[Beowulf] Admin action request

Sat Nov 23 10:19:34 PST 2013

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 10:49:15AM -0500, Peter St. John wrote:
> Re: " I don't give a shit about Joseph ..." ; did I mention
> "unmannerliness"?

You expect me to react civilly to someone who libels me,
unrepentantly? Really?

To add insult to injury, I've been publicly
accused of threatening Joe Landman. Here is the
post in question:

http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/list/2013-October/004846.html 

in the thread in http://lists.pfsense.org/pipermail/list/2013-October/thread.html
wherein Joseph Landman attempts to squash a debate he
considers unwelcome.

---begin citation

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 06:20:56PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> I just worked out setting up new filters for the recent S/N
> destroying, high tin-foil-hat content, on gmail.  Since people
> pleading for this to go away hasn't worked, technological measures
> to restore S/N for my inbox on this list have been engaged.
> 
> Please folks, take the tin foil hat discussion elsewhere.  Please?

Please don't engage in the equivalent of http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
or I'll promise I'm going to call it Landman's Law.

--- end citation

The specific allegation by Joe Landman was 
"This particular individual actually threatened me in another group,"

To recap, he keeps derailing civil list conversation with
allegations against me without having the civility to talk
to me by name, and after having had no success with attempts
at censorship, libels me in public. After being called on 
it and asked to retract his statement, he continues to have
the gall to attack me:

---begin citation

Someone had an overinflated view of the impact of his threats which he detailed here.  I began to ignore him then and there, though his postings now 
+actively threaten this community.  Hence my call to action.                                                                                         

This said, his lack of manners, his disrespect for people, poor conduct...                                                                           

Is this someone you actually *want* in your community?                                                                                               

I am going to turn on filters so I don't have to waste my time with him anymore.  Unfortunately he can still damage the community, and as you saw    
+from the attack on me he prefers to satiate an bruised ego than to self reflect and answer the critique of likely harm to the community.            

Moderation is the best near term action.

---end citation

He continues to libel me, by alleging that I have threatened
him. He, who began attacking me in public attempts to paint 
me as the attacker "his postings now actively threaten this community". 
That makes him a hypocrite, too.

Is this someone you actually *want* in your community?

> Peter
> 
> 
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 03:42:35PM -0500, Joe Landman wrote:
> > > Folks:
> > >
> > >    We are seeing a return to the posting of multiple full articles
> >
> > Failure to address the culprit (me, presumably) by name.
> > Use of majestatis pluralis. Why so pissy?
> >
> > > again.  We've asked several times that this not occur.  It appears to be
> > > a strong consensus from many I spoke with at SC13 this year, that there
> > > is little (actually no) support for the full article postings.  As we
> >
> > I've received two off-list replies that I continue posting.
> >
> > > had noted in the case of HPCwire, InsideHPC, etc. posting the full
> > > article deprives the authors and publishers of clicks, which deprives
> > > them of potential revenue.
> >
> > We've been through this before.
> >
> > >    Since our requests have again been ignored, we are generally faced
> > > with a few options on what to do if anything.
> > >
> > >    Option 1: Do nothing.  Nothing will change, and we will have someone
> > > continue to abuse the resources, the authors and the publications.
> > >
> > >    Option 2: Personal filtering.  This particular individual actually
> > > threatened me in another group, and I generally simply ignore anything
> >
> > Bullshit. Joe Landman, who thinks that his personal views should be
> > normative, attempted to quash a discussion (not initiated by me) on
> > the pfSense mailing list. I told him that if he continues to accuse
> > others of tinfoilhattery in regards to a germane discussion in a
> > security product in order to censor I will call such wrongful attempts
> > a Landman's Law, in analogy with Godwin's Law.
> >
> > He took the hint, and stopped doing that.
> >
> > Now he insinuates here on the Beowulf mailing I threatened Joe Landman
> > personally, without even calling me by name. This is incorrect
> > and libelous. I did no such thing. Joe Landman, please retract your
> > libelous statement about me you made in public.
> >
> > > he posts.  I haven't gone as far as active filters for him, but have for
> > > some of the more egregious tin foil hat wearers of that other group.
> > >
> > >    Option 3: Enforce some of our basic etiquette.  If you aren't willing
> > > to abide by the house rules, you won't be allowed into the house to
> > > violate the rules.  In this case, I see more than two strikes, so I am
> > > not all that inclined to be terribly forgiving of these breaches.
> >
> > I've lost the last shred of personal and professional respect for you,
> > Joe Landman. You might be a scholar, but you're certainly no gentleman.
> >
> > >    It is obvious option 1 will do nothing.  Option 2 is unsatisfactory,
> > > as the behavior will continue, and be in the permanent list archive.
> > > Option 3 seems to be the right approach.
> > >
> > >    I am not a lawyer, though its not hard to note that reproduction of
> > > work without permission could wind someone up in court ... this has been
> > > the basis for the file sharing lawsuits when content owners get pissed
> > > off enough.  It doesn't matter if the owner of the list or the hardware
> > > the list is on didn't put it there.  What matters is that they didn't
> > > remove it.
> > >
> > >    Rather than have to deal with the battle above, I'd ask the powers
> > > that be to decide whether or not they wish to continue to tolerate the
> > > astounding breach of etiquette, and the risks that it opens up
> > > (copyright and redistribution of copyrighted work).
> > >
> > >    Note that we've had this conversation before, and been assured by the
> > > poster that it wouldn't happen again.  As I see it, I've got a number of
> >
> > I assume you mean me. I do not recall saying that.
> >
> > > his longer posts going into my SPAM filter, which means I have to
> > > actively clean it lest google start categorizing all mail from Beowulf
> > > as spam.
> > >
> > >    I am just not seeing an upside to option 1 or option 2, though option
> > > 2 provides local filtration.
> > >
> > >    Anyone else have an opinion?
> >
> > Yes. I don't give a shit about Joseph Landman, Ph.D. I'm willing to
> > abide by house rules, these explicitly not involving one Joseph Landman,
> > Ph.D.
> >
> > I'm willing to start listening to his opinion when Joseph Landman, Ph.D.,
> > retracts his libel against me, in public. Your call.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joseph Landman, Ph.D
> > > Founder and CEO
> > > Scalable Informatics, Inc.
> > > email: landman at scalableinformatics.com
> > > web  : http://scalableinformatics.com
> > > twtr : @scalableinfo
> > > phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
> > > cell : +1 734 612 4615
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> > > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
> > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org sponsored by Penguin Computing
> > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
> > http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
> >