Uncle Davey wrote:


<snip>


"I made a point by point discussion of how the moderators ought to have
been bound by HDS' word to me (assuming he's not a fictional person,
although even a fictional person ought to be tied to his word"

Davey, you're in no position to complain about someone, real or
fictional, not keeping their word. Hypocrite.

"They should be able to stand up for themselves by force of argument"

Something you have failed to do with me in either of our more recent
exchanges. Hypocrite.

"By banning me, JCSM Watch has run away from me, like bold Sir Robin."

Or were they just bored with you, which after all you said was your
excuse for running away from me? Hypocrite.

"...many of you literally are the same person."

Projection, dear Constance? or should I say Jerzy? or.............?
Hypocrite.

"You say I am denying certain sections of society freedom of speech
because I don't want them parading around dressed up as transvestites
in front of my kids..."

Well, unless you're also adamant about your kids never watching any
re-runs Benny Hill or Are You Being Served or Monty Python or whatnot
then your problem isn't with your kids seeing men in dresses; it's your
hypocrisy.

"...but I have given absolute right of reply except for blasphemy..."

Basphemy: A contemptuous or profane act, utterance, or writing
concerning God or a sacred entity; an irreverent or impious act,
attitude, or utterance in regard to something considered inviolable or
sacrosanct.

Um, sort of like when you excused your insult of me by saying that
'*****' was a biblical word.

Hypocrite. Blasphemer.

Consider your witness.

Uncle Davey wrote:

Użytkownik "Augray" <augray@sympatico.ca> napisał w wiadomości
news:fj3ra1d79764ipcb92f50sgj126akl0n40@4ax.com...

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 13:59:31 +0200, "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>

in news:<d8jsmi$3nd$0@pita.alt.net>:

Użytkownik "Ultra Maroon" <ultra_maroon@walla.com> napisał w

news:1118662104.023576.304400@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Uncle Davey wrote:

sniperoo

Had they had answers to them, they could have given them,

as at

the end I said I was all done. As my arguments were convincing

blasted

their approach out of the water,

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

they had no option but to proceed with
their Soviet style banning not just of that post, but of two

ones made

chronologically earlier which did not breach the rules.

Naw, what I think happened was this:

1. Ya got banned for bein' an *****.
2. Ya got unbanned, but you boycotted cuz
ya didn't like the rulez.
3. Ya ended the boycott and posted a message
a. Here'z a klew, Dorky: When ya post to a
moderated group, that's uzually at leest
an implied agreement to post by the rulez.
4. Ya posted again and violated the rulez
a. Cuz yer such a putz that you had to try to
get the last wurd. Amirite?
5. Ya got banned again.

If you posted again after being unbanned and after ending your
(heeheehee) boycott, it was probably assumed that you knew the

and would follow them. You din't and got banned again. It's

mebbe hundreds of times since public networks like this have been
around. Yer nobody special.

I hafta admit, Dorky, just b'tween us kids, I wonder what was so
devastating about yer arguments, so why not repost 'em here? Then

can all see if there was anything to them? Until then, mebbe you
should just shut the ***** up, quit whining, and lern, like the

us, that the world ain't here to kiss yer ***** and no one has to do

that

to get along with ya. Whaddaya think, dude? Quit being such a
cry-baby.

It's a pity I didn't think to save the message I wrote as a text

before

sending it off, as it was rather good.

You've forgotten the salient points?

I already gave the salient points.

Key concepts:

1. Sienkiewicz acquiescing in breach of his promise to me by inheritors,

then I knew all along that promise would never be kept, which is why I
didn't post there at first and I don't know why I gave them the benefit

the doubt later.
2. Right of reply is central if you are not going to be accused of just
libelling someone
3. When asking for the right of reply, and for non-censorship where no
personal attacks and bad language are there, I am asking for less right

reply than I offered myself, and I quoted my own site where personal

against me are up there uncensored over a year on and at my expence kept

full view for anyone going to my site. I am only asking for the same
treatment as I give.

That was my oversight.

How convenient.

It's not, it's bloody inconvenient. Still, I daresay several persons

did read it. It may yet appear.

