGM is that the
GEN-MEDIEVAL LIST is yoked to a Siamese Twin -- soc.genealogy.medieval.
If it were not --- taf and Don would have been tempted to exercise the
same sort of Tyrannical Regime HERE long ago.
Men and Women with unchecked power are inherently corruptible --
D. Spencer Hines
-
Gjest
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Here is the response I've gotten to my email so far.
Am I correcting in thinking that Paul Davis is also now being moderated on
Gen-Ancient?
Will Johnson
A response to your Help Desk message, "Re: LISTS: New manager at
gen-ancient-L
(Pat #337830) (fwd)," of Wednesday, 6 April 2005, at 09:33 AM follows:
-------------------------
Thank you for your email. This matter is known to us and we are trying
to navigate our ways through various options.
Am I correcting in thinking that Paul Davis is also now being moderated on
Gen-Ancient?
Will Johnson
A response to your Help Desk message, "Re: LISTS: New manager at
gen-ancient-L
(Pat #337830) (fwd)," of Wednesday, 6 April 2005, at 09:33 AM follows:
-------------------------
Thank you for your email. This matter is known to us and we are trying
to navigate our ways through various options.
-
Gordon Banks
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Anyone can start a new list. You just send them a proposal for the
list, the scope of the list, and you have to volunteer to serve as
moderator. I don't know what the history has been on dissatisfied
people forming a rival list, but it sounds like from the last
communication they have sent me that they are considering bouncing Jean.
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 03:55 +0000, norenxaq wrote:
list, the scope of the list, and you have to volunteer to serve as
moderator. I don't know what the history has been on dissatisfied
people forming a rival list, but it sounds like from the last
communication they have sent me that they are considering bouncing Jean.
On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 03:55 +0000, norenxaq wrote:
The way that RootsWeb has historically dealt with the problem
is allowing the creation of new lists covering the same topics
as the existing list. The genealogical community can then vote
with its feet, folks joining whichever list has a "personality"
that's most comfortable for them.
FWIW, if folks are serious about splintering GEN-ANCIENT-L, I'd
suggest you create the splinter list at RootsWeb. It's very
hard to get a list going anywhere else -- as someone noticed,
there's a Google list that's been in existence for some time
and it's quite moribund. At RootsWeb you have a better shot at
building a functioning genealogy-oriented community than at
random other general-purpose sites.
Cheers, B.
what would be the procedure to create a new list?
-
norenxaq
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Hello:
I have sent a request to rootsweb for a list entitled:
gen-ancienthistory.
I will post any progress on it once I receive it
I have sent a request to rootsweb for a list entitled:
gen-ancienthistory.
I will post any progress on it once I receive it
-
Paul K Davis
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
It would appear so. I don't recall having received a notification or
explanation of why. Perhaps merely for communicating with FA?
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
explanation of why. Perhaps merely for communicating with FA?
-- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
[Original Message]
From: <WJhonson@aol.com
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Date: 4/7/2005 9:22:00 AM
Subject: Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Here is the response I've gotten to my email so far.
Am I correcting in thinking that Paul Davis is also now being
moderated on
Gen-Ancient?
Will Johnson
A response to your Help Desk message, "Re: LISTS: New manager at
gen-ancient-L
(Pat #337830) (fwd)," of Wednesday, 6 April 2005, at 09:33 AM follows:
-------------------------
Thank you for your email. This matter is known to us and we are trying
to navigate our ways through various options.
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Hilarious!
Big Sister Is Watching You!
DSH
""Paul K Davis"" <pkd-gm@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:410-2200545834711586@earthlink.net...
| It would appear so. I don't recall having received a notification or
| explanation of why. Perhaps merely for communicating with FA?
|
| -- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
|
|
| > [Original Message]
| > From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
| > To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| > Date: 4/7/2005 9:22:00 AM
| > Subject: Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
| >
| > Here is the response I've gotten to my email so far.
| > Am I correcting in thinking that Paul Davis is also now being
| moderated on
| > Gen-Ancient?
| >
| > Will Johnson
| >
| >
| > A response to your Help Desk message, "Re: LISTS: New manager at
| > gen-ancient-L
| > (Pat #337830) (fwd)," of Wednesday, 6 April 2005, at 09:33 AM
follows:
| >
| >
| >
| > -------------------------
| > Thank you for your email. This matter is known to us and we are
trying
| > to navigate our ways through various options.
Big Sister Is Watching You!
DSH
""Paul K Davis"" <pkd-gm@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:410-2200545834711586@earthlink.net...
| It would appear so. I don't recall having received a notification or
| explanation of why. Perhaps merely for communicating with FA?
|
| -- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
|
|
| > [Original Message]
| > From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
| > To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
| > Date: 4/7/2005 9:22:00 AM
| > Subject: Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
| >
| > Here is the response I've gotten to my email so far.
| > Am I correcting in thinking that Paul Davis is also now being
| moderated on
| > Gen-Ancient?
| >
| > Will Johnson
| >
| >
| > A response to your Help Desk message, "Re: LISTS: New manager at
| > gen-ancient-L
| > (Pat #337830) (fwd)," of Wednesday, 6 April 2005, at 09:33 AM
follows:
| >
| >
| >
| > -------------------------
| > Thank you for your email. This matter is known to us and we are
trying
| > to navigate our ways through various options.
-
Francisco Antonio Doria
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
I an the Heinous Fiend
))
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
--- "D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Hilarious!
Big Sister Is Watching You!
DSH
""Paul K Davis"" <pkd-gm@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:410-2200545834711586@earthlink.net...
| It would appear so. I don't recall having
received a notification or
| explanation of why. Perhaps merely for
communicating with FA?
|
| -- PKD [Paul K Davis, pkd-gm@earthlink.net]
|
|
| > [Original Message]
| > From: <WJhonson@aol.com
| > To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
| > Date: 4/7/2005 9:22:00 AM
| > Subject: Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
|
| > Here is the response I've gotten to my email so
far.
| > Am I correcting in thinking that Paul Davis
is also now being
| moderated on
| > Gen-Ancient?
|
| > Will Johnson
|
|
| > A response to your Help Desk message, "Re:
LISTS: New manager at
| > gen-ancient-L
| > (Pat #337830) (fwd)," of Wednesday, 6 April
2005, at 09:33 AM
follows:
|
|
|
| > -------------------------
| > Thank you for your email. This matter is known
to us and we are
trying
| > to navigate our ways through various options.
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
-
Francisco Antonio Doria
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Then, if you'll take such an Heinous Fiend as myself,
I'll jump in
))
--- norenxaq <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote:
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
I'll jump in
--- norenxaq <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote:
Hello:
I have sent a request to rootsweb for a list
entitled:
gen-ancienthistory.
I will post any progress on it once I receive it
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
-
Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
If you get the list, (see the answer which I received, [posted elsewhere in
this thread], to understand my doubts), I should not only be glad to
subscribe, but to help in any way that I can.
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Antonio Doria" <franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
this thread], to understand my doubts), I should not only be glad to
subscribe, but to help in any way that I can.
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Antonio Doria" <franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Then, if you'll take such an Heinous Fiend as myself,
I'll jump in))
--- norenxaq <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote:
Hello:
I have sent a request to rootsweb for a list
entitled:
gen-ancienthistory.
I will post any progress on it once I receive it
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora! http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
-
Chris Phillips
Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
One thing I'm not clear on, and would like to know, is whether Ms. Asche was
correct in thinking that RootsWeb prohibits quoting from messages to
different mailing lists. In other words, is it Ms. Asche who doesn't
understand copyright law, or RootsWeb?
I'm not able to check exactly what she claimed RootsWeb's policy was - as
far as I can see, a number of posts seem to have been removed from the
GEN-ANCIENT-L archive, including some of hers!
If that _is_ RootsWeb's policy, it would be interesting to know how they
square it with the gateway that results in GEN-MEDIEVAL reproducing all
manner of posts from various newsgroups!
Chris Phillips
correct in thinking that RootsWeb prohibits quoting from messages to
different mailing lists. In other words, is it Ms. Asche who doesn't
understand copyright law, or RootsWeb?
I'm not able to check exactly what she claimed RootsWeb's policy was - as
far as I can see, a number of posts seem to have been removed from the
GEN-ANCIENT-L archive, including some of hers!
If that _is_ RootsWeb's policy, it would be interesting to know how they
square it with the gateway that results in GEN-MEDIEVAL reproducing all
manner of posts from various newsgroups!
Chris Phillips
-
Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Vicki Thauvin" <vicki@rootsweb.com>
To: <FordMommaerts@Cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: ANCIENT_GENEALOGY List Request
From: "Vicki Thauvin" <vicki@rootsweb.com>
To: <FordMommaerts@Cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: ANCIENT_GENEALOGY List Request
Ford,
We will not be creating the list requested below as we already have a list
covering that topic: GEN-ANCIENT-L.
