> one swooping spammer.
I meant to quote:
> thankfully "Reda-less".
>That is just the problem. Like I said, the deal was antisex spam,
> but all the rules were: the antiReda rules.


Michael Vilain, and others,

You talk about recusing yourself.

I have for 3 years recused myself from applying to the Open
Directory Project Rolfing Category.
The one reason was that I did not want to be the only one using the
big stick. The big stick which I finally had to use to herd this
bunch of cats into a clean of spam forum. For 3 years I listened to
what the people had to say about not changing the 'private' nature
of this forum. For 3 years, I had to deal with people insensitivity
to the human problem of not having access to SI info, starting with
structural integrators ourselves. For 3 years, the big stick was
sheethed. I made sure that should I have to use it, I would not be
the only one responsible. I made sure that considering that I have 2
web sites in the category, that someone else would judge about their
consumer value. I made sure to never be in a situation of
conflicting interest as it relates to this group and the Internet
consumer. I made sure that I never had unilateral power over the
community's Internet access. I relied on persuasion, content, and
trust in the human nature, which has been far from obvious.

After 3 years, and only after 3 long years, after having practicly
written the book on SI Internet consumers, and realized no one of
significance was reading it. After having been very clear out in the
open about what I was going to do, about how the big stick was going
to affect the destiny of the group, sex-spam, moderation issues,
ownership issues, etc., I finally used it. And the Open Directory
Project's editor finally was intimately convinved that it was the
one thing to do, perhaps hesitantly, yet with the full force of
consumers guidelines and better practices. Finally the stick was
used. And that is when a bunch of thugs show up, promising to be sex-
spam technicians, and taken unilateral authority, making undebated
unilateral decisions, betraying the very legitimate guarantied
freedom of speech, and making plain stupid decisions such as the
change of mission statement you guys unilaterally made. Or such as
not providing for conflict resolution and discussions (be them
private) about the format of the group possible changes etc., which
is the one mistake of the previous owner.

Do you really think that the big stick is all I had. Do you really
feel that my personal resentment about this open SI community was
all I had. Do you really think that throughout this time, I never
knew wore a velvet glove.

My extreme patience with this group, my continued presence on the
Internet, my dedication to the community and the Internet Consumer
(STARTING with the Structural Integrator him/herself), are all
testimonials about the velvet glove which has been waiting for you
all along.

What echo did I find? manipulations and lies.

You new and old moderators/owners have lied about the ownership of
the group. You have lied about the guarantied freedom of speech. You
have extensively used backchannels to circumvent open processes.

But most importantly, you have not begun to collectively demonstrate
1/1000's of my personal qualities in your endavors.

Your big stick is ready to strike in an impressive...
... 3 despotic warnings
One of which you Michael Vilain have already initiated.

And I have yet to see a velvet glove on your hand.

Go and defend your personal qualities with my wife. Go and be proud
of recusing yourself. She will applaud with a big smile.


