[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [wg-c] "within the process"

To: "'Kent Crispin'" <kent@songbird.com>, <wg-c@dnso.org>
Subject: RE: [wg-c] "within the process"
From: "Christopher Ambler" <cambler@iodesign.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 18:58:22 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <20000316180726.G16158@songbird.com>
Reply-To: <cambler@iodesign.com>
Sender: owner-wg-c@dnso.org

>Indeed the rules have changed; CORE has done its best to play
>constructively within the rules despite the moving target.  IODesign, on
>the other hand, sits like a hungry tick looking at what it thinks is a
>throbbing artery, interested only in its private gain. 

These words are dangerously close to libel, if they are not, in
fact, libel.

I demand an apology and retraction.

This letter has been copied to IOD's council.

Christopher Ambler

References:
- [wg-c] "within the process"
  - From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>

Prev by Date: Re: [wg-c] about the consensus call
Next by Date: RE: [wg-c] historical trivia (getting to the Shepperd/Kleiman "p
Prev by thread: [wg-c] "within the process"
Next by thread: RE: [wg-c] "within the process"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread