Re: Censor-round

[btm805@btrtx9.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de (B. Gramlich)]

Sorry, this is lengthy and should only be read by those who are interested in
the Mr. Censor thread.

Fang, Re:

> Bernd, re:
> 
> > The correct police station in our case is Paul. (And if sheriff Paul says
> that RT isn't a case for the local police, then all of us - including you -
> have to accept this decision.) 
> 
> This is not true. Paul may be responsible for the list, but not for someone's
> private e-mail. 
> 
> What you said was:
> 
> >>Personally, I don't care what RT does outside of this list - as long as he
> stops bothering us with his ill-famous private e-mail. 
> 
> The e-mail *IS* outside of the list. It's related to the list, but it's not
> going through the list. It isn't up to Paul to take action on someone's
> e-mail, but the source of the e-mail itself, in this case the company from
> where it came from. See the difference?

Yes.  But the e-mail we are talking about is so closely related to the list
that Paul can do a thing about it.  Look:  If, on RT's request, Paul banished
you (or Jay, or whomever) from the list, then the case would be over for you -
no harassing e-mail from RT and, sadly, no discussion on The Who list anymore.
On the other hand, if you requested Paul to banish RT instead and if he did so,
then the whole Mr. Censor affair would be over in a flash.  Maybe RT would be
stubborn enough to send some more of his `friendly private reminders', but
since he wouldn't see any reaction anymore, he would soon get tired of doing
so.

Thus Paul really is the correct policeman here.

But fortunately, Paul doesn't support such childish behaviour like getting
someone off of the list (hey, Kenny, did you ever figure out what had happened
to you?).  This means that we have to settle conflicts like the Censor Affair
on our own - in a reasonable fashion, without resorting to extremes.

Fang, this list resolved the Drug Affair and the Scalper Affair and many, many
others on its own without any help from outside.  Why should we need some Big
Brother right now?

> >> Anything which goes beyond this list is like hiring a killer to extinguish
> RT's family and friends.
> 
> No. Getting the person to stop the e-mail from it's source, is not like your
> scenario. There are many remedies available to make someone stop "harrassing"
> behavior before "killing their family and friends", isn't there?

Agreed.  But from the many remedies to choose from, you didn't pick the first
ones, like

   - writing privately to RT, explaining the situation to him, and asking him
   to stop this nonsense,

   - announcing publicly on the list that if RT continues to harass your fellow
   listers, something serious will have to be done to stop him from doing so,

   - asking Paul whether it is possible to remove trouble-makers like RT from
   the list,

   - telling RT privately that you will contact his company if he continues to
   `censor' us.

Instead, you immediately turned to the harder `remedies'...  That's all I am
complaining about.

> (You haven't been reading those old SS handbooks have you?)

No.  In fact, I don't even own one, but I think there could be some in the
attic of my grandparents' house.  If you want, I can go and look.  Maybe you
want to trade them for some Who bootlegs...? :-)

> >>He has shown how great an idiot he is in his recent posting, where he was
> unable to swallow his pride for just a little apology. 
> 
> I don't think that "pride" is a measure of one's intelligence, do you?

You're right.  The incapacity to deal with one's pride doesn't imply a lack of
intelligence - it only shows that one is rather unwise.

Maybe we are using different definitions of an `idiot' here:

   (1)  idiot = person unwilling or unable to reasonably interact with others
                in public,

   (2)  idiot = very foolish or stupid person.

The original Greek definition is (1), whereas the English meaning seems to be
(2) - at least according to my dictionaries.  The German meaning is somewhere
inbetween.  I meant (1).  (Sorry, RT, didn't mean to insult you here... :-) )

> Actually, Mr. C. is quite bright. He may be depraved and unbalanced, but he's
> not stupid.

Agreed.

> For some unknown reason he got a gerbil, I mean bug up his <Bev>
> and started a censorship campaign against memebers of this list. If you'd
> bothered to find out more about him, you'd see that this man has spent YEARS
> studying and advocating for just the opposite. He *is* "Mr Free Speech".
> (some irony)

Fang, I am repeating myself, but:  I am not at all interested in what our
friends (and enemies) here do outside of this list.  If someone tells us a
story about him-/herself on the list - fine, it might be interesting and it
will help to get a better picture of said person.  But I won't do any research
work on the net or elsewhere just to find out some more details about any
lister.

I know quite something about you:  You are an audiophile, you have a huge
collection of Who records, you like big German cars but dislike opening acts at
Who concerts etc...  But all of this information I have I have from you and
your postings, and from nowhere else.  And that's enough, since I only want to
deal with you as the person you are describing yourself to be.  Should we ever
meet at some concert, then things might change a little, but not much...

Just in case you are looking for my web page:  I don't have any.  There's only
some web page containing a rather ugly snapshot of myself.  If you want to know
the URL, I can e-mail it to you privately.

> The point that you are missing, is that Mark David Chapman was
> also one of the world's greatest Beatles fans and... he snapped. Now, while
> I'm not implying or suggesting that Mr. C. is a violent person to other
> people, I am saying that given the circumstances it doesn't make sense.
> Personally, I'd like to see him get some help.

Maybe it would be enough if RT sat down for a while and just reflected on what
he has done here.  As for his inconsistency in word and deed and other
character flaws you suspect him to suffer from after having examined his home
page:  I don't think that it's up to you or me to decide whether someone here
needs to `get some help' or not... 

> >>BTW:  Have you ever considered the possibility (1) that you might have
> spoken to RT himself when you were contacting Parametric, or (2) that RT
> could be the boss of that company?  Well, try to do so.  Maybe this thought
> can help you to realize how inappropriate your reaction was.
> 
> Bernd, I thought you were a bit smarter than the "above".

Hm, I have to admit that adding this postscript to my previous argumentation
was rhetorically foolish.  It somehow seems to contradict the points I had
mentioned before.  But anyway, it's an interesting thought...

> FYI, PTC is a HUGE International Corporation. Pay more attention to one of
> Mr. C's posts, his department is listed right on it.

Thanks.  This information helps me to judge the situation correctly. 

> You're trying to "imagine" a conversation that took place and you don't have
> the slightest clue.

True, I have no clue about the details.  But I am not blaming you for HOW you
proceeded when contacting PTC but for the mere fact THAT you did it at all.

I don't have any doubts that you tried to minimize the possible damage for RT.

> What you're underlying message is (since you brought it
> up previously) is, what happens if it happens to YOU.

No.  I have nothing to hide.  I try to act consistently, and I wouldn't have
any reason to feel ashamed if the words I am posting here made their way to my
boss's desk.  But maybe others have...  And, IMHO, it's just bad style to get
someone's employer involved...

> Hey, if YOU are doing
> something wrong adverse to your companies policies, I'd say a) you were
> foolish for not understanding what the policies were in advance and any risks
> you are taking, must be met with the eventual consequences as your superiors
> invest more in what their employees are doing with their time... and b) spend
> the extra few dollars a month on your OWN Internet provider. Use it a home,
> lunch time, after work, etc. For the few dollars a month it may cost you, it
> may save you from the embarrassment and consequence of having your boss "read
> you the riot act"... 

Private internet access is just beginning to become affordable over here. - As
far as I am concerned:  I will try get my own internet provider within a few
months or so...

> What you do at work is solely your business & your company's business.
> However, from my perspective, I'm giving you some valuable, free advice...

Thanks.

Now it's your turn to take my free advice:  If someone attacks you or your
friends on this list, defend yourself here.  Don't try to get third parties
involved in things that are only marginally their business.

Best wishes,

Bernd