[ga-abuse] Re: [private response to threat]

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

At 10:06 AM 5/9/2001, Kristy wrote:
>"Far more serious was that that bit of exchange with Kristy was one where
>she chose to make things personal, claiming that I was picking on her."
>------Dave Crocker
>"... do you just want to pick on me?"
>
>------Kristy McKee
>I asked you a question, Dave, I did not make a claim.

Unfortunately, Krity, asking a question carries implications.  The question 
was not random.  You chose to ask it.  Presumably you also did not ask the 
question frivolously.

Hence you were seriously asking whether I was picking on you.  Yet there 
was nothing at all in my notes that pertained to you.  So you seriously 
asked me whether I was attacking you, but there was no basis for that question.

Hence the question from you a) demonstrated that you were not reading or 
understanding my comments, and b) that you were choosing to introduce a 
personal element.  In other words, the fact that you chose to ask that 
question speaks far more about your own attitudes and reactions than about 
mine.


>And I noticed you ignored my question

Quite the contrary.  I responded immediately and directly to your attack.

If, instead, you mean that I did not directly answer your question, then of 
course not.  It was not a serious question, except in the larger context of 
your choosing to ask an inappropriate and hostile question.


>and then lied about what it said even though you posted our private 
>conversation to the public forum where everyone could read through it and 
>determine for themselves what is going on.

Kristy, someone serving in a formal position that involves rendering 
judgements over others needs to be far more careful than you appear willing 
or able.  One simply cannot frivolously and incorrectly call someone a liar 
like that.

I offered an interpretation for your behavior.  I provided the basis for 
it.  There is a vast amount of research data on human behavior to 
substantiate at least the reasonableness for my assessment.

You are, of course, free to disagree.  However you are not free to slander 
someone by calling them a liar when the label is both inappropriate and 
unsubstantiated.


>Seems a little odd to me, Dave.
>
>And if your concern is, "However I'm more concerned with your group's 
>understanding its process and actions than with my own status."
>
>Then please try and be helpful, not hurtful.

All of my responses on this exchange have been chosen careful and with both 
the intent and the content to be educational for the ga-abuse team.

That you do not see it that way is, of course, unfortunate.

You can -- and evidently are -- choosing to dismiss the problem as entirely 
mine, rather than considering that there might be rather serious problems 
with the team, both membership and process.


>This is my first experience as a volunteer & my first experience as a list 
>monitor and I'm doing a really good job.

What metrics are you using for measuring your excellence?


d/

ps.  No doubt you will again be upset that I am copying ga-abuse.  I tried 
to explain the reason earlier but will try again:  You are acting under 
color of authority.  This exchange is taking place as part of the exercise 
of your authority.  As such it must be accountable.  I fully agree that 
this does not (yet) require that it be fully public, but it at least should 
be subject to group review by the other members of your team.  The fact 
that you have chosen to misunderstand and misrepresent my comments in such 
an inflammatory way underscores the need for that review.


----------
Dave Crocker   <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464