Re: [ga] No Members?

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Mr. Walsh,

But of course you are right and I am wrong.  OTOH I do not want him banned, and i want
any complaints aired openely and transparently. And I want them heard by an equally
open and transparent body of three selected by the new chair.

This whole new Problem with privacy must bring these issues to the forefront.  I
believe you get the connection.  I apologize if I set you up for this one, but you are
a great straight man. And just so no one is wondering, yes much to his dismay Mr. Walsh
has tutored me extensively, and quit every other day in disgust at my lack of accument
but he is patient and honorable and even teaches us newbies how to work in the big
city.

Anything I say is not his fault but if it is acceptable it may be due to him.

Sincerely,

p.s. did he set me up for this one?, I have been once again used by Prof Walsh.

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Eric,
>
> REad the rules, complaints do not go to the list.
>
> We have a structure, and there is a reason for it.
>
> Complaint sent to the list serve ONLY to inflame and make things
> worse.  That is why the special address was setup for complaints.
>
> Stop going off the deepend so quickly, you only hurt yourself.
>
> For your information, I know personally that at least 5 complaints
> have already been filed, privately, about the same comment, including
> my own.
>
> They were smart enough and wise enough to do it properly, and off
> list.
>
> Friday, February 25, 2000, 9:43:15 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > No!  In case no one noticed this is the type of post I am campaigning against.
> > It is anit-outreach, anti-education and it basically stinks. It makes one want to
> > ask "who do you work for Mr. Crocker?"  This post is speciffically designed to
> > drive people off the list.  Joanna has contributed more to these lists then 20
> > years of this brutal attack will ever contribute.  this post is generally
> > designed to attack the integrity of this fine human being.
>
> > I now publicly ask that the same rules be applied to him as were applied to Mr.
> > Williams and have him banned from the list.  I believe that if this is not done
> > that we have a clear reason to change the method of censorship.
>
> > To Joanna, you rock!!
>
> > To Mr. Crocker i hope you are well paid. Because that issue started this did it
> > not? and yet you have still not given us an answer.
>
> > I say all this after being censored by Mr. Harald for doing just what he did do
> > me, saying he does not read any of my posts, even though I am a popular
> > candidate.  This is nasty pollitics at its' worst.
>
> > Extremely sincerely,
>
> > Eric Dierker
>
> > Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> >> At 07:02 PM 4/4/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >> >At 03:17 PM 4/4/2001, Joanna Lane wrote:
> >> > >You know, I would be most interested to know where you get this kind of
> >> > >information from. ... Very odd to my way of thinking.
> >> >
> >> >...
> >> >
> >> >No. You do realize I hope that you are attacking me for requesting the
> >> >source of hearsay information. This was a reasonable enquiry.
> >>
> >> You were not primarily requesting information.  the text I quoted (see
> >> directly above here) is judgemental and tailored to impune questions of
> >> ethics, or the like.  f
> >>
> >> If you are insensitive to the challenging tone in your wording, a course in
> >> writing (probably best to focus on business writing) would be helpful.
> >>
> >> (by the way, i tried to find a more neutral way to word the above, but your
> >> attempt at wide eyed innocence does not leave any choice.)
> >>
> >> >Dave Crocker wrote:-
> >> >And you further appear to believe that because you have not been tracking
> >> >the history of these activities closely (or for a long time) ...
> >> >
> >> >No, and just because a person says something repeatedly (or for a long time)
> >> >doesn't mean it is true.
> >>
> >> Clearly you should not be involved in discussions on an open email list,
> >> since you only will be satisfied by sitting in directly during the meetings
> >> that you ask about.
> >>
> >> >Dave Crocker wrote:-
> >> >Even when the details
> >> >about those individuals have been discussed and re-discussed many times.
> >> >
> >> >OIC. You mean I should have known that Kent is engaged in offlist dialogue
> >> >with ICANN staff. Thank you for the confirmation.
> >>
> >> OIC.  You are so interested in placing your own interpretation on things
> >> that you are willing to invent interpretations to statements that provide
> >> no basis for the interpretations.
> >>
> >> Thank YOU for the confirmation.
> >>
> >> If you ever interested in serious discussion about serious ICANN issues,
> >> please do let us know.
> >>
> >> d/
> >>
> >> ----------
> >> Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
> >> Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> >> tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
> >>
> >> --
> >> 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
>
> > --
> > 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
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com

--
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