Re: [OPE-L] Statement on Flames

Date: Thu Aug 02 2007 - 13:14:18 EDT


After being suspended from the list, Rakesh asked that he be given an
opportunity to make a statement to the list on his suspension and sent
the Advisory Committee (AC) a statement that he wished to have forwarded
to the list.  The AC and I failed to reach consensus on the issue of
whether the statement that Rakesh sent us should be forwarded to the list.
 A member of the AC asked that I inform the list of that fact.

Had Rakesh written a simple statement in which he denied flaming others
then we would have forwarded his message. I.e. there is not disagreement
over whether Rakesh should be able to make a statement but rather
whether basically "anything goes" in that statement. One AC member thought
that his statement should be forwarded "as is" so that this affair could
be put behind us. Another expressed the concern that since others on the
list were mentioned in a derogatory way and his statement contains some
inaccuracies and unknowable speculation, sending it to the list would
invite others to reply to Rakesh and hence resurrect the controversy.
Forwarding Rakesh's message "as is"  would also be a violation of
#3 of the  statement below (because Jurriaan is mentioned). [Note to
Jurriaan: do not reply on-list to this message.]

Off-list discussion on this issue continues.  If anyone on the list wishes
to make their thoughts known on this question, please send us your
off-list input.

In solidarity, Jerry
Gloucester, Mass.

> *Statement on Flames*
> As a consequence of the recent round of flames, the following decisons
> were made:
> 1.  Rakesh has been suspended for a three month period which began on
> July 11.  He was suspended for violation of the January 24 agreement,
> specifically the prohibition against flames.  That agreement, which
> allowed Rakesh to be readmitted to the list, indicated that there would
> be "no exceptions" and that any violations would be met with an
> unsubscription for a "substantial" period of time.
> 2. In suspending Rakesh, we are not condoning the actions of Jurriaan or
> others. In our view, all parties were partially to blame. We advise _all_
> listmembers that it is not acceptable to engage in flaming of other
> listmeners - *for whatever reason* - on OPE-L.
> 3.  Jurriaan and Rakesh are not to refer to each other or their posts
> (directly or by innuendo) on the list.  This prohibition is open-ended at
> this time.
> 4. We wish to make the following known to all listmembers:
> a) *even if you feel you have been flamed, that is NO EXCUSE for
> retaliation by flaming someone else on the list*;
> b) If, in the future, you feel you have been flamed you should take the
> matter up with the Advisory Committee and Jerry OFF-LIST. We would
> then determine whether in fact you were flamed and, if so, what should be
> done about it.
> Comradely,
> Alejandro Valle Baeza <>
> Allin Cottrell <>
> Fred Moseley <>
> Jerry Levy <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 31 2007 - 00:00:10 EDT