Chris Cason wrote:
> 
> > I posted publically that email would be public.
> 
> I did not see the post you refer to prior to sending you the email
> in question. As I mentioned I do not read p.o.t except when I have
> to, and it certainly was not there at the time.
> 
> In any case, that is still not an excuse for posting my email to the
> server as I had not agreed that you could do so.

	Your problem, not mine. 

	It is good to be the owner. 


-- 
Born in 1945. 
The replacement for WWII. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 192

Post a reply to this message

Matt Giwer wrote:
> 
> Chris Cason wrote:
> >
> > > I posted publically that email would be public.
> >
> > I did not see the post you refer to prior to sending you the email
> > in question. As I mentioned I do not read p.o.t except when I have
> > to, and it certainly was not there at the time.
> >
> > In any case, that is still not an excuse for posting my email to the
> > server as I had not agreed that you could do so.
> 
>         Your problem, not mine.
> 
>         It is good to be the owner.

	You did not prohibit it nor make any disclaimers to the contrary. 

	Unlike you, I have no fear of my posts being public and I know they are
owned by the recipient even under totalitarian Australian law. 

	As this is likely my last post to any povray newsgroup because of your
tender sensibilities I note you are unable to deal with your posts being
made public and as it is good to be the owner, F-U 2. 

	We really have no serious issue here. 

	But you are insisting upon making an issue. 

-- 
Curmudgeons R Us. 
	-- The Iron Webmaster, 310

Post a reply to this message

"Matt Giwer" <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote in message news:3A499D28.CEE0B4D8@ij.net...
> Chris Cason wrote:
> >
> > > I posted publically that email would be public.
> >
> > I did not see the post you refer to prior to sending you the email
> > in question. As I mentioned I do not read p.o.t except when I have
> > to, and it certainly was not there at the time.
> >
> > In any case, that is still not an excuse for posting my email to the
> > server as I had not agreed that you could do so.
>
> Your problem, not mine.
>
> It is good to be the owner.

My private emails to you were an attempt to settle an issue in such as way
as to allow you to continue to use my server, while stemming the tide of
complaints that your actions have caused.

I was sincere when I said that I would like to see you continue to be present,
even at this point. However, I re-iterate the statement made by other news
server administrators in insisting that the news server AUP be followed by
all persons using it.

For the education of others reading this thread, here is the email that Matt
thinks I 'feared' being made public.

I ask those who read this message to respect the request I now make: let this
thread die. There is no point in continuing it. Matt, this applies to you as
well. It is a polite request and I think it should be left at that. I do not
feel that there is anything to be gained from continuing it.

-- Chris Cason

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Matt,

I am informed that you want to hear from me personally. While I do
not generally read the off-topic group I have had a look though it
to get an idea of the discussion that has been going on.

My attitude is quite simple: While I value your participation (as
I value the participation of all POV users, which is why I have to
date not taken direct steps against you despite having received
regular complaints from ordinary POV users for most of the past 12
months), the amount of slack I am willing to continue to give is
limited or non-existent.

I note your dissection of the news server acceptable use policy.
It appears that you have some concerns about the exact meaning of
various phrases. I will not enter into any discussion of these as,
given the tone and phrasing of your discussions on this or similar
issues, it is unlikely that I could ever define it clearly enough
to suit you. I am not a lawyer and have no intention to try to be
one, or to write a legal document that poses as a news server AUP.

I'll put it simply: if you want to continue to use my property (i.e.
povray.org), please back off. I am sure you know what I mean. If you
don't know what I mean then I can't help you, and you'll probably end
up being banned. Please keep in mind that you are a guest on my server;
the use of it is not a right but a privilege.

