[ga-abuse] Re: Fwd: RE: [ga] Older registrations

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.net>]

Harald,

Thank you for your reply and the ga-abuse@dnso.org address.

I'm confused. Are you telling me it's OK for Dave Crocker to call me a 
liar, and that I'm not allowed to defend myself? That just perpetuates the 
"them and us" mentality that has caused so much conflict in the past.

My words "cannot provide an alternative explanation because there isn't 
one" is simply a statement noting that Dave refuses to counter the facts 
because, and it is my firm belief, he can't. This is an observation which 
is also shared by a number of other people.

I have tried to impartially recount the facts as they happened. I will not 
name names or accuse people of wrong doing unnecessarily (during the 
recounting of the facts) unless there is good reason - and I've always held 
both Jon and Bill blameless over the check.

I do not expect someone of Dave Crocker's alleged stature to describe the 
work I undertook and drafts that I wrote, with personal guidance from Jon 
Postel, to be described as "The rogue effort". Especially when it qualified 
me for a place on the IAHC.

That *IS* insulting. There is no factual basis for this remark.

"Simon's "history" falls into the camp of nicely written propaganda".

That *IS* insulting. I don't write propaganda. There is no factual basis 
for this remark.

"Treating it as anything other than one person's (self-serving) 
fictionalization of history would put any serious analytic effort at grave 
risk".

That is not only insulting, but also a libelous character defamation. There 
is no factual basis for this remark.

If Dave simply says "I think you're wrong, but I'm open to being convinced 
otherwise" this wouldn't be an issue. But he doesn't, and instead his 
behavior is totally anti-social.

I'd very much appreciate an apology from Dave Crocker.

>At 13:51 24.03.00 -0800, Simon Higgs wrote:
>>Hi Harold,
>>
>>This is an official complaint about the following message.
>>
>>This kind of "attack" is totally uncalled for. Dave Crocker makes claims 
>>that are personal attacks with no factual basis. I don't know what the 
>>procedures are in these cases but he should be treated the same as Joe 
>>Baptista.
>
>To be specific: Are you complaining because Dave Crocker called your 
>history of events a lie?
>I think that's not any less insulting than calling Joe Baptista a loon,
>which was hashed out on the list to be outside the rules.
>(note - it was decided in that case that the fact that the statement was 
>insulting was what mattered, not whether the statement was true.)
>
>Note also that your own words ("the blue ribbon smoke screen that Dave is 
>part of", "cannot provide an alternative explanation because there isn't 
>one" et cetera) amount to calling Dave Crocker a liar, so I would have to 
>call a curse on both your houses....
>
>>Also, I don't know if Dave Crocker is actually in Australia, but the 
>>X-Authentication indicates the message was sent from an Ozmail POP. If 
>>the message is a forgery, it needs to also be made known.
>
>He's in Australia for the IETF. So am I. I'll go talk to him.
>
>BTW, official complaints must be addressed to ga-abuse@dnso.org, to make 
>sure they're archived if our handling is ever called into question.
>
>                      Harald
>
>--
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
>Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no