I have not had time to follow the recent arguments but i am
going to post Davey's post here so others can see for
themselves whether Davey was being disruptive or not. My
opinion is that the low amount of on-topic traffic in JCSM
Watch is a huge plus. It is almost impossible to keep track of
Gastrich's and others transgression on usenet, even if google
is your friend. There is just too much noise. I endorse Dave's
efforts to keep the noise to a minimum in JCSM so lurkers can
find the meat of the arguments. Whinging (good British
word) just adds to the noise. Some of the post below seems to
be in that category.

It also seems a bit hypocritical for anyone from the
fundamentalist camp to complain of not being allowed to post.

They regularly edit and block users from their discussion groups
and guest books, although, I would not accuse Davey of this
practice, he does seem to hang all his dirty laundry out for others
to judge. For that I give him credit. However, it's not unusual to
see absolutely no critical posts in their groups?

JCSM Watch has
not even come close to such blankets bans. Just stay on topic.

David D.



below is Davey's post replying to a recent David S. post in JCSM
Watch http://tinyurl.com/dpwuw

START Davey's (unedited) post.
You wrote:

My friends, I have been reading for entertainment
the goings-on in the groups. As always, I have
enjoyed it as the wonderful diversion that
it can often be

Assuming for argument's sake that you are real, I'm pleased to
hear it. That's what it's all about

Let's hope laughter is the best medicine, assuming you are
real. I would be glad to be of service, in that case

However, I think I should respond to Davey's
comments in the
traditional groups

Well, I was expecting you would

But you see, that's because I'm skeptical that you even exist. I
have much more problems believing that you exist in the form
stated than that Jesus exists in the form stated in the Bible

The first thing that I want to say is that Davey is
being a bit coy with this thing about me
"inviting" him to post

Do go on

Technically, I suppose it's true that he was invited

You made a suggestion to me to join it while we were talking.
That is what I refer to because it seemed pretty much like an
invitation to me, and here you seem to acknowledge that

In Usenet parlance, your mileage may vary.
In the context of his posts, Davey
seems to want to imply that I sought him out
and asked him to post

For the avoidance of doubt, it was in the context of a
conversation already running, and I have never intended to
imply any more than that. If you think so, please identify the
place

If that's the implication that he wishes to leave, well, it's not
quite true

I'm not trying to leave any such impression

Davey complained about the tone and tenor of
the group and felt that it would be unfair to Jason.
I told him that he was free to join and post
his views. He complained that he would be
censored, and I told him that I would only
disapprove posts that were nothing but personal
attack and bad language

This is precisely the interchange that I am referring to

I think your word to me that only personal attack and bad
language posts would be disapproved ought to be honoured by
the people who have inherited this group from you

He left me with the clear impression that he
would not participate, regardless

That's true. At that stage I didn't intend to participate, but does
that mean that your word is not your bond any more?

In that sense, yes, he was "invited to post."

That's what I meant and nothing more

There are a few that I "invited" in the more obvious sense of
the word - Frank Pericope, for example. The group setup in
Google has a mechanism for sending invitations. Davey did
not get one of those

True. I forgot they even existed. Looking in the one I set up I
see what you mean, but I never used them

Just so we're clear

OK. I didn't mean that mechanism

The second subject I would like to address is the
issue of moderator policies that have been put
in place since I turned over control of the
group

The policies appear to be designed to maintain
topicality, and I agree with them

All right, but is it okay if they break your word to me. Are you
cool with that?

One of the reasons that I created this group was
that I felt that there was too much "Jason-talk"
in the groups and that it detracted from the
mission of the affected groups

You were, after all, the main one doing it

I created this group to give a place
where that sort of thing could be redirected

In the main it only caused duplication, of course. Many
messages ended up both here, and there, copied verbatim

It's ironic

You misspelt "was foreseeable"

that the Jason-talk actually increased, in
some small part, as a result of it, and
Jason's reaction to it, but that's another
matter. The group membership has grown
beyond what I expected,

29 people

and the number
of messages and the consistent use of the
group surprises me. I didn't
really expect it to go this long, but Jason's
instransigence

The guy hardly posts to usenet now, but everyone is
determined not to give the guy a break

and Davey's sycophancy have helped that along

Like I say, I'm not allowed to be the guy's friend, just his
"sycophant"

Regardless, the group is
flourishing considering that it's a small group
The current moderation takes that into account,
and presumes that a growing number of members
and consistent posting require moderation to
maintain topicality

