[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [discuss] FW: Re: S. 705
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
> William X. Walsh
> On Thu, 24 Jun 1999 15:22:34 -0400, Milton Mueller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Kent Crispin wrote:
> >> buttressed by truly offensive posts from Roeland
> >> Meyer, constant antagonism from William Walsh,
> >This is true. Their participation was at a very low level
> and consisted of personal
> >attacks. But Joop and the IDNO members are not responsible for that.
> I take exception to that. My posts consistently were nothing more
> than an attempt to get Kent and Dave to address the question of
> whether he opposed or supported the creation of the constituency and
> the goals of the IDNO, and if not, what purpose he felt he had in
> being a participant on the list. Nothing more. Do not buy into
> Kent's continue "coloring" that he has become so famous for.
I'll also take exception to that. My message was a direct and
inequivocable response to a direct slur, on my honesty and integrity, by
Kent Crispin, a non-member of the IDNO list. The only offensive thing I
did in it was to call Kent out for what he is, a scum-bag. That is the
strongest language that I used in the message. Of course, Kent may be
offended for having been identified correctly. But, he probably gets
offended every time he looks in the mirror too. Kent knows I filter him
and uses that knowlege to slur and slander me, behind my back. The one
causing offense here is Kent, as always.
Dishonesty is what Kent did with the draft DNSO.ORG proposal in Atlanta.