Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 469
Netizens-Digest Monday, April 7 2003 Volume 01 : Number 469
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
Re: [netz] censorship
Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
[netz] Question about the list
[netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Re: [netz] censorship
[netz] reading list?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:47:10 EDT
From: AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off
- --part1_1cc.6c91810.2bc3058e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message dated 4/7/03 12:08:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,=20
lgd1@columbia.edu writes:
> Hello: I would like a clarification on the following in your posting:=20
> "Consider that it is not very constructive to express either overtly or=20
> ambigously that you do not trust the officials you voted for".=20
> Luis de Quesada=20
I had meant 'ambagiously' or 'with indirection' just as written -- not=20
'ambiguously.' =20
It is the manner and language of diplomacy to equivocate with the usage of=20
gesture and words that do not agitate in order to assist the conveyance of=20
objectives. If you do forgo such editing you risk that your 'adversary' wil=
l=20
become seduced by ancillary issues that have no relevance to the real=20
objectives.
Originally, I had expressed:
> Paranoia or the expressed expectation of baneful behavior of your adversar=
y=20
> is not the beginning of a good diplomacy. =A0 Consider that it is not very=
=20
> constructive to express either overtly or ambagiously that you do not trus=
t=20
> the elected officials that you voted for.=20
>=20
Larry
- --part1_1cc.6c91810.2bc3058e_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 4/7/03 12:08:57 PM Eastern Daylight=
Time, lgd1@columbia.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Hello: I would like a clarifica=
tion on the following in your posting: "Consider that it is not very constru=
ctive to express either overtly or ambigously that you do not trust the offi=
cials you voted for". <BR>
Luis de Quesada </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
I had meant 'ambagiously' or 'with indirection' just as written -- not 'ambi=
guously.' <BR>
<BR>
It is the manner and language of diplomacy to equivocate with the usage of g=
esture and words that do not agitate in order to assist the conveyance of ob=
jectives. If you do forgo such editing you risk that your 'adversary'=20=
will become seduced by ancillary issues that have no relevance to the real o=
bjectives.<BR>
<BR>
Originally, I had expressed:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Paranoia or the expressed expec=
tation of baneful behavior of your adversary is not the beginning of a good=20=
diplomacy. =A0 Consider that it is not very constructive to express either o=
vertly or ambagiously that you do not trust the elected officials that you v=
oted for.</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"=
SIZE=3D3 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"> <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2=
FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
Larry</FONT></HTML>
- --part1_1cc.6c91810.2bc3058e_boundary--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:05:34 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] censorship
Mark: You're absolutely right. Its like potato chips, it doesn't stop. I do not
whimper about being censored, I know when I'm being censored and your complaints
about "non stopping and potato chips" proves my point. You are a censor the only
thing is that in this forum you have no censorship powers and thank God for that.
You do not have to accept my arguments and I certainly do not accept yours. I
don't have to show you anything regarding an apology to Ronda and Jay. I never
mentioned or even dream to force or to ask you to apologize to Ronda and Jay,
because I am not dictatorial or a bully, which you sound very much like. What
happened earlier on this list, your requests for Howard to step in, "are you with
me on this Howard?" implied that there was an association or an alliance to
dismiss or shut out Jay's and Ronda's postings. Like I said and I will say it
over and over again, the attempt to censor was there, although I realize it was
not an enforceable censorship because thank our lucky stars you and your friends
do not have that power on this list, if you did Ronda, Jay and I would've been
kicked out of it a long time ago.
Luis
lindeman@bard.edu wrote:
> Luis,
>
> Wow, this is like Lay potato chips, it's hard to stop.
>
> Quoting Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>:
>
> > I am just defending my right to
> > post and to reply, which I felt were threatened on this list and still are.
>
> Luis, if you have lived under a totalitarian regime, how can you possibly
> believe that anything that has happened on this list constitutes a threat to
> your right to post and to reply?
>
> > Now you're trying yet another form of censorship, which is disprove my
> > interpretation of the word censorship.
>
> I have tried to do you the honor of taking your words seriously. But if you
> think that "censorship" includes any attempt to refute you.... <sputter>
>
> Well, then I guess you're right. If you can show me where I owe Jay or Ronda
> an apology, then I will gladly apologize to them. But I will not accept your
> arguments(?), however "censorious" I may seem. If you can't defend your
> statements on their merits, for heaven's sake don't whimper about being
> repressed.
