[ca-liberty] banned again on lpsf-discuss


  For the record, I am not hostile to Brian Miller. If I were, why would I have sent him an email offering to request that he be allowed to resubscribe to LPSF-discuss if he wishes? (Admittedly I am willing to do the same for Brian Holtz, although I had not yet sent him an email to that effect, as I tend to agree with Terry Floyd and Bob & Marge Parkhurst that banning people from the list for such infractions is unnecessary, even though I can understand why the step was taken.)

  However, Brian Miller's message below mischaracterizes a number of facts and things that I've said. For the record (in as non-confrontational manner as possible):

(1) I said gay rights were a small sliver not of the larger *civil rights* picture, but of *civil liberties,* which encompasses a much broader spectrum than the things usually labeled as "civil rights," including freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, surveillance and spying issues, sexuality issues (there are many things there beyond GLBTQ rights, such as being able to legally buy sex toys, discrimination against kinky people, laws against public nudity, breastfeeding, and sexuality, adult stores and strip clubs facing government harrassment and closure, anti-prostitution laws, and so on), etc. This was in no way meant to suggest that gay rights are not an important issue, and I said as much at the time.

(2) I'm bisexual and a member of Outright, as is Mike Acree. Richard Newell is gay and a member of Outright. Phil is gay, and I believe a member of Outright. There may well be additional LPSF-discuss members who aren't coming to mind right now. To my knowledge we all remain on this list, so even if you and Francoise have also quit LPSF-discuss along with Brian, it's hardly the case that "the entire GLBTQ caucus of the LP has quit the list."

(3) I *did* apologize for under-reporting Brian's involvement with the LPSF, and explained my mistake. The email where I apologized is in fact in the thread below which Brian quoted. The mistake was not a "self-serving claim" -- I really have no horse in the quarrel between Brian Miller and Brian Holtz, nor any self-interest in under-reporting Brian Miller's LPSF involvement. Nor did I ever say Brian was inactive in the LP.

(4) I did not say Outright's involvement with the Libertarian presence at the SF Pride event was "mostly helping Outright" -- my precise words were, "Although you (Brian) may have been acting more on behalf of Outright than LPSF, it was nevertheless significant activism in our region, and I apologize for failing to mention it." The language of my correction was based on my understanding that the Pride Parade and booth were largely organized, funded by, and done in the name of, the Outright Libertarians. No slight was intended either to Brian or to Outright.

(5) It is incorrect that there have been "zero" discussions of LP candidates in the upcoming elections on the LPSF-discuss list. I know that there have been many posts here about LP candidates including Steve Kubby, Christine Smith, Chicken John, etc. Nor do I think that Brian's complaint of a "complete lack of support that I've received from LPSF thus far in
actually doing LP stuff" is fair. I have specifically expressed an interest in doing LP activism, and offered to help him if he organized anything. Several people, including myself, volunteered to donate to his proposed LP advertising campaign on Energy 92.7, but he decided to drop the idea. I am unaware of any activism Brian has undertaken locally for which he did not receive support.

  I think Phil's suggestion that the folks involved meet in person to talk out their differences is a good one, and I am willing to take part in that if desired. It would probably be best to arrange a separate meeting, however, rather than to take time away from the regular LPSF meeting and social to deal with all this.

Love & Liberty,
        ((( starchild )))

Dear All,

I am wondering if we could be reminded of the guidelines for this
Activist list. As I recall this list was for activity planning. I
would be dismayed if the bla bla bla bla migrated from the Discussion
list to this list.



To be clear, no one was "unsubscribed" or "banned" from lpsf-discuss.
I only removed their posting privileges because they were unable to
discuss politics in a civil way. Chris, Marcy and Francoise (and
others) left and I was about to leave because the discussion had
degraded to a barrage of name calling and verbal intimidation, rants,
excessive nonsense posts, etc.

The decision to remove their posting privileges wasn't made with any
malice on my part - I haven't followed the discussions and I don't
even know the political opinions of the offenders. I simply responded
to a number of complaints by asking the moderators for input on the
sources of the problem and then looked over some of their posts to
verify the problem.

I suggest we either establish clear discussion rules and enforce them
or, given that the most of the LP meeting members seem to be leaving
the list, change it's name to "sf-liberty-discuss" or something not
associated with the SFLP.

I agree. Then, the GOP-related stuff won't be out of place, and those
of us not interested in GOP stuff can avoid that list.


dredelstein@threeminutetherapy.com wrote: