RFD: reorganization of the misc.education.home-school.* hier

Scott Bryce · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 478

Michael S. Morris wrote:
>
> Friday, the 26th of October, 2007
>
> Mark Tindall writes:
>
> NO DEBATE OR DISCUSSION is allowed by the
> fundamentalist homeschoolers from mehsc who have contacted my ISP to
> CENSOR me.
>
>
> Who specifically has done this?

Several of us have.

Archived from group: misc>education>home-school>christian

Scott Bryce · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 478

Michael S. Morris wrote:

> I disapprove, of course,

Your views on censorship are far too liberal. There is nothing wrong
with asking someone to behave or leave, or asking others in authority to
help enforce that request. His behavior would be in violation of the
Terms of Service of most American ISPs.

> but, umm,...was Mark actually censored in any capacity at all?

It does not appear so. He knows that his ISP has been contacted, but
they do not appear to have done anything to stop his behavior.

But I would not call it censorship had his ISP intervened. He is being
disruptive. That itself is an act of censorship. Asking him to stop
being disruptive is not censorship. His soul purpose for being here is
to shout the rest of us down so that we cannot speak freely. He has had
a certain amount of success.

The right thing to do when someone is being as disruptive as Mr T is to
silence him so that the rest of us can once again speak freely. If he
wants to exercise his right to free speech, let him do so in another
venue where other people's right to speak freely will not be diminished.

> And would it be correct
> to say that several (of "us") have not in fact contacted
> his ISP?

Of course.

> And that, thus, his vendetta is being carried
> out against a rather larger number of people than have
> ever done anything, or ever tried to do anything, against
> him?

He was behaving badly before his ISP was contacted. His behavior has not
changed since his ISP was contacted.

Michael S. Morris · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 780

Friday, the 26th of October, 2007

Mark Tindall writes:

NO DEBATE OR DISCUSSION is allowed by the

fundamentalist homeschoolers from
mehsc who have contacted my ISP to CENSOR me.

Who specifically has done this? I have certainly never
done any such thing as contact your ISP to CENSOR you.
You simply ought to know better than to post under more than
one sender name or to repost the same thing a second time.

Mike Morris
(msmorris@netdirect.net)

Brandon Staggs · Joined: 28 Sep 2007 Posts: 18

"Michael S. Morris" wrote on Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:48:41 -0400:

> I disapprove, of course, but, umm,...was Mark actually

The problem is that his nymshifting constitutes abuse. If he had
stuck to one identity, there would be nothing to legitimately complain
about. His ISP should have blocked his Usenet access because of his
abuse.

--
Brandon Staggs

....Wonder where all the Christian Homeschoolers are? Visit
http://www.meh-sc.org to find out!

Michael S. Morris · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 780

Friday, the 26th of October, 2007

Mark Tindall writes:
NO DEBATE OR DISCUSSION is allowed by the
fundamentalist homeschoolers from mehsc who have

contacted my ISP to CENSOR me.
I said:
Who specifically has done this?

Scott:

Several of us have.

I disapprove, of course, but, umm,...was Mark actually
censored in any capacity at all? And would it be correct
to say that several (of "us") have not in fact contacted
his ISP? And that, thus, his vendetta is being carried
out against a rather larger number of people than have
ever done anything, or ever tried to do anything, against
him?

Mike Morris
(msmorris@netdirect.net)

Mark T · Joined: 26 Oct 2007 Posts: 2

wrote:

> Mark. (In spite of his claims to be a Christain, I
> think he is hostile to most forms of Christianity.)

--
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES OF A CHRISTUS OBNOXIUM

.... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist:

'Firstly, a fundamentalist has a very strong emphasis on the inerrancy of
the Bible, and believes in the absence from it of any sort of error.

Two, a strong hostility to modern theology and to the method, results and
implications of modern critical study of the Bible.

And three, an assurance that those who do not share their religious
viewpoint are not really true Christians at all.'

Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178

jayne.kulikauskas · Joined: 23 Oct 2007 Posts: 10

On Oct 25, 7:11 pm, Chris Barnes wrote:

[...]
> For the record, I consider Mike Morris to be a valued member of "our
> core group". The fact that he is "approximately atheist" not
> withstanding.

I wish to clarify that my earlier comment regarding persons "hostile
to Christianity" did not refer to Mike Morris, in case anyone
understood it that way. (He is self-described as an atheist but he is
not hostile towards Christianity. I too considered him a valued
member of .christian when I was an active participant there.) I have
no problem with him participating in a Christian homeschooling group
that also has Christian homeschoolers posting there. I have been
concerned that the vast majority of posts made to .christian are not
from Christian homeschoolers nor about Christian homeschooling. I am
still convinced after seeing the responses to this RFD that
consolidating the groups by removing .christian is the most logical
move.

However, enough people want to keep the .christian group that it is
clear that I must accept this. I don't have any right to try to force
them to follow my ideas of logic, nor would I expect the Board to pass
such a proposal. The next version of this RFD will leave out the
consolidation.

Jayne

Marty Carts · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 206

Emailed too. jayne.kulikauskas@gmail.com wrote:
> Chris Barnes wrote:

> [...]
>> For the record, I consider Mike Morris to be a valued member of "our
>> core group". The fact that he is "approximately atheist" not
>> withstanding.

> I wish to clarify that my earlier comment regarding persons "hostile
> to Christianity" did not refer to Mike Morris, in case anyone
> understood it that way. (He is self-described as an atheist but he is
> not hostile towards Christianity. I too considered him a valued
> member of .christian when I was an active participant there.) I have
> no problem with him participating in a Christian homeschooling group
> that also has Christian homeschoolers posting there. I have been
> concerned that the vast majority of posts made to .christian are not
> from Christian homeschoolers nor about Christian homeschooling. I am
> still convinced after seeing the responses to this RFD that
> consolidating the groups by removing .christian is the most logical
> move.

> However, enough people want to keep the .christian group that it is
> clear that I must accept this. I don't have any right to try to force
> them to follow my ideas of logic, nor would I expect the Board to pass
> such a proposal. The next version of this RFD will leave out the
> consolidation.

Actually Jayne, I think you *do* have every right to try
to force them to follow your ideas of logic. Just for
the record.

Also, since I'm posting here in n.g.p., a word or two...

I'm likely one of the two or three longest-time posters
to m.e.h-s.Christian.

Morris is a good guy, fwiw (I haven't looked back at the
thread to see why we're talking about him). He's not
hostile to Christianity, just hostile-like in general
(he reeeealy enjoys a good debate).

Anyway, I do think it makes sense to consolidate the two
ngs into one (from a decluttering USENET perspective), and
to have that one be .misc. I just don't have the energy
to advocate for it and don't think that it ought to be
high on anyone's list of important things to push for.
I suppose I support the announcement ng. ________Marty

Scott Bryce · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 478

Michael S. Morris wrote:
> Scott Bryce:
> Your views on censorship are far too liberal.
>
> Actually, I think they are precisely just liberal
> enough.

Of course you do. Otherwise you wouldn't hold them.

> Scott:
> or asking others in authority to
> help enforce that request.
>
> Hmm. I think that rather depends on the contract. There seems to
> be no rule (or law) against nymshifting. It *is* a moral violation
> on Mark's part, but I don't see anywhere when Mark signed on to
> his ISP or onto usenet where he agreed not to engage in
> nymshifting.

Nymshifting is not Mark's moral "crime." His abusive behavior is.
Abusive posts to newsgroups are in violation of may ISPs TOS.

> Scott:
> His behavior would be in violation of the
> Terms of Service of most American ISPs.
>
> I'm not convinced, Scott. I'll grant I often don't
> read the fine print, but when I have done so, I can't
> ever recall having "no nymshifting" spelled out.

Again, it is not nymshifting, but abusive posts that would be in
violation of an ISPs TOS.

