DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

Re: [ga] List decorum

On Saturday, April 07, 2001 7:27 AM (AEST)
Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net> wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] List decorum

> However it is, I believe, a simple and direct implication:  Someone
> asserted on the list that I am a paid agent provococateur.  There is no
> substance to that claim, because it is entirely false; in fact it is silly.
> False and malicious.  That is slander.

I am very reluctant to pick up on this thread but I believe you opened this
particular can of worms when you challenged DPF's harmless comment as follows:

On Tuesday, April 03, 2001 5:01 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] Last minute changes to Verisign agreements

> And then we have your citing the tiny number of people who go to ICANN
> meetings "with absolutely no vested interests".  It might be interesting to
> discover who these people are, since there are so few people at the
> meetings, and therefore almost no one likely to be there with no vested
> interest.

I have read and re-read this paragraph many times and can see your intention was
to suggest that the ICANN meetings are empty.  As an aside, this was not my
experience in Melbourne and led either you or Kent to complain about their
childish behaviour.

As a master of this form of debate, your writing cannot be faulted.   However,
the complexity of your construction "almost no one likely to be there with no
vested interest" makes it look as if you are saying those who do attend such
meetings have a vested interest in the outcome.

In fact, it is almost certainly true that attendees DO have an interest in the
outcome.  Hence the childish outbursts complained about (because they were
concerned at the expected outcome).

This almost inevitably raises the question of conflict of interest and I am glad
to see you deny that you are a "paid agent provocateur".  Of course as a master
of the language, you will know that there are two implications (1) that you are
paid and (2) that you are an agent provocateur.

Your denial only applies to the conjunction of those two statements.

Patrick Corliss

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

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