Re: [ga-abuse] Re: Warning from the list monitors to Dave Crocker

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 12:09 08.05.2001 -0700, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 01:00 PM 5/8/2001, Kristy McKee wrote:
>>Dave, we disagree.
>>
>>The list monitors recognize you broke the rules.
>
>At the time, there were no rules.  For rules to be meaningful, they need 
>to be enforced.
>
>A state of complete anarchy was present on the list.  Hence you are 
>penalizing me for having defended myself, when the designated authorities 
>were not doing their job.

dave:
"when the designated authorities were taking several weeks to do their job" 
is the correct description.

>>I am sorry this upsets you.   You have received warnings before and were 
>>nearly suspended
>
>You are referring to my previous warning for some reason.  Perhaps you 
>believe that the previous warning renders my opinions and position somehow 
>less relevant or meaningful?

the idea that you would be unaware of violating the rules is somehow less 
convincing when you have received warnings before.

>Yet you seem to make no similar differentiation for participants who hold 
>special position.

Careful - you do not know that.

>Were any of the participants in the ga-abuse deliberations accused of 
>having violating the rules?  If so, then they had a conflict of interest 
>and should not have participated in the ga-buse discussions.

The complainer was not involved in the procedure.
If you were to suspend all monitors who had ANY complaint filed against 
them from participating, sabotaging the monitor effort would be Just Too Easy.

>>  - so what's your real beef - do you just want to pick on me?
>
>Careful, Kristy.  You initiated this exchange.  I have merely been responding.
>
>In fact, you have mostly ignored the very specific points I have been making.
>
>That suggests that YOU are picking on ME.

We are picking on your excessive use of language.