I'd like to see you continue to be present and to offer & receive
the peer support that my server provides. I hope you will take this
email in the spirit that it is intended, and not attempt to open any
sort of argument or flame war with me (as I have no intent of being
involved with either. My day job and work on pov take up enough of
my time as it is). I have seen more than enough argument in the
p.o.t group to last for a very long time.

regards,

-- Chris Cason
   POV-Team

Post a reply to this message

Chris C wrote:
> 
> "Matt Giwer" <jul### [at] ijnet> wrote in message news:3A499D28.CEE0B4D8@ij.net...
> > Chris Cason wrote:
> > >
> > > > I posted publically that email would be public.
> > >
> > > I did not see the post you refer to prior to sending you the email
> > > in question. As I mentioned I do not read p.o.t except when I have
> > > to, and it certainly was not there at the time.
> > >
> > > In any case, that is still not an excuse for posting my email to the
> > > server as I had not agreed that you could do so.

> > Your problem, not mine.

> > It is good to be the owner.

> My private emails 

	One email, singular. 

> to you were an attempt to settle an issue in such as way
> as to allow you to continue to use my server, while stemming the tide of
> complaints that your actions have caused.

	And all of this over a few random sigs. I confess to be truly amazed,
gobsmacked for the americanism impaired. 

	Complaints are easy to generate. After much prodding I was finally
given examples of the issue. I have yet to read a truthful public
complaint. Obviously the person giving the examples is not particularly
fluent in English or current events or deliberately misrepresented even
what he posted. 

	You would have been better advised to examine the truth of the
complaints if you intended to do more than shtrashcan them. 

> I was sincere when I said that I would like to see you continue to be present,
> even at this point. However, I re-iterate the statement made by other news
> server administrators in insisting that the news server AUP be followed by
> all persons using it.

	Which I have not violated at any time. 

	So clearly the issue is both irrational and personal towards myself,
not to mention deliberately falsified. 

> For the education of others reading this thread, here is the email that Matt
> thinks I 'feared' being made public.

<quote>

        Unlike you, I have no fear of my posts being public and I know
they are
owned by the recipient even under totalitarian Australian law. 

        As this is likely my last post to any povray newsgroup because
of your
tender sensibilities I note you are unable to deal with your posts being
made public and as it is good to be the owner, F-U 2. 

        We really have no serious issue here. 

        But you are insisting upon making an issue. 

</quote>

	Shutting down an entire discussion group for one email being posted. If
you did not want to give me an email why did you send it? The mention of
totalitarian Australian law may have been a factor. 

> I ask those who read this message to respect the request I now make: let this
> thread die. There is no point in continuing it. Matt, this applies to you as
> well. It is a polite request and I think it should be left at that. I do not
> feel that there is anything to be gained from continuing it.

	And the request is honored as long as these corrections to its false
assertions remain public -- and expire gracefuly at the end of the life
of post to this group. 

> -- Chris Cason
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hello Matt,
> 
> I am informed that you want to hear from me personally. While I do
> not generally read the off-topic group I have had a look though it
> to get an idea of the discussion that has been going on.
> 
> My attitude is quite simple: While I value your participation (as
> I value the participation of all POV users, which is why I have to
> date not taken direct steps against you despite having received
> regular complaints from ordinary POV users for most of the past 12
> months), the amount of slack I am willing to continue to give is
> limited or non-existent.
> 
> I note your dissection of the news server acceptable use policy.
> It appears that you have some concerns about the exact meaning of
> various phrases. I will not enter into any discussion of these as,
> given the tone and phrasing of your discussions on this or similar
> issues, it is unlikely that I could ever define it clearly enough
> to suit you. I am not a lawyer and have no intention to try to be
> one, or to write a legal document that poses as a news server AUP.
> 
> I'll put it simply: if you want to continue to use my property (i.e.
> povray.org), please back off. I am sure you know what I mean. If you
> don't know what I mean then I can't help you, and you'll probably end
> up being banned. Please keep in mind that you are a guest on my server;
> the use of it is not a right but a privilege.
> 
> I'd like to see you continue to be present and to offer & receive
> the peer support that my server provides. I hope you will take this
> email in the spirit that it is intended, and not attempt to open any
> sort of argument or flame war with me (as I have no intent of being
> involved with either. My day job and work on pov take up enough of
> my time as it is). I have seen more than enough argument in the
> p.o.t group to last for a very long time.
> 
> regards,
> 
> -- Chris Cason
>    POV-Team

	To which the response was ... 

