[geeks] Re: Spam filter test results

[Frank Van Damme]

On Saturday 01 February 2003 00:21, Amy wrote:

> > Imho it would be abuse of power.
>
> Ok. That's it, I've stayed out of this whole fracas thus far. But I must
> make a very valid point here:
> 
> What the hell is wrong with asserting any kind of power when the
> list owner(s) deem it to be warranted? If anyone on any of these lists
> doesn't like the balance of power here--namely that Bill has all and the
> rest have zero--then they need to take their overly-democratic naive

LOL... 

I must admit I'm not at all in a position to tell B. Bradford what to do 
with his list or the people on it. However, I'm reacting to "we don't need 
your steenkin' posts" kinds of posts whenever I smell them from far away 
because I have 'experience' with different kinds of mailing list owners. If 
you've ever been on the smoothwall-gpl mailing list with some guy named 
Richard Morrell you know what I mean. As far as I remember he didn't own 
the list at that time - at a certain point he did own the mailing list and 
the rest, which was a mistake. But that's another story. 

> namby-pamby asses back to the kiddie mailing lists when everything is
> supposedly fair and just.

Hey, hey, I get the point without needless insults, come down a bit. 

> As far as I'm concerned, if Bill wants to kick Byrne out for being
> <insert your appropriate psychological profile here>, then so be it.
> Hell, I'd be glad for it, 'cause I'm willing to bet it'd increase
> bandwidth on my end.

Personally, I'm not particularly interested in some geeks psychological 
profile :-p .

All I meant is that Chris' posts make up a small percentage of what goes 
through my mailpipe every day, and that I don't see the need to make a 
problem out of it. 



-- 
Frank Van Damme
http://www.openstandaarden.be