Re: [ga] Mailing List Logic

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

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, May 27, 2001, 7:29:31 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> (1)    If I explain the list rules to Eric Dierker, you can feel free to
> treat what I said as an abuse of my position such that it justifies you
> attacking me on a completely unrelated subject.  And without even
> validating what I said or addressing the issues being discussed.

I never said explaining the rules to Eric was an abuse of your
position.

I'll be filing a complaint against you for this (in line with your
complaints about me today).

> (2)    If I try to explain the cross-posting rule then I am wandering off
> topic or causing a diversion.

I never said that either.  There is no cross posting rule, there is a
cross posting policy enforced by software.  You were not explaining
that, you were stating that a rule existed which did not in fact
exist.

Again, please show where I accused you of making "diversions."

> If you divert the debate that's your right as
> a member.  Of course, any attempt by me to focus the debate must be
> "censorship" or "abuse of power".

Did I say anything at all about diversion?

No?

I didn't think so.

> (3)    If I write to you privately, you can feel free to publish anything I
> say as evidence of my bad faith.  However, I am prohibited from publishing
> anything you or anyone else writes as this is private and must be respected.

When you respond to a post I make, basically stating that my comments
about your view point that you are free to exempt yourself from
certain rules, yes, I have every right to make your comments public
which show that in fact I was right.

And I never say anything to you in private that I would not want
posted publicly.

> (4)    If you attack me, I must just take it as an "elected official".  But
> if I say anything derogatory about you or anyone else, you must, of course,
> submit a complaint.

I did not attack you.  I publicly criticized your actions as an
elected official.

You must learn the difference.

> (5)    If I submit a complaint then I am abusing my official position but if
> you submit a complaint, that is your perfect entitlement as a list member
> under the rules.

I Didn't say your complaints where an abuse of your official position.
I DID say that you abuse the complaint process in order to silence
criticism.

Please pay better attention to what IS in fact said, and not put words
in my mouth.

> (6)    If I get off lightly I must have "got at" the list monoitors or
> otherwise abused my official position.  If you get off lightly then it was
> proper, just and appropriate in the circumstances.

Did I say that?

No, what I DID say was that there appears to be one set of rules for
us, the GA members, and another set of rules for yourself.  The list
monitors appear unwilling to act against you for the very same things
that you yourself file complaints against others for.

> (7)    If act fairly or impartially, e.g if I recuse myself as a list
> monitor, then I have been forced to do so against my will by justified
> criticism of my hidden agenda.

Did I say that?  No, I didn't.

> (8)    If I act as a List Administrator and post or re-post a message that I
> didn't write (for example, a *bounced* post from a non-member) then I must
> comply with the five posts a day limit like everyone else.  If you exceed
> the five post a day limit, then the rules don't apply to you because the
> Chair didn't "announce" them after the election.

First of all, you are not the list administrator.  That is a title you
made up all on your own.  Bounced messages don't go to you. The posts
you made as "List administrator" where news stories and reposts of
posts from other mailing lists that were never sent to the GA list.

The same kinds of posts other GA members.  But when THEY repost those
things, the rules apply to them.

The criticism was that it is inappropriate for you to claim you can
circumvent rules you expect others to follow for the same kinds of
posts that they would not be exempt from posting limits for under
those rules.

> (9)    If I sound as if I am in favour or opposed to anything at all then it
> must be because of my hidden agenda.  If you say anything, however biased or
> outrageous, that is your right as a free spirit floating around the
> universe.

I never said that all of your positions are because of your agenda.
What I DO find inappropriate, however, are actions like your motion on
the Ga-Roots list where you made a motion, deliberately worded in such
a way as to deceive those who were not paying attention into believing
it was a neutral position with regard to policies effecting ICANN and
the alt.roots, when in fact you (later admittedly) slid in language
that would further your agenda with regard to alt.roots.

From a regular member, such a move would not be near as objectionable.
From someone who goes to such great lengths to stand on the airs of
his "official position," from someone who is supposed to be an
instrument of consensus, it is entirely inappropriate.

> (10)    If I say anything like the above then it is a "personal attack" and
> must be stamped on.  If you make a real "personal attack" well that is just
> vigorous debate and I must be thin-skinned or overly-sensitive to criticism.

My comments were not a personal attack, but a criticism in how you
handle yourself and your "official" duties.

Abuse of your position is in fact a valid criticism, and in this case
there was clearly enough evidence to support the factual allegations
made.

> (11)    Finally you can threaten or bully me, privately, all you like.
> That's fair dealing.  If I say anything amiss, or republish your threats, I
> am a bully abusing my position.

I don't threaten or bully, Patrick.  I simply state facts.

> I can't argue with that logic.  Please do not ever write to me privately.

I'll write you however I choose, Patrick.

I'll remind you that you are an elected official of this body.  As
such you have an obligation to receive those emails relating to your
position.

Unless of course you want to step down.

Is that what are you saying you wish to do?

-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net


--
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