[ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Mailing List Logic

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

WXW and all,

  First I am responding to this on the ga-int list...  (My specific comments
are below WXW's)

William X. Walsh wrote:

> 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).

  This would seem to be appropriate but I doubt that such and action will
meet with any appropriate action and is really a waste of time.

>
>
> > (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.

  Exactly right!

>
>
> 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.

  Agreed as does any other participant.

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

  Glad to see that you have modified your stance on this WXW!  >;)

>
>
> > (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.

  Well that could be characterized as a personal attack.  However the
distinction is one that should be given a great amount of consideration...

>
>
> You must learn the difference.

  Indeed right!

>
>
> > (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.

  Indeed!  And one that I see as particularly troubling...

>  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.

  Yep!

>
>
> > (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.

  I don't agree with you here, WXW.

>
>
> >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.

  I must agree...

>
>
> 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.

  Well now WXW, you have bullied in the past on the IDNO list
for instance...

>
>
> > I can't argue with that logic.  Please do not ever write to me privately.
>
> I'll write you however I choose, Patrick.

  Pstrick can always employ his own persona filter.

>
>
> 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.

  Yes but they should be sent to the GA list, not privately.

>
>
> Unless of course you want to step down.
>
> Is that what are you saying you wish to do?

  I doubt that he does, although it may be a good idea at this juncture.

>
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208