>
> Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 12:31:00 -0400
From: Luis De Quesada <lgd1@columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: [netz] Many voices online and off (fwd)
- --------------B08952738F61D3F6726D0FA6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hello: We will talk about the privatization of the internet and internet
governance here, but not as vehicles to put a stop to postings about the
war or any other issues, because that would constitute an infringement
of netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list by
some. You know that as a netizen you are invited to post whatever about
the privatization of the internet its governance, etc. whenever you want
to.
Luis de Quesada
AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/6/03 3:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> lindeman@bard.edu writes:
>
>
>> RH>It is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as
>> RH>I see in the US, there are very few online discussion forums that
>>
>> RH>support broad ranging discussion on the build up to the war and
>> the
>> RH>war itself. There are a few, but there is also fear I have seen
>> RH>expressed of people feeling they can express their true feelings
>> RH>online given the repression that is carried out against others
>> RH>by the governments in question.
>> RH>
>> RH>This too is of concern to netizens and the netizens list.
>> RH>
>> M>If there is an absence of forums for broad discussion of the war,
>> that
>> M>probably _is_ of interest to the netizens list -- certainly if
>> some of
>> M>us believe that the absence owes to fear of government reprisals.
>> It
>> M>doesn't mean, to me, that this list has to become that forum for
>> broad
>> M>discussion of the war. Is this distinction reasonable to you?
>
> The fear of reprisals is not unfounded. We have definitely seen our
> civil liberties attacked in a very serious way since 9-11 and the
> advent of the Patriot Act. I definitely share this fear and had
> expressed such feelings with Ronda a few months ago. Nonetheless, I
> am more about finding solutions to problems rather than complaining
> about them. With regard to solutions and public policy, I find that
> it makes sense to work within the framework of an overwhelming trend
> than overtly against it.
>
> More specifically, it is a more practical employment of time and
> capital to look constructively at what rights we do have left.
>
> If we are to looking to find or pursue solutions that enhance the
> quality of life of all citizens of the world as Netizens, I am all for
> that in this list.
>
>
> RH>At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3, there was the plan to privatize
> RH>the US portion of the Internet. A number of those who wrote Michael
>
> RH>opposed the US government privatizing the NSF net.
> RH>
> RH>There are other chapters in Netizens about the role of the Net in
> RH>influencing how the press functions, the role of the Net in
> RH>influencing how government makes policy.
> RH>
> RH>These are part of the concept that was being developed.
> RH>
> RH>I think this is a broader focus than the one you propose.
> RH>
> RH>Do you agree or not?
> RH>
> M>Howard replied, "No. From thirty years of experience in lists/online
>
> M>forums, it's too broad a subject for meaningful discussion on a
> single
> M>list." I think the "no" means yes, he agrees that this focus is
> broader
> M>than the one he proposes -- and no, he doesn't support your proposal
> (if
> M>I may call it that).
>
> M>However, Howard has contributed to discussions on the role of the
> Net in
> M>influencing how the press functions, and (as I mentioned above) on
> the
> M>role of the Net in influencing how government makes policy. It's
> not
> M>clear to me whether he really thinks that those discussions, too,
> are
> M>too broad for the list. His desire to exclude specific debate about
> the
> M>merits of the war is clearer to me. But Howard may be arguing, in
> M>effect, that the appropriate domain of the netizens list is the Net
> M>itself (more specifically, the "Guard" role he described, which does
>
> M>seem to exclude these discussions) -- which is plausible, although I
>
> M>find your proposal equally plausible.
>
> M>(The topic of privatizing the NSF net, whatever else we make of it,
> does
> M>seem to be an appropriate topic of discussion even on a rather
> narrow
> M>view of the list's scope. Howard, do you agree with me there?)
>
> M>Mark
>
> In the ways that Michael had specifically articulated, does it seem
> that this list should progress. We should be talking about
> privatization of the Internet, and Internet governance here. Any
> other discussion might provide good flavoring, but let's at least
> understand and not forget what this thing is supposed to taste like.
>
> Larry
>
>
- --------------B08952738F61D3F6726D0FA6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hello: We will talk about the privatization of the internet and internet
governance here, but not as vehicles to put a stop to postings about the
war or any other issues, because that would constitute an infringement
of netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list by
some. You know that as a netizen you are invited to post whatever about
the privatization of the internet its governance, etc. whenever you want
to.
