Re: (OPE-L) private messages / flame intervention

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) private messages / flame intervent

> Since this also is of general interest, I
> will explain this
> on-list.
>
> 1) private messages
>
> No list member has  the right to forward private
> messages
> to the list without the explicit
> authorization of the author.

Why should a message in which you threaten to cut me off be kept private? Especially when you deny at length that you ever did any such thing.  Are you trying to turn the issue away from whether you lied to the question of whether I should not have forwarded an offlist threat to me?

> It's as simple as that. Just about every
> Internet mailing list
> has a rule to this effect.
>
> 2) flame intervention
>
> We have a list policy against flames. Because discussions by the
> AC can often take time,  it is expected both by the AC and
> the
> list that I will use my judgment when I see flames about when
> and whether I should intervene.

Let's see I am defending myself against the insinuated flame that I am a Trotskyist-fascist agent of imperialism and the "moderator" threatens to intercept my posts. Boy, that makes sense.

Rakesh

>  On (rare) occasions, I
> instruct the parties not to discuss the matter further on-list.
> After the discussion goes off-list then there is time for cooler
> heads to prevail.  And, most importantly, the list is spared
> an escalation of flames.  I only ask that this be done in
> extreme cases.  When I, wearing my moderator hat, ask that a
> topic be discussed off-list then I expect that all on-list
> discussion cease immediately.  Period.
>
> If the AC is not satisfied with how I have acted to prevent flame
> escalation then they can raise the issue with me off-list.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry