Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse
In the quote section I meant to also include this statement from his
"I'm more than happy to use my personal name except when it really is an
"official" posting if you and the other naysayers, Eric and Jeff (good
company you are in!!) agree to discount repostings when criticising me for
exceeding my posting limit."
Thus recognizing that those posts were not in fact official and that
he only reason for using the title was to attempt to circumvent rules
that everyone else must follow. I stand by what I said as a factual
and ontopic criticism of the behaviors, statements, and actions of
this "Elected" official of the GA.
The full email will be made available to anyone who asks, since I am
in effect being called a liar by Patrick who is claiming that my
factual accounting of his actions is instead a baseless personal
Or better yet, I'll put it on the web.
Headers are intact.
Sunday, May 27, 2001, 5:11:27 AM, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Patrick,
> Sunday, May 27, 2001, 4:56:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>> Complaint Against William X. Walsh
>> Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
>> That I abuse my position as Alternate Chair.
>> "Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved in
>> I will not attempt to defend myself against personal attacks any further. I
>> simply note that Mr Walsh has slandered me in the following post. Mr Walsh
>> is free to submit a complaint should I exceed the cross-posting limit (with
>> or without the titles).
> Did you, or did you not, tell me that you were using the method of
> using the "List Admin" name to get around complaints about posting
> limits by making those posts look like "official posts" ?
> I'll save you the trouble of answering. From an email (of which I
> will be willing to provide the ENTIRE text to any member who asks)
> from you to me this week:
> Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 3:51:59 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> "The only reason I use the title is because I think it important to
> re-post things like public announcements or relevant mail from other
> "If I use the title I can argue that it was an "official" posting."
>> With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
>> available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person who
>> is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all lists.
> No one said that. What WAS said was that your post stating that this
> was against the rules was NOT in fact true. And you do not have the
> right to MAKE such a rule by yourself.
> I am stating facts, and in fact making a public complaint about our
> "elected official." As such it was not a personal attack.
> As an elected official, you do not have the right to assert "personal
> attack" in response to criticisms of you and your actions in your
> "official role."
> This is just further evidence of your intent to act in bad faith by
> using the abuse process to claim personal attacks when called to
> answer for your own statements and actions.
William X Walsh
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html