RE: [ga-abuse] Re: [Admin] Warning

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Kristy,

Since you quoted me, I think I shall respond to this.

> 
> First off, I don't believe ONE complaint, especially from 
> William Walsh, 
> should deserve one second of your time.  If a few complaints had been 
> received then it would make sense that you would take the 
> time to attempt 
> to discipline me for having an opinion and proof of Kent 
> behaving badly.


First off, there have been cases in the past where the monitors have issued
warnings on just one complaint.
Actually, this was the case for the majority of the complaints.

Secondly, you are entitled to have any opinion you wish on Kent, but not to
break the rules in expressing your opinion.

> 
> I know you have not been around quite so long and are not 
> familiar with 
> Kent like I am.  We have continued to disagree about him for a long 
> time.  I don't understand why you or anyone else would be 
> enamored by Kent 
> and it disgusts me that you would support him; however I 
> don't know you 
> very well and you could be as big a crook and Kent too.  I 
> doubt it; but 
> it's possible.  The difference is that Kent has been 
> mean-spirited publicly 
> for a long time.  Newbies NEED TO KNOW that ICANN is 
> consistently making 
> bad decisions.  Even Roberto is unhappy with this decision 
> and if you read 
> his first post carefully you will catch him digging at Kent as well.

I did not have the impression that Alexander supports Kent, just that he is
trying to defend Kent's right, as anybody else's, not to be personally
attacked. If we start making distinctions between people that do have the
right to be defended and supposed "crooks" that do not have this right, we
open the way to bad times.

The point on whether ICANN is or not making consistently bad decisions has
nothing to do with the list rules.
In fact, my criticism of ICANN's decision was not connected at all with the
personality or behaviour of Kent, but to his passeport.
I had several discussions with Kent, and many strong disagreements, since I
know him, which goes back to the time of his appointment as chairman of the
PAB (office that I have to admit he held admirably well, given the
circumstances).
Never, to the best of my memory (but you can check with him, if you want), I
have worded my disagreement in a way that not only list rules of the many
mailing lists in which we worded our disagreements, but also rules of civil
discourse and politeness, have been disregarded. And I do believe that this
has never taken any strength to my arguments, on the contrary, has added to
it: when somebody has violent reactions to the eye of the occasional reader
he/she appears to recur to (verbal) violence for lack of arguments.

> 
> My companies have deployed, tested, maintained, and improved 
> secure systems 
> since 1996.  It is common for people with attitudes like Kent 
> to abuse the 
> services and machines.  Also, having someone who finds it 
> comical to send 
> fake postings working in security just seems like a stupid idea to me.

And how does this give you the right to be offensive?

> 
> Please don't take offense, Alexander; but I am completely 
> disregarding your 
> warning as it unfair to have been sent.

Does it say anywhere in the rules that the sanction is subject to approval
of the sanctioned person? It would be a funny rule! As I said in another
post, I do like your sense of humour, Kristy!
I do hope, though, that warning or not for the benefit of the GA we all
learn how to express ourselves voicing our disagreement in more acceptable
terms.

Best regards
Roberto