> Maybe you could cite or refer to a Terms of Service which does
> spell it out?

I have just now found and read the TOS for Mark T's ISP. Mark is in
violation of his ISPs TOS.

http://www.tpg.com.au/terms_conditions/standard.php

He is in violation of sections 6.2 and 6.3

> Had I been owner or CEO of an ISP, I would be very wary of acting
> on such a request. Unless one could nail down some actual illegality
> on the part of the Mark, I could be opening myself up to a lawsuit
> (and possibily a discrimination-type lawsuit) by shutting him down
> merely because people are "offended" with him.

They could be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they don't. Mark T's
behavior is abusive. They are participants in that abuse by providing
him access to the internet. They have been informed of that abuse. They
have been shown examples of his abuse. They have the power to stop that
abuse. Instead they continue to participate in it.

Your right to free speech does not require others to help you speak
freely. They have just as much right to express themselves by not
allowing the resources under their control to be used by you to express
yourself.

> Scott:
> His soul purpose for being here is to shout the
> rest of us down so that we cannot speak freely.
>
> I love the typo for the second word in this sentence. But, I
> emphatically with this metaphor of "shouting the
> rest of us down". Mark's *volume* is a matter of
> choice for everyone who reads him or chooses not to.

For those of us who have gone to the effort to killfile him, this is
true. Others have chosen to leave. Others will stumble upon this
newsgroup and decide not to participate because of the nature and
ubiquitousness (is that a word? My spelling checker liked it.) of Mark's
post. He has made participation in discussion here difficult.

Chris Barnes · Joined: 25 Oct 2007 Posts: 3

Marty Carts wrote:
> Anyway, I do think it makes sense to consolidate the two
> ngs into one (from a decluttering USENET perspective), and
> to have that one be .misc. I just don't have the energy
> to advocate for it and don't think that it ought to be
> high on anyone's list of important things to push for.
> I suppose I support the announcement ng. ________Marty

If everything is consolodated into a single newsgroup (I wouldn't be
opposed to this idea), wouldn't it be better to just have the group
named misc.education.home-school (dropping *everything* off the end)?

just throwing another log on the fire regards,

--

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
chris@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes
"Usenet really is all about standing around and hitting the ground
with clubs, on a spot where many years earlier a dead horse lay."

Scott Bryce · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 478

Theo Bekkers wrote:
> Come on Scott, a very high percentage of posts to newsgroups are abusive in
> the eyes of the target.

Mr. T's are the worst I have encountered on-line. He is also the most
persistent.

> You Yanks just love to sue, or threathen to sue, people, don'tcha?

I never said that I planned to sue anybody, only that it is possible
that Mr T's ISP could be open to lawsuits.

> You think "your" unmoderated newsgroup is a resource under your control?

I never claimed to own the group. TGP is under TGP's control. That was
my point.

> People who are dabbling in newsgroups for the first time will be aghast at
> the language and tone of almost any newsgroup they stumble into.

I don't hang out at those kinds of groups, I suppose. The people I
encounter on-line are civil for the most part.

> I personally chose to killfile Mark,

As have I.

Which reminds me....

When I moved everything over from my old computer to my new computer,
you managed to escape from my killfile. Bye Bye.

Theo Bekkers · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 178

Scott Bryce wrote:
> Michael S. Morris wrote:

>> Hmm. I think that rather depends on the contract. There seems to
>> be no rule (or law) against nymshifting. It *is* a moral violation
>> on Mark's part, but I don't see anywhere when Mark signed on to
>> his ISP or onto usenet where he agreed not to engage in
>> nymshifting.

> Nymshifting is not Mark's moral "crime." His abusive behavior is.
> Abusive posts to newsgroups are in violation of may ISPs TOS.

Come on Scott, a very high percentage of posts to newsgroups are abusive in
the eyes of the target. That's life in newsgroups. As Michael said
elsewhere, it's not a forum for the precious.

