Jailer, as your colleague attorney on the other side of the Cafeteria, I would argue the exact same - but on the opposite side, namely that Ozstamps acted in self defense, and that he has been under intense and premeditated provocation.

May it please the Court---

Your Honour, I would argue for a mistrail, a change of venue, and challenge the entire proceeding due to prejudice and pre-judgement. The veredict against my client has been all over the papers for ages now... It is a well known fact that the 'establishment' is out to get my client and that he will never have a chance to a fair trail. There has been a frenzy of 'media coverage' (signal to noise rations on and off board, via email traffic, a lot of this evidence would never be admisible in court but it does form opinions) that decided the fate of Ozstamps... just to many scores from the past that many still persist on settling.

I suggest we get together for a plea bargain and reach a suitable out of court settlement (ie. a rapid return to posting rights of my client), that is the only way that justice will be served.


------------------
Gaucho100K

Gaucho100K,

Ozstamps hasn't exactly been on the level. I think Randy is right to time him out.

http://ntl.matrix.com.br/pfilho/html...ttas_theme.txt

I do not understand, please discuss further how he hasn't. Everything "against him" doesn't seem to be the case.

I have read this thread over and over and over, and am still not able to understand the rationale behind the selective bannings.

It appears that Ozstamps was the only poster to the thread who remained both "On Topic" and polite, and restrained throughout the entire thread, and yet he was banned. Why?

The remaining posters (some of whom I like very much and some of whom I don't know from Adam's goat) all wandered "Off Topic" and/or additionally violated the TOS by attacking Ozstamps.
Why weren't they banned?

I am being as objective as possible and standing back as far as I can, but this is still a great mystery to me.

As someone very new to these boards, and without knowing any past histories of any of the people involved, I will say I have noticed in several threads where ozstamps has posted completely reasonable statements and has been baited and attacked for them. Often with nothing more than innuendo or sarcasm. I have noticed someone creating a new profile and using the name 'oz stamper'.

Is that sort of thing acceptable? I would hope not and I certainly can understand where things like that might grate on a person.

Can I apply for a jury position please?

To use the legal system as an example, could this be the result of a "parole violation"?

This is not the worst that has been posted since his banning. Perhaps it is more a case of the straw that broke the camel's back?

Of course it could also be a "runaway truck" ramp that you see on the interstate - a chance to slow something down before it gains speed and loses control? After all, one does not need to have that thorough an understanding of FT history to know where things were heading.

If anything, I am glad to see a "one-alarm" flame and getting it under control before it spreads to other threads.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

Speechless.

But sufice to say we see things very differently.

Punki, would you like me to list the violations as I see them? I was hoping this sad episode was over and no more would be said about it as judgement and sentence had already been passed and executed (correctly, IMHO).

But if you would like a public debate of the merits of Randy's actions, I would be more than willing to participate, as I'm sure many others would, as well.

Gaucho, I also disagree with your opinion of pre-judgement and premeditated provocation against ozstamps. The provocation was in ozstamp's first post! IMHO. The rest was just reaction to that provocation. And unfortunately for johnpage, some of the subsequent reactive defense did go over the line, IMHO.

Again, willing to list a chronology of events as I saw them and believe to be factal and true, if you insist on publicly debating this issue.

I have a feeling most would not want to see this, however. But if you (or anyone else) gets to put forth their viewpoint, I feel I have the right to put forth my own, as well.

Your call.

But I remember...

<Biting my lip>

I went back and reread the thread and it would appear that I stand corrected.

Ozstamps, cblaisd and PremEx are the only posters to the thread in question who appeared to have remained both on topic and civil throught the exchange.

I am just trying to understand the logic here and can't figure out why the other posters who were totally "off topic", and posted purely for the point of insulting another poster, were not timed-out as well.

[This message has been edited by Punki (edited 11-14-2002).]

This is one jury I would love to sit in on

We can have our pre-trial jury selection questionairre on Chat

Ok I understand that I will be disqualified from jury duty;

Question: Have you already made up your decision as to guilt or innocence?

Yes sir; OS is not only guilty on the thread in question but is guilty on what seems to be, on a daily basis, of similar violations; and not only that; I think Mr Page who probably could have quit when he was ahead but didn't; did what he had to do in self defense to a habitual perpetrator

Attorney Gaucho for the defendant: please strike this juror from serving on this case

There's another problem.

As flyertalkers, many of us have made a lot of new friends here on Flyertalk. Some of these friendships have developed in chat, some on a particular board, and many at various meetings.

So I understand from Punki's point of view, where she is defending her friend. That's an admirable trait; as long as it doesn't cloud your eyes to the reality of the situation.

Dan

I believe that participants are crossing the line when they implicitly or explicitly ask Randy to justify any further his actions.

This board/web site exists because Randy (by which I mean both the individual and his organization) created and maintains it. Seems to me that it's wrong to believe or assume that the rules should be adopted, interpreted, or adjudicated by anyone other than Randy or those to whom he specifically delegates such decisions.

You're entitled to make and interpret rules when you start your own board or company or club, or when someone else who has started such an endeavor asks you to help manage. Otherwise, if you want to participate in management, get involved with government, maybe your school or planning board.

I am probably older than every other Flyertalker on these boards. The great thing about getting older is learning what's important and what is not. It's about picking your battles in life and learning to let some things roll off your back. If I see a post that I feel is inappropriate, I assume the moderator will handle the situation. That's why they are here. I don't believe it is my job to constantly police what others post, it is simply my good fortune to belong to this community. You would think that especially where Randy and his contribution are concerned, that the members of the community would respect his decisions and understand that NOONE can please all the people all the time and he does one hell of a job on our behalf. So I just want to say: thank you Randy for all you do and I support your decisions and the difficulty they entail.

Marysunshine, well said. We live in a cyber-benevolent dictatorship—not a bad thing, and I respect Randy’s right to make this call. I’m particularly glad that he pointed out the thread that caused the banishment, rather than someone disappearing Gulag style. This promotes a healthy, and so far, civil discourse.

To continue Moot Court: If John’s original offer did not cross the line (which is the moderator’s and Randy’s call), then he was attacked, pure and simple. Free speech does not allow one to yell, “Fire” in a crowded theatre, and by my reading Oz didn’t want to trade with John. If my reading is correct, John's defensive actions were warranted. Did he use excess force? I don’t see how he did.

Oz threw the first punch, John defended himself.

But, as sheriff, Randy gets to say, “Brawling is not allowed in my town.” Once that decision is made, then, IMHO, one needs to stop looking at the offending thread in a vacuum, and look at past and associated behavior. Perhaps John has been warned or banned in the past, I know Oz was. Perhaps Oz and John were asked to cease and desist by the moderator. Perhaps vitriolic and/or threatening emails were sent. The sentencing process opens the door to character, history and remorsefulness.

Having made the initial decision to share verdict, I hope that Randy will share each of their sentences.