[ga-abuse] Re: Vandalization

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

Sunday, Sunday, January 20, 2002, 7:14:36 AM, Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>  >> Work to build, not to vandalize.

> That's disagreement, but put in a positive way.

No it isn't.  It is a clear accusation that the person being referred
to is acting in a vandalistic manner.

For you to say his wording it this way is acceptable, and then
criticize me for a DETAILED accounting of a factual basis below, well
I hope this isn't a portent of things to come.

> You wrote:
>>I'm not the one vandalizing, Joop.  For the first time in over 2 years
>>progress is being made in the IDNO.  This progress happened as a
>>result of the motion I wrote, which barely failed, but did succeed it
>>setting an agenda for radical change in the way things were being run
>>in the IDNO, and created an environment where you are not getting your
>>way in doing whatever it is you think is best, regardless of the rest
>>of the opinions.
>>
>>The only vandalization going on is by you, as you tried to vandalize
>>the reputation of those standing for election whom you didn't approve
>>of.

> The last paragraph -- "to vandalize the reputation" --
> is an unnecessary personal attack. As list monitor,

Excuse me?  All I pointed out was that he engaged in an attack of the
very kind he was accusing me of engaging in.  And one that is backed
up by factual evidence, unlike his.

I didn't cross the line here, I used his OWN word to describe the
actions.

Sorry, Alexander, but I stand by this one, and if you choose to
suspend me for it, so be it, but I'm damned if I'm going to back down
on this one.

If he makes the accusation again, I will respond in a similar fashion.

Especially since you see nothing wrong with his attack.

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
--