[ga-abuse] complaint about WXW

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

  "further evidence of your intent to act in bad faith"
--Personal attack against the alt chair, masquerading as complaint about 
formalities.

This is a style that should not be tolerated as it appears intended to 
discourage volunteer chairing of this Assembly by "neutralizing" an elected 
official.
It is with exactly this same behaviour (baiting) that WXW has driven all 
leadership away from other democratic efforts.
Allow it, and the GA will go the way of the IDNO.


Entire message objected to:  (together with the previous attack against the 
alt chair)
(Plus follow-up and publishing of private mail)



Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 05:11:27 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.51) Business
Reply-To: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <81116727765.20010527051127@userfriendly.com>
To: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
CC: "[ga-abuse]" <ga-abuse@dnso.org>, "[ga]" <ga@dnso.org>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Mailing List Abuse
In-Reply-To: <00f101c0e6a4$095d2c20$b33efea9@hamza>
References:
  <3B100F12.52100D83@hi-tek.com><029b01c0e66c$5b80d480$b33efea9@hamza>
  <9597201112.20010526234604@userfriendly.com>
  <00f101c0e6a4$095d2c20$b33efea9@hamza>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Envelope-To: terastra@terabytz.co.nz
X-UIDL: d6cb93745a81c3b542c4567d091d9209

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, May 27, 2001, 4:56:11 AM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

 > Complaint Against William X. Walsh
 > Grounds: Personal Attack, Insults and Slander
 > That I abuse my position as Alternate Chair.
 > "Let's not say that the process is fair, at least not with you involved in
 > it."

 > I will not attempt to defend myself against personal attacks any further.  I
 > simply note that Mr Walsh has slandered me in the following post.  Mr Walsh
 > is free to submit a complaint should I exceed the cross-posting limit (with
 > or without the titles).

Did you, or did you not, tell me that you were using the method of
using the "List Admin" name to get around complaints about posting
limits by making those posts look like "official posts" ?

I'll save you the trouble of answering.  From an email (of which I
will be willing to provide the ENTIRE text to any member who asks)
from you to me this week:

===========
Wednesday, May 23, 2001, 3:51:59 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
"The only reason I use the title is because I think it important to
re-post things like public announcements or relevant mail from other
lists."

"If I use the title I can argue that it was an "official" posting."
===========

 > With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
 > available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person who
 > is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all lists.

No one said that.  What WAS said was that your post stating that this
was against the rules was NOT in fact true.  And you do not have the
right to MAKE such a rule by yourself.

I am stating facts, and in fact making a public complaint about our
"elected official."  As such it was not a personal attack.

As an elected official, you do not have the right to assert "personal
attack" in response to criticisms of you and your actions in your
"official role."

This is just further evidence of your intent to act in bad faith by
using the abuse process to claim personal attacks when called to
answer for your own statements and actions.

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