<quote>

Chris Cason wrote:
> 
> Hello Matt,
> 
> I am informed that you want to hear from me personally.

        I have in fact challenged one person speaking in the royal WE to
back
up his assertions with a public endorsement from you. You have still not
done that in public. He has asserte he speaks for you and I have seen no
contradiction or confirmation of that from you. Therefore I assume it is
BS. Nor does this email appear to change anything. 

> While I do
> not generally read the off-topic group I have had a look though it
> to get an idea of the discussion that has been going on.

        I hear that. 

> My attitude is quite simple: While I value your participation (as
> I value the participation of all POV users, which is why I have to
> date not taken direct steps against you despite having received
> regular complaints from ordinary POV users for most of the past 12
> months), the amount of slack I am willing to continue to give is
> limited or non-existent.

        Excuse me. How can I response to complaints which remain
anonymous even
in this email? Organized complainers have an agenda and are therefore
liars. 

        The issue has been what is open to public debate. That you
confirm
there are people trying to shut of public debate (to appear to win)
without making their complaints public in specifics which can be
addressed as to their validity. 

        As an rational person can see, I am being judged by secret
accusations
and secret evidence as no one has made them public. 

        As to what you do is your business is yours and not mine. I
neither
control you nor can I force what you choose to do. 

        Everything you do, as with every human being, is your free
choice. No
abstractions apply. 

> I note your dissection of the news server acceptable use policy.
> It appears that you have some concerns about the exact meaning of
> various phrases.

        That is ridiculous and false. I have an issue with the plain
meanings
in dictionaries being changed. I do not have the latest Newspeak
dictionary. Perhaps you could provide a URL? 

> I will not enter into any discussion of these as,
> given the tone and phrasing of your discussions on this or similar
> issues, it is unlikely that I could ever define it clearly enough
> to suit you. I am not a lawyer and have no intention to try to be
> one, or to write a legal document that poses as a news server AUP.

        I would be glad if you would simply cite an internet URL to the
defintion of the words by which you will stand. 

        Vilification and race have meanings. They are not maleable
words. 

> I'll put it simply: if you want to continue to use my property (i.e.
> povray.org), please back off. I am sure you know what I mean. If you
> don't know what I mean then I can't help you, and you'll probably end
> up being banned. Please keep in mind that you are a guest on my server;
> the use of it is not a right but a privilege.

        Of course I respect property rights and your ability to do
whatever you
wish with them. And as a fellow objective human I expect you to apply
those rules evenly. 

        By that I mean when Bill DeWitt says he has a problem, anyone
who
attacks him personally is censured and if no cease then banned. Period.
No exceptions based upon the subject. 

> I'd like to see you continue to be present and to offer & receive
> the peer support that my server provides. I hope you will take this
> email in the spirit that it is intended, and not attempt to open any
> sort of argument or flame war with me (as I have no intent of being
> involved with either. My day job and work on pov take up enough of
> my time as it is). I have seen more than enough argument in the
> p.o.t group to last for a very long time.

        Then you have taken exactly the wrong approach to first create
off-topic and then object to the contents of off-topic. 

        Mommy Cason-San, if I am attacked first I expect you to act
regardless
of the claim of being provoked if it was not a post but only a sig. 

        I also note this surge of opposition was because I noted the US
Democrat Party swore under oath they were too stupid to vote. 

-- 
I am not sensitive. I failed sensitivity training.
Sue me. 
        -- The Iron Webmaster, 150

</quote>


-- 
http://www.giwersworld.org/ is not blocked by Surf Watch. 
How bad can the former be? How good can the latter be? 
	-- Iron Webmaster, 84

Post a reply to this message