I agree with that

So whereas I was assured by you that only personal attack and
bad language would be disapproved, I now hoave to address
whatever my opponents who control the group see as on topic,
and therefore fight them with one-hand tied behind my back,
and you are endorsing that change to what you gave me your
word on before

I'm looking for more integrity than that, from you

The complaint is that the group is a "kangaroo
court" and that no defenses of Jason's actions
can be posted. That clearly isn't so. In
fact, Davey has now been "invited" TWICE
to post those defenses

My contention is not that Jason has never made mistakes but
that these mistakes are not indicative of a fraudster, and that
this branding of him as one isn't fair. I'm not saying he should
use the term Dr. Probably he shouldn't, whatever claims he
may have. Most Drs I know don't do so, even those who have
impeccable ones, but this is getting into the realms of good
taste

Twice, he has effectively refused to do so.
I believe that is because
we have long defeated those defenses,
such as they were, in the groups

I wouldn't so much say that they were defeated as that I got
tired of making them. Still no-one has given me good reason
why I shouldn't still treat him as a brother and someone who
has his heart in the right place, despite a number of
weaknesses in his PR. and the regrettable, but not culpable,
need to use advertisements and commercial means linked to
religion to support himself

The moderation policies seem to say that
discussing moderation policies
in the group is not permitted

Which I say is a fundamental breach of free speech, and in the
forums I have I promised to allow much more freedom, even
though I'm the " " "fundy" " " around here, to which they
reply, it's not my group, it's their group, they can do what they
like. It seems that Saddam Hussein or that Pinnochio guy in
Chile could say the same words justifying the lack of free
speech in their countries "you don't own this country - I do. So
grow up."

It all comes down to RIGHT OF REPLY. I would be ashamed
not to grant it, and I defy anyone to show me a place where I
have denied someone right of reply to anything I have ever
said on the net

As Carson pointed out in the open
group, that's a standard policy, and
I defer to his expertise in that
matter. He and Dave have actually
moderated discussion areas before

Well that concerns me, since right of reply is central, and you
know as a lawyer as well that (well maybe this is not the case
in US law, I cannot say, but it is in our law) having given right
of reply is a major meliorating factor in any libel case

If you care to look at http://www.usenetposts.com/forum you
will find undoctored (by me anyway) criticisms of me by
Frank Pericope and Carson West, posting as a guest, slightly
more than a year ago

It was beneath me to censor their words, or even limit the time
that they are showed. I am even paying to have their criticisms
of me publically aired for all to see who visit my site

I don't see anything in the comments
that indicate that Davey will be
needlessly "censored" and Carson has
already exposed his hypocrisy in
that regard. Davey's bigoted comments
against the homosexual community
in his chosen home country are fine
cases in point. Such things make
it difficult to have much sympathy for
complaints about censorship and
how his "freedom of expression" has
been "oppressed."

I must admit that when I saw today that a number of the
people who came out and threw stones at them were neo-nazis
I did get a very bad feeling about it. At the end of the day I
never set out to make a special case about them, and I'm far
from sure it was even me that brought them up this time

I have discussed this in chat and
email with Dave, and I support his
decisions. Furthermore, let me say
that the reason I left three
managers in charge was that if one
makes a decision and the other two
don't agree with it, they can override
that decision

OK

I respectfully suggest that the three
managers decide on a mechanism by
which a member of this group can grieve
a moderation decision, but I
still support that moderation policies
are not an open topic of
discussion

Well, they should be, and that's my last word on that here

Keeping the focus of the group
will prevent it from turning into
anarchy and a free-for-all

You say that like it's a bad thing

My thanks for your time.
Be well. Shalom

You too. And I'm glad to see that reports of your death are
greatly exaggerated

END Davey's post

In reply to the above post by Uncle Davey, Dave posted the following
reply in the JCSM Watch group.
http://tinyurl.com/afj4k

I just had to reject a lengthy message posted to the group. I'm
a moderator, not a babysitter, but when I say that moderation
policies are not fodder for discussion in the group, I mean

that.

And *certainly* messages that question the very existence of
another person in this group are not topical nor will they be
allowed. Nor will messages be posted that question the
integrity of the moderators, the founder, or the intent of the
group with respect to those things

Following David's lead, I do not edit posts. If they don't fit
the scheme of things as required for topicality and to stay
within the rules, they will be rejected out-of-hand

"Uncle Davey" may as well restart his "boycott," because he's
been banned.