--
Vicki Thauvin
RootsWeb Staff
vicki@rootsweb.com
On 4/6/05 11:20 PM, "listrequest@rootsweb.com" <listrequest@rootsweb.com
wrote:
# Type: Miscellaneous
# List Description: A mailing list for the discussion of genealogies of
ancient families, and family history, among people researching
individuals who
lived in ancient times. The primary focus of the group to be on the Near
East,
Greece, and Rome, as well as neighboring regions; but postings about
genealogies in other areas, such as The river valleys of the Indus,
Ganges,
Brahmaputra, Irrawady, Salween, Mekong, Yangtze, Hwang Ho, Yalo, Volga,
Niger
and Nile, during the time period are welcome.
From the beginnings of the written word, (and, therefore, contemporary
historical documention), until 600 CE - but these limits are not
intended to
exclude related topics of discussion lying outside of these boundaries,
e.g.,
Descents from Antiquity (DFA), the emergence of kingdoms or dynasties
which
later became significant, or the later vicisitudes of dynasties or
houses
begun in this time period.
ANCIENT_GENEALOGY ancient_genealogy "Ford Mommaerts-Browne"
FordMommaerts@Cox.net 085222
Administrator: yes
AUP: yes
-
Francisco Antonio Doria
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Well, I prefer to stay at gen-med, where one has
already lots of stuff about DFAs, and simple leave Ms
Asche's list to herself...
chico
--- Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
<StanfordMommaerts@cox.net> wrote:
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
already lots of stuff about DFAs, and simple leave Ms
Asche's list to herself...
chico
--- Stanford Mommaerts-Browne
<StanfordMommaerts@cox.net> wrote:
If you get the list, (see the answer which I
received, [posted elsewhere in
this thread], to understand my doubts), I should not
only be glad to
subscribe, but to help in any way that I can.
Ford
----- Original Message -----
From: "Francisco Antonio Doria"
franciscoantoniodoria@yahoo.com.br
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 1:33 AM
Subject: Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin
Then, if you'll take such an Heinous Fiend as
myself,
I'll jump in))
--- norenxaq <norenxaq@san.rr.com> wrote:
Hello:
I have sent a request to rootsweb for a list
entitled:
gen-ancienthistory.
I will post any progress on it once I receive it
Yahoo! Acesso Grátis - Internet rápida e grátis.
Instale o discador agora!
http://br.acesso.yahoo.com/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
-
Chris Phillips
Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
Chris Dickinson wrote:
I'm not sure how it originally arose, because the start of the discussion
seems to be missing from the archives, but certainly at one point Francisco
Doria gave what seemed to be an unexceptionable commentary on copyright law,
including the principle that "One may freely quote reasonable, short,
excerpts from any public source, provided that the source is properly
referenced."
To this, Joan Asche simply replied "You are most certainly entitled to your
viewpoint but for the purposes of the mailing list you may not copy and
paste from other message boards. ... No further discussion is necessary
concerning this because that is simply the way that it is ..."
I agree that quoting entire posts without permission is discourteous and a
breach of copyright, but what Ms Asche seems to be claiming goes way beyond
this. For example, it would mean that the two short quotations in the
paragraphs above would break the rules, when this post crosses the gateway
into GEN-MEDIEVAL!
I suspect she has misinterpreted RootsWeb's guidelines (and couldn't be
bothered to check when the question arose), but it would be nice to know for
sure.
Chris Phillips
There's a difference between quoting from posts and reposting them in full
in a different forum. Doing the latter without the knowledge or consent of
the author does seem to go against general copyright principles (as well
as
being an academic discourtesy) and is, as I understand it, against
Rootsweb
policy.
Did the issue arise from the suggestion that old posts from this forum be
reposted in ancient?
I'm not sure how it originally arose, because the start of the discussion
seems to be missing from the archives, but certainly at one point Francisco
Doria gave what seemed to be an unexceptionable commentary on copyright law,
including the principle that "One may freely quote reasonable, short,
excerpts from any public source, provided that the source is properly
referenced."
To this, Joan Asche simply replied "You are most certainly entitled to your
viewpoint but for the purposes of the mailing list you may not copy and
paste from other message boards. ... No further discussion is necessary
concerning this because that is simply the way that it is ..."
