J.D.K. Chipps | 7 Jan 06:04 1980

Re: Reply from Jim Choate

Doc wrote:

 > On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, J.D.K. Chipps wrote:
 >> The vote isn't whether Jim should be muzzled, or not, the vote should
 >> be, whether the mailing list administrator should be able to remove, or
 >> limit people, based on his whims.
 >  You're sort of ignoring the fact that Carl didn't "muzzle" Jim "based
 > on his [Carl's] whims".
 >  Carl removed Jim's *unsupervised* posting privileges (and made
 > provisions to post Jim's on-topic traffic) based on an official
 > request from Jim's own ISP. That can hardly be considered a whim.

You have got to be joking!  Do you mean to tell me that you really
believe that an ISP really gives a shit whether or not a clients posts
are *on topic* or not.  Get real Doc, you have to be smarter than that.

 >  I might even argue that Carl's action serves to protect Jim's best
 > interests. If he were allowed to continue unchecked, Jim's ISP would
 > quite likely terminate his account

I take it back, maybe you aren't that smart after all.

 > .
 >  I really don't think anybody (well, hardly anyone) is voting according
 > to their opinion of Jim, but according to the principles of
(Continue reading)

J.D.K. Chipps | 7 Jan 07:02 1980

Re: Reply from Jim Choate

Hey Cameron,...I didn't write that, I just forwarded it.

You should be more concerned with proper editing and crediting, than 
piddly ass syntax

Thomas Cameron wrote:

> J.D.K. Chipps wrote:
>> The assertion has been made that I have been 'warned', by who?  
> It's "whom," not "who."
>> Who has the authority? Certainly not the list meister. The board of 
>> directors has never 'warned' me. 

> This is the last I will say about this issue.

Bet you lied about that too!