Pointlessness [was Revolution RUMORS!]

[David Burgun]

On 15 Feb 2006, at 22:35, David Vaughan wrote:
>
> On 16/02/2006, at 5:00, David Burgun <dburgun at dsl.pipex.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> Yes, in order to stop other people getting into the same position.
>> Once the cat was out of the bag there was no need for anyone to go to
>> the site again. It could be argued that he should be praised for his
>> selfless actions and RunRev chastised for their unsafe site!
>
> David, I have full regard for the value of your posts on other  
> topics but what you have above is about the most specious argument  
> for anything that I have ever seen on this site.

It was supposed to be specious - well more tongue in cheek really. It  
was supposed to be on par with the posts condemning Richmond for his  
actions, which I found specious but rather than be rude or make  
personal attacks thought it better form to show the other side of the  
coin in a similar manner.

> Your later paragraphs, about the list to which the material might  
> have been posted and possible consequences thereof, are pure  
> sophistry.

You've lost me there! I was trying to find out what the actual crime  
was! As far as I can see it can only be one of the following:

1.  Posting to the RunRev List.
2.  Posting to *any* list or Newsgroup.

My point was the given that the information was posted in the first  
place, then out of the two options above, option 1 was the safest/ 
best for RunRev and for RunRev developers. I could actually  
understand RunRev's position more if option 2 had been taken.

> Runtime owns this particular list and may include or exclude any  
> person on their own cognizance and in their own commercial interests.

I fully agree that they have the right to include or exclude anyone.  
It just depends on what is trying to be achieved as to how effective  
an exclusion would be. It is next to impossible to police a mailing.

One reason for excluding someone would be to try to stop the excluded  
person from posting in a manner similar to the post they were  
excluded for in the first place. This is impossible to achieve unless  
EVERY message from EVERY subscriber is moderated - a very time  
consuming and therefore expensive business.

Another reason would be to punish the person and stop them getting  
help from the list. This seems pointless in this case (except that it  
might make the person doing the excluding feel better for a little  
while and cause the person being excluded some slight hassle), since  
stopping someone getting help is likely to hurt the RunRev too. In  
any case, even if every message is moderated it would be ineffective  
as a punishment , since, they can just sign up (or have already  
signed up) under a different name and email address.

> Over many years, I have found them to walk a pretty good line, with  
> tolerance, humour and only the occasional fit of pique :-).

I agree it's one of the better lists I have participated in. I guess  
I just believe in free speech and fairness and since I was a bit  
peeved at being treated poorly by RunRev, thought that the act of  
putting Richmond in the "naughty-corner" a bit over the top. On  
reflection, the people at RunRev were probably frazzled by the  
problems they had in getting the site up and running and took it out  
on the first person that seemed to compound their problems.

> Should we infer from your last line that you like to have the last  
> word? I promise not to write on the topic again, so here you go:
>> Would have been ended!

I suppose I am like most people. Sometimes I like to have the last  
word and sometimes I don't mind if someone else has it! In this case  
it just depends on what I am doing when the message arrives. At the  
moment I am running a time consuming stack that is (hopefully!)  
creating a 200,000+ record database for me and so have some time to  
spare. Looking at the my record counter, I'm up to 199,000 already,  
(time flies furiously!) and so back to work!

Have a Great Weekend
All the Best
Dave