Reda





--- In Structure_Integrator@yahoogroups.com, "redaelandaloussi"
<redaelandaloussi@y...> wrote:
>
> > I've recused
> > myself from moderating them.
> How noble of you.
>
> > one swooping spammer.
> That is just the problem. Like I said, the deal was antisex spam,
> but all the rules were: the antiReda rules.
> The spam you were morally engaged to stop was sex spam, and just
sex
> spam. My postings only qualified as spam in your mind. Depending
on
> who's definition, I have alsays been well beneith the spam
> qualifier.
>
> About your affiliation with an antispam company, you are not
stating
> everything about that company.
>
> > My duties as IASI's webmaster have nothing to do with the
policies
> > and guidelines adopted
> > by the group and the moderators of the Structural_Integration
nor
> > does my lack of interest
> > in your personal projects.
> No nothing to do: you are the owner of the group no less. One of
the
> 2 owners, not including Jim Pascucci, unlike what you claim.
> Oo deception and lies. A standard statement cannot mask pure
> eloquent logic:
>
> My database project can very well be seen as competition to ANY
> paying membership association. There is nothing you personally can
> do about it. If you work for them your under their impersonal
> influences. They are not people. They are not human, and you are
> under the influence of the IASI's logic.
>
> Now you are not answering the core of the issue. How can you
justify
> to be able to ban a member, who would then not be able to answer
> posts related to him/her. Who are you to threaten to ban me and
then
> feel free to say stupid things about my projects?
> > the group are under review by the other moderators because they
> >involve me. I've recused
> > myself from moderating them.
> And who moderates you when you talk about me? Who will when I am
> banned? Notice I do not have the priviledge to recuse myself,
after
> for example having banned liars from the group moderation team.
>
> > I don't regret declining your invitation
> > to work with you and see it was the right decision.
> Yes thank you for having clarified that apparent impossibility. I
> would not want a developper who refuses to learn about
> the 'robots.txt' internet standard.
>
> > personal attacks (like the above) are no acceptable. That what
> > got you moderated last
> > time. Content not related to SI is less welcome.
> Like it is not related to SI. Like your 'personal' person isn't
> affiliated with any SI organization. Like you do not have
> conflicting interests. Like when you speak about my database, you
> are not being personally lying, based on a personal judgement you
> had before you even enrolled in this group.
>
> Like personally priviledging form over content, not answering the
> content, doesn't affect me personally. Like this tactic doesn't
> force personal clashes against the persons in charge of blocking
> content.
>
> Go right ahead, play with the form, leave content out.
> How could it ever get close to your grey cells anyway.
>
> Reda
>
>
>
> --- In Structure_Integrator@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Vilain"
> <vilain@s...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Structure_Integrator@yahoogroups.com, "redaelandaloussi"
> > <redaelandaloussi@y...> wrote:
> > > Interestingly, I have contacted privately the one web and
> > > computer `expert' of the IASI Michael Vilain, who is also now
co-
> > > owner of the Yahoo public group Structural Integration. Michael
> > > Vilain is one person responsible of censorship and banning on
> this
> > > group. I contacted him to see if he could help with
> idaprolf.org's
> > > practitioners database project. Michael did not spend much time
> > > exploring the concept, yet he is publically making
> > > mischaracterizations about the project, and he is making such
> claims
> > > on a forum where he has the technical ability to censor
> > > idaprolf.org's spokesperson. Not only does he seem to think
that
> the
> > > project involves not educating anyone about the source of the
> data
> > > presented to users, he also demonstrated a technical inability
to
> > > understand that such an indexing tool could very well be
> compatible
> > > with Internet Ethics. Considering that he one who participated
in
> > > changing the moral contract between the forum users and its new
> > > management, Michael has demonstrated to me his
disqualification
> in
> > > Ethics altogether, and especially Internet ethics. Funny, for
> > > someone who has been known to have an e-mail address
@spamcop.org
> > > (or so). Michael Vilain has yet a lot to learn about ethics; I
> guess
> > > he finds the uniform attractive. Now that he is both judge and
> > > executioner on the Structural Integration discussion forum at
> Yahoo,
> > > Michael Vilain and IASI officials must be having an ongoing
group
> > > ecstasy of some weird kind.
> > >
> >
> > I'm not alone in moderating the "other" Yahoo group
> Structural_Integration. There are
> > 3 other moderators. Since you took your marbles and when away
> last year, the
> > moderators had no work to do at all except for one swooping
> spammer. It's been really
> > nice and quiet and the discussions have been interesting and
> thankfully "Reda-less".
> >
> > The guidelines we published which everyone who joins gets a copy
> clearly state that
> > personal attacks (like the above) are no acceptable. That what
> got you moderated last
> > time. Content not related to SI is less welcome. The posts
> you've attempted to submit to
> > the group are under review by the other moderators because they
> involve me. I've recused
> > myself from moderating them.
> >
> > My duties as IASI's webmaster have nothing to do with the
policies
> and guidelines adopted
> > by the group and the moderators of the Structural_Integration
nor
> does my lack of interest
> > in your personal projects.
> >
> > I fail to see why using a spam filter company for email has to
do
> with my ethics. Rather,
> > it's been great filtering out the 100+ spam I get from various
> sources. If that's unethical,
> > I fail to see any connection.
> >
> > I don't regret declining your invitation to work with you and
see
> it was the right decision.