North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: [OT] Re: Banned on NANOG
Alex Bligh wrote: --On 04 December 2004 17:35 +0000 Paul Vixie <[email protected]> wrote:third and last, there are a number of principles up for grabs right now,I'd add: if people don't like NANOG, demand a full refund for your Don't confuse historical momentum, with a fair set of rules, base fallacy. Susan has been more than a touch heavy handed and biased on occasion in the past. I myself won a -=>reprieve<=- from a banning, as it was determined to have "politically motivated", circa 2001. And, just to be fair, I have -lost- a challenge to a Susan originated "6 month banning", as well. It seems controversial subjects may trigger suppres^^^^^suspension of speech. :P Dissing Bush backed agendas appear to be one of the triggers. (See current Doonesbury, this is not a limited trend, BTW ;) http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db041201.gif I seem to recall one of my/Susans trigger points was to call the US politicians attempting to create the anti-spam laws, "a bunch of ineffective idiots, attempting to legislate that which needs to be solved with technology." [ So, it has been a while after passing the laws, look around..... Was I really that wrong ? ] But, it didn't matter, it wasn't politically correct at the time... and I only came off ban a couple months back. Caution -is- suggested, no matter how right you are, it -is- their list. So, my suggestion, dissent with -extreme- diplomacy. Remember, the Kings of old weren't too keen on dissent, and if it wasn't for the Court Jester, the opposing view would -never- have been heard. Regular People kept "losing their heads" over dissent... Only the giggling cartwheeling fool could get away with it.... ;) http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2004/db041202.gif So Caution, History -has- been known to repeat itself. Might I suggest a really colorful jingly hat ? :) < G > Alex
|