ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-abuse]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga-abuse] WARNING: Postings regarding Patrick Corliss

  • To: William X Walsh <william@wxsoft.info>
  • Subject: [ga-abuse] WARNING: Postings regarding Patrick Corliss
  • From: Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>
  • Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 16:27:10 +0100
  • Cc: ga-abuse@dnso.org
  • In-Reply-To: <802492494.20020120063017@userfriendly.com>
  • References: <00dd01c1a1b2$1c67cd60$b33efea9@hamza><000801c1a10e$5687a9b0$0200a8c0@dassa><00dd01c1a1b2$1c67cd60$b33efea9@hamza>
  • Sender: owner-ga-abuse@dnso.org


Hello William,

I just wrote a friendly warning, now several
mails arrived which warrant a full warning.

You are free to defend anyone you like and
to discuss about anything you like, but you
have to stop making these personal attacks
or your posting rights will be suspended
for a couple of weeks.

Regarrds,
/// Alexander


At 20.01.2002 06:30, you wrote:
>Darryl has done far more postive contributions to this and other
>forums than you and Jessica combined.
>
>I suggest might want to consider better your choice of tactics on this
>list.

At 20.01.2002 06:28, you wrote:
>Your story telling style of history is rather amusing, Patrick.  Good
>for a laugh, but not to be taken seriously.

At 20.01.2002 06:27, you wrote:
>Why do you want to divide and conquer at every turn, Patrick?
>
>Because you realize that you can better manipulate and control things
>when you divide things up into small groups?
>
>The fact is that the discussion here was not so unmanageable that it
>warranted being segregated off.  And you know it.
>
>End of story, you can stop trying to use this issue to further your
>little agenda.
>
>You latch on to every important issue like this, to try and further
>your view of how things should be run here in the GA.  You didn't get
>away with it while you were alt.chair, you didn't get away with it
>after you were removed that position, and you aren't getting away with
>it now.
>
>Why do you insist on harping on this and dragging this issue out even
>more?
>
>I don't see a lot of support for your view either, except a very
>smalll handful, who make up a VERY VERY Small fragment of those who
>participated in this discussion.  Once again, with the support of only
>a couple people, you try and declare that consensus exists.  It takes
>much more than that to get to consensus, Patrick.
>
>Your logic is as twisted and poor as ever.




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>