abusive e-mail from Litch

[Pug]

> Gee, I've never been reprimanded by a sysop before... 

  Should I feel proud of this? *smiles sweetly* I certainly doubt it. I
  hope to not have to do things of this nature very often.

> Near as I can tell, I am faulted by several for posting "private" e-mail to
> the list.

> My view is that if you put words in writing and send them to someone, you have
> no voice in what they do with those words.  They can publish them, destroy
> them,quote them, anything but sell them.  I feel that, be it e-mail or paper,
> I was
> within my rights to take the action I did.  I would likewise have been within 
> my rights to have had Senator Byrd read those notes into the Congressional 
> Record as a part of his filibuster.

I will quote the Rialto FAQ here and state that I will extend it to this
forum.

1.7  Am I allowed to publish Rialto postings in our newsletter?

        The legalities of copyright ownership in an electronic medium
        are currently murky.  In countries that are signatories to the Berne
        Convention (which includes the USA and Canada), text is copyrighted
        from the moment of creation. However,  text submitted to newsgroups
        and digests _may_ be different, as it is intended for a wide
        distribution. There is no clear answer in the USA at the present
        time.  The polite thing to do, regardless of whether a lawyer would
        tell you it is necessary, is contact the author(s) of the article(s)
        in question, and ask for permission to publish.  Abide by their
        wishes.  Assuming permission is given, you (or your chronicler)
        probably want to save a hardcopy of the message giving you permission.

  This is also stated in the Netiquette guidelines. In regards to
  private email I feel especially strong that one should get permission
  before reposting. Yes, you can legally do it; Litch can legally say
  the words he did. This does not mean one *should* do it.

> My purpose was simple.  The sort of effect such e-mail has on people is a 
> "chilling effect" on their participation.  If someone is allowed to send
> such notes in secret to individuals, each thinks that he is alone, and the
> sender can terrorize them one by one.  What I did was to shine a light on an
> activity that wants darkness for its effect.  Taking such a responsibility
> on myself is never pleasant, but just as on the occasion when I challenged
> someone over an insult to a lady, I felt that what I did was the appropriate
> action for a knight to take.  The reaction has been mixed, obviously, but I
> would do it again.

  The action is fine, it is the way the action was executed that I take
  objection to. I see no reason not to confront Litch directly with
  this, or even myself. He has been out of line, but I am sure when
  confronted with how strong people feel on this, he will either stop
  the acts, or assist in helping users to filter out his email. (As was
  agreed upon this last weekend.) The reason I say this is the fact that
  Litch has never acted inapproriate at an Event, and has not continued
  harrasment, that I can tell, if the user quit responding. If he had,
  I would talk to him personally.

> I don't believe that there has been a "lynch mob" on this list.  Those who
> has suggested otherwise are asked to re-examine their remarks on how mild
> Litch's notes allegedly were.

  I have not stated that his notes were mild. I have seen, what I
  interpret, as a request from Isabella to have his account removed from
  this list. As well, the collection of this information can only be for
  one end in my opinion; to have him banned. If I am mistaken in this matter
  I do truly appologize, and will do so to all involved.
  
  As well, my understanding is that someone from another Barony has
  contacted the administrators of the ISP that Litch uses to ask for the
  removal of his account as a sign of good faith to the Society. This is
  plain uncalled for. This is of course second hand knowledge and I
  dislike mentioning it, but this is how far it has gone.

> I have a sincere desire to get along with the people on this list; including
> Mordraut, who is all but a brother to me, including Pug, even including Litch.

  I certainly hope to see this list grow and prosper.

> But in my life I have had occasion to learn that "getting along with" is not
> synonymous with "passively accepting abuse from".

  Yes, but part of "getting along" is the ability of individuals to work
  out problems without having to make it a public spectical. Which is
  what I am seeing here.

> I believe that my conduct has been appropriate for the circumstances.
> Given similar circumstances, I expect I would react similarly.

  Once again, it is not the reacting, it is the follow through that I
  object to. There are always proper channels to follow, especially in
  the Society.

> If this 
> makes me an unacceptable subscriber to this list, in Pug's estimation,
> he may unsubscribe me. I support his right to do this.

  *laugh* I don't hardly think so. The only way I see me having to
  remove someone is by direct edict of the Crown. There are always
  extenuating circumstances such as non-Society members causing
  problems, but I doubt that will occur.

Ciao,

Phelim Uhtred Gervase

-- 
Richard Bainter          Mundanely     |    System Analyst        - OMG/CSD
Pug                      Generally     |    Applied Research Labs - U.Texas
 pug at arlut.utexas.edu  |  pug at bga.com  |  pug at eden.com  |  {any user}@pug.net
Note: The views may not reflect my employers, or even my own for that matter.