Re[2]: [ga-abuse] Fwd: Re: [ga] Please stop NOW

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Harald,

The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
Not using offensive language

My post was never a personal attack, I've always answered in response
to the ISSUES, not the person.  I've maintained decorum, and never
insulted or slandered him, or used offensive language.

The messages are clearly relevant to the business of the DNSO, because
one of the big issues before the DNSO IS the individual's
constituency.

You don't like that this conflict between his views and mine has gone
on as long as it has, and you don't like reading about it.

Fine.

But that does NOT give you the right or the ability to censor it.

You can request all you want, but you do not have the right, or the
ability (without abusing your position) to decide that because YOU and
some others are tired of hearing about an issue that the issue should
not be discussed, or to limit WHO can discuss it.

If you do not see the personal attack in Jeff's message, and consider
mine personal attacks, you only show that you are inclined to a
selective enforcement of the rules, as well as that you are willing to
twist the rules to include anything that you just simply do not like.

The thread that started this has been the most active thread on the
list, and it generated some very nice discussion on exactly what the
GA has accomplished and where it should go from here.  Before that, we
were discussing .int policies, and a couple of posts about our
continued lack of a chair.

If you insist on this, I'll have to address the Names Council as to
the fact that you are no longer in the position that permits you to
address these issues, since your term long expired, and no provision
for your continuing in that position was made.

If you want to twist the rules to get rid of things you don't like,
I'll make sure the rules are followed to the letter.



Saturday, February 10, 2001, 9:34:56 PM, Harald Alvestrand wrote:

> At 16:16 10/02/2001 -0800, you wrote:

>>Consider this a complaint.
>>
>>At least I wait until a REAL personal attack takes place before making
>>them.

> seems to me he has the facts right, for once.

> William, your attacks on Joop ARE disruptive. They may be borderline 
> between actionable or not (I have had comments on both sides of the fence), 
> but they are disruptive to the GA.

> I have made the recommendation several times in other contexts:
> When attacked repeatedly by something you think is a lie:

> - Make a web page stating your opinion.
> - When attacked outside the forum where debate is relevant, refuse to say 
> ANYTHING on this particular topic apart from "My view on the matter is on 
> display at..."

> Apart from getting the stuff out of the list, it has the advantage that you 
> cannot be tricked into making new statements hastily that you have not 
> thought properly about before making them.

> Still waiting to see what action is needed.

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



-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com