[ga-abuse] RE: [ga] [Admin] Complaint against William Walsh - comments desired

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Mr. Alvestrand,
Greetings. As a relatively new member of the GA, I am not familiar with the
history behind this complaint and do not know either Mr Teernstra or Mr
Williams well. While I can imagine this post could be "the last straw" to
some people, invoking feelings of "here we go again", I can only pass
judgement of the post in isolation and from a bi-partisan standpoint . Using
that criteria, this post does not seem to me to be any more abusive than
many others I have seen recently in WG-Review which have not been regarded
as abusive. Therefore, I suspect some sort of personal campaign to silence
Mr Williams as the motivation behind this complaint. Whether or not  the
post is a constructive comment is another matter, but I do not consider his
comment to warrant any more than a caution to be very careful about making
unsubstantiated allegations and even if allegations can be substantiated, to
always be civil to other members.
But you must judge for yourself the weight of my opinion in view of my
experience in this forum.
Sincerely,
Joanna Lane

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Harald
Alvestrand
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 11:59 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] [Admin] Complaint against William Walsh - comments desired


Jeff Williams has made formal complaint against William Walsh for abusive
posting against Joop Ternstra.

The posting complained about was this one:

 > >Hello Joop,
 > >
 > >Wednesday, February 07, 2001, 3:46:11 AM, Joop Teernstra wrote:
 > >
 > > > At 23:53 6/02/01 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
 > >
 > > >>
 > > >>I doubt Joop Teernstra (who opposed the rules that eliminated the
 > > >>Baptista problem) was taking credit for that.
 > > >>
 > >
 > > > Mr Walsh in his zeal for carrying his vendetta anew to this list, has
 > >some
 > > > problem with the truth here.
 > > > I never opposed the list rules. I suggested an improvement.
 > >
 > >Yes, and when those improvements were not supported, you opposed the
 > >adoption of the rules in favor the extremist rules that you pushed
 > >into the IDNO, and supported the actions of those who left the GA in
 > >protest over what was simply rules of simply civil discourse (which
 > >have been effective in solving the problems that were facing the GA at
 > >that time).
 > >

The list monitor wishes to hear comments on whether this posting should be
considered abusive or not before making a decision.

In the interest of getting input on this subject without taking up the
GA list's time on this issue, I ask respondents:
PLEASE SEND YOUR INPUT TO GA-ABUSE@DNSO.ORG, AND NOT TO THE MAIN LIST!

(Of course, there is no block against discussing this issue on the main
list also. But there are a number of people who are tired of the issue
already. I will summarize the input to the main list when announcing a
decision.)

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html