<br>Luis de Quesada
<p>AGENTKUENSTLER@aol.com wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In a message dated
4/6/03 3:30:50 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lindeman@bard.edu writes:</font></font>
<br>
<blockquote TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>It
is interesting that in NYC at least, and in general as far as</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>I see in the US, there are very
few online discussion forums that</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>support broad ranging discussion
on the build up to the war and the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>war itself. There are a few, but
there is also fear I have seen</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>expressed of people feeling they
can express their true feelings</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>online given the repression that
is carried out against others</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>by the governments in question.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>This too is of concern to netizens
and the netizens list.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>If there is an absence of forums
for broad discussion of the war, that</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>probably _is_ of interest to the
netizens list -- certainly if some of</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>us believe that the absence owes
to fear of government reprisals. It</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>doesn't mean, to me, that this list
has to become that forum for broad</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>discussion of the war. Is
this distinction reasonable to you?</font></font></blockquote>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>The fear of reprisals is not unfounded.
We have definitely seen our civil liberties attacked in a very serious
way since 9-11 and the advent of the Patriot Act. I definitely share
this fear and had expressed such feelings with Ronda a few months ago.
Nonetheless, I am more about finding solutions to problems rather than
complaining about them. With regard to solutions and public policy,
I find that it makes sense to work within the framework of an overwhelming
trend than overtly against it.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>More specifically, it is a more practical
employment of time and capital to look constructively at what rights we
do have left.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>If we are to looking to find or pursue
solutions that enhance the quality of life of all citizens of the world
as Netizens, I am all for that in this list.</font></font>
<br>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>At the time, 10 years ago, 1992-3,
there was the plan to privatize</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>the US portion of the Internet.
A number of those who wrote Michael</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>opposed the US government privatizing
the NSF net.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>There are other chapters in Netizens
about the role of the Net in</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>influencing how the press functions,
the role of the Net in</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>influencing how government makes
policy.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>These are part of the concept that
was being developed.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>I think this is a broader focus
than the one you propose.</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH>Do you agree or not?</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>RH></font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>Howard replied, "No. From thirty
years of experience in lists/online</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>forums, it's too broad a subject
for meaningful discussion on a single</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>list." I think the "no" means
yes, he agrees that this focus is broader</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>than the one he proposes -- and
no, he doesn't support your proposal (if</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>I may call it that).</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>However, Howard has contributed to
discussions on the role of the Net in</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>influencing how the press functions,
and (as I mentioned above) on the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>role of the Net in influencing how
government makes policy. It's not</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>clear to me whether he really thinks
that those discussions, too, are</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>too broad for the list. His
desire to exclude specific debate about the</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>merits of the war is clearer to
me. But Howard may be arguing, in</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>effect, that the appropriate domain
of the netizens list is the Net</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>itself (more specifically, the "Guard"
role he described, which does</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>seem to exclude these discussions)
- -- which is plausible, although I</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>find your proposal equally plausible.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>(The topic of privatizing the NSF
net, whatever else we make of it, does</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>seem to be an appropriate topic
of discussion even on a rather narrow</font></font>
<br><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>view of the list's scope.
Howard, do you agree with me there?)</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>M>Mark</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>In the ways that Michael had specifically
articulated, does it seem that this list should progress. We should
be talking about privatization of the Internet, and Internet governance
here. Any other discussion might provide good flavoring, but let's
at least understand and not forget what this thing is supposed to taste
like.</font></font>
<p><font face="Arial"><font size=-1>Larry</font></font>
<br>
<br> </blockquote>
</html>
- --------------B08952738F61D3F6726D0FA6--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 13:28:52 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: [netz] Question about the list
Right now, there seem to be under 10 people involved in active
discussion. Could someone tell me how many subscribers the list has?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:37:30 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <petrescu@nal.motlabs.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: netizens rights (Was: Many voices online and off)
Luis De Quesada wrote:
> netizens rights to their postings and the manipulation of the list
> by some.
Hi Luis. Is there a current thinking on this list about what are the
netizens rights (I mean other than the rights to post here). Can you
summarize those rights in a short list for me to read?
Alex
GBU
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 13:42:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] censorship
Luis,
Conceivably sometime when I am in NYC we could hash this out face to face (and
no, I don't mean "step outside").
Ronda is a professional colleague, and I hope that she is blessed in your
friendship.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:50:03 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <petrescu@nal.motlabs.com>
Subject: [netz] reading list?
Hi,
I'm aware of the book "Netizens". I read it a while back.
Has anybody already suggested here a reading list for this list,
something like below, in random order:
- -Declaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme.
- -Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.
- -RFCc 3160 The Tao of IETF and BCP 9 The Internet Standards Process.
- -ICANN.org and IANA.org
- -The Chicago Manual of Style.
- -Netizens.
- -...?
Alex
GBU
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #469
******************************