>> Had I been owner or CEO of an ISP, I would be very wary of acting
>> on such a request. Unless one could nail down some actual illegality
>> on the part of the Mark, I could be opening myself up to a lawsuit
>> (and possibily a discrimination-type lawsuit) by shutting him down
>> merely because people are "offended" with him.
>
> They could be opening themselves up to a lawsuit if they don't. Mark
> T's behavior is abusive. They are participants in that abuse by
> providing him access to the internet. They have been informed of that
> abuse. They have been shown examples of his abuse. They have the
> power to stop that abuse. Instead they continue to participate in it.

You Yanks just love to sue, or threathen to sue, people, don'tcha? What are
you going to do? Issue a writ for Mark T and then wait at the airport? There
used to be a saying long before we got all PC and able to blame our parents,
teachers, politicians, or environment for everything. "Just fuggen get over
it and get on with your life". Some people are going to disagree with you
and some are going to annoy you.

> Your right to free speech does not require others to help you speak
> freely. They have just as much right to express themselves by not
> allowing the resources under their control to be used by you to
> express yourself.

You think "your" unmoderated newsgroup is a resource under your control?

> For those of us who have gone to the effort to killfile him, this is
> true. Others have chosen to leave. Others will stumble upon this
> newsgroup and decide not to participate because of the nature and
> ubiquitousness (is that a word? My spelling checker liked it.) of
> Mark's post. He has made participation in discussion here difficult.

People who are dabbling in newsgroups for the first time will be aghast at
the language and tone of almost any newsgroup they stumble into. Experienced
groupers will see the lay of the land pretty quick. I personally chose to
killfile Mark, and although he sometimes pops up from below the radar in
another group I am subscribed to, I don't remember the last time I saw a
post from him here. His ISP, TPG, is a small one. As you don't like them
anyway, a simple solution would be to just block anything coming from TPG.

Theo

Theo Bekkers · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 178

Scott Bryce wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote:

>> I personally chose to killfile Mark,

> As have I.

So what are you whining about?

> Which reminds me....
>
> When I moved everything over from my old computer to my new computer,
> you managed to escape from my killfile. Bye Bye.

ROTFL! That really hurt me Scotty. Beam me up!

Theo

Marty Carts · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 206

Emailed too. Chris Barnes wrote:
> Marty Carts wrote:

>> Anyway, I do think it makes sense to consolidate the two
>> ngs into one (from a decluttering USENET perspective), and
>> to have that one be .misc. I just don't have the energy
>> to advocate for it and don't think that it ought to be
>> high on anyone's list of important things to push for.
>> I suppose I support the announcement ng. ________Marty

> If everything is consolodated into a single newsgroup (I wouldn't be
> opposed to this idea), wouldn't it be better to just have the group
> named misc.education.home-school (dropping *everything* off the end)?

> just throwing another log on the fire regards,

Not at all. Fact is I didn't even think about
that and you have a good point. It'd be a
stylistic concern, I guess. I'm guessing a
qualifying ng name element is usually added in
order to differentiate between existing (or
planned or expected?) ngs, but also to more
specifically (or to specifically generalize)
what a ng is about. ___________________Marty

Michael S. Morris · Joined: 05 Aug 2007 Posts: 780

Wednesday, the 31st of
October, 2007

Bob Officer writes:
Like any sane person with normal access to a school facility would
consider home schooling? the vast majority of people, even accredited
teachers would teachers would not want to teach or instruct their own
children.

Actually I'm wondering why any educated person would consider
teacher accreditation as any recommendation at all for a person's
ability to teach. I want better for my children than the public schools,
even at their best, can possibly do. I am more knowledgeable in
almost all subjects that are ordinarily taught in US high schools than most
public school teachers, and so is my wife. All teacher accreditation
would add would be some "how to teach" classes, which are absolutely
irrelevant
to everything but the extremely artificially disadvantaged situation of
30 students per one teacher classroom teaching. I can do better for my
children
one on one in two hours than public school classrooms can do in a week.

Mike Morris
(msmorris@netdirect.net)