Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:51:16 -0400

It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but
I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as
talking about Jim has been generating? BLB

From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], 
Subject: Re: Jim Fleming's posting privilleges have been revoked
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 09:36:00 -0400

>
>
>Don't you think a discussion on not having a discussion is off topic?
>
>-- 
>James W. Meritt CISSP, CISA

---

From: Vernon Schryver <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 11:24:58 -0600 (MDT)

> talking about Jim has been generating? BLB

Statements like that should generate flames in these circumstances, because
if they are not an old slogan and misrepresentation of the situation, they
are based on too little information to justify their publication.

All of us who have been around enough to have standing to speak on
the subject know that this burst of noise about siliencing Mr. Fleming
was inevitable.  This burst will run its course and be finished within
another 36 hours, with some stragglers over the next several days.
We also know that that Mr. Fleming would have continued his noise
indefinitely.  His streams of noise exceed the bursts noise that happen
when he is temporarily silenced if you let him continue long enough.
Moreover, the noise from Mr. Fleming incites and justifies garbage
from others.  The choice is between these finite bursts of noise and
infinite noise from Mr. Fleming.

That observation and that by my count this is the third time that he
has been sanctioned imply that this ban should be made permanent.

So please permanently revoke Mr. Fleming's privileges.  That will
not only stop his noise, but also prevent future bursts of noise about
temporarily stopping his noise.

Vernon Schryver    [email-masked]

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 13:30:02 +0100

> talking about Jim has been generating? BLB

actually, this thread, which I read as being about whether or not the 
clauses of RFC 3005 should ever be invoked or not, is relevant to the IETF.

At the moment, I have Anthony Atkielski against, and everyone else for.
I take it that the community upholds the rough consensus of RFC 3005.

(Note: I also read the discussion as showing that the community feels that 
the subject of censoring the list is a tricky one, and that we do NOT feel 
that the RFC 3005 provisions should be invoked lightly. This is a Good 
Thing.)

                      Harald