I agree that quoting entire posts without permission is discourteous and a
breach of copyright, but what Ms Asche seems to be claiming goes way beyond
this. For example, it would mean that the two short quotations in the
paragraphs above would break the rules, when this post crosses the gateway
into GEN-MEDIEVAL!
I suspect she has misinterpreted RootsWeb's guidelines (and couldn't be
bothered to check when the question arose), but it would be nice to know for
sure.
Chris Phillips
-
Chris Dickinson
Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
Chris Phillips wrote:
There's a difference between quoting from posts and reposting them in full
in a different forum. Doing the latter without the knowledge or consent of
the author does seem to go against general copyright principles (as well as
being an academic discourtesy) and is, as I understand it, against Rootsweb
policy.
Did the issue arise from the suggestion that old posts from this forum be
reposted in ancient?
Ms Asche's suggestion of posting the URL rather than the whole original post
would be sensible for the vast majority of Rootsweb lists (which are, um,
mostly 'literary' in nature), but may not be for her type of list (where a
post might consist entirely of a lineage and need to be available at hand
for detailed commentary).
As it happens, I rather dislike it when people repost anything of mine. On
the occasions when it has happened, (a) enough time had passed for me to
have changed my views radically; or (b) I'd since done a lot more research;
or (c) the post seemed to me inappropriate to the forum to which it has been
sent; or (d) on one occasion, the reposter claimed authorship and was
congratulated by the list administrator for an excellent posting!.
Chris
One thing I'm not clear on, and would like to know, is whether Ms. Asche
was
correct in thinking that RootsWeb prohibits quoting from messages to
different mailing lists. In other words, is it Ms. Asche who doesn't
understand copyright law, or RootsWeb?
snip
There's a difference between quoting from posts and reposting them in full
in a different forum. Doing the latter without the knowledge or consent of
the author does seem to go against general copyright principles (as well as
being an academic discourtesy) and is, as I understand it, against Rootsweb
policy.
Did the issue arise from the suggestion that old posts from this forum be
reposted in ancient?
Ms Asche's suggestion of posting the URL rather than the whole original post
would be sensible for the vast majority of Rootsweb lists (which are, um,
mostly 'literary' in nature), but may not be for her type of list (where a
post might consist entirely of a lineage and need to be available at hand
for detailed commentary).
As it happens, I rather dislike it when people repost anything of mine. On
the occasions when it has happened, (a) enough time had passed for me to
have changed my views radically; or (b) I'd since done a lot more research;
or (c) the post seemed to me inappropriate to the forum to which it has been
sent; or (d) on one occasion, the reposter claimed authorship and was
congratulated by the list administrator for an excellent posting!.
Chris
-
Chris Phillips
Re: FW: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
Stanford Mommaerts-Browne quoted:
I assume you'll be directing Vicki Thauvin's attention to Brian Leverich's
post of 7 April, containing the original advice:
<<
The way that RootsWeb has historically dealt with the problem
is allowing the creation of new lists covering the same topics
as the existing list. The genealogical community can then vote
with its feet, folks joining whichever list has a "personality"
that's most comfortable for them.
Chris Phillips
Ford,
We will not be creating the list requested below as we already have a
list
covering that topic: GEN-ANCIENT-L.
--
Vicki Thauvin
RootsWeb Staff
vicki@rootsweb.com
I assume you'll be directing Vicki Thauvin's attention to Brian Leverich's
post of 7 April, containing the original advice:
<<
The way that RootsWeb has historically dealt with the problem
is allowing the creation of new lists covering the same topics
as the existing list. The genealogical community can then vote
with its feet, folks joining whichever list has a "personality"
that's most comfortable for them.
Chris Phillips
-
Gordon Banks
Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
Can the moderator edit the archives?
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:24 +0100, Chris Phillips wrote:
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:24 +0100, Chris Phillips wrote:
posted in ancient?
I'm not sure how it originally arose, because the start of the discussion
seems to be missing from the archives,
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com>
-
fairthorne
Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
Remember Winston Smith in 1984 and no reduction in the chocolate ration?
cheers
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
cheers
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Banks" <geb@gordonbanks.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 08, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: gen-ancient-L admin [OFF-TOPIC]
Can the moderator edit the archives?
On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:24 +0100, Chris Phillips wrote:
posted in ancient?
I'm not sure how it originally arose, because the start of the
discussion
seems to be missing from the archives,
--
Gordon Banks <geb@gordonbanks.com