and that many of Dan's
supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
personal attacks on himself or on the community.
This feels like a problematic position to me. It seems like you are saying that as long as someone *perceives* a comment to be a personal "attack", they should be afforded complete license to respond in any manner they so choose, without repercussion. This feels like a wordier version of "Well he started it."
Please correct me if I am misconstruing your position here.
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:23 PM Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/4/22 09:16, Bless, Roland (TM) wrote:
> There have been repeated hints from various sides that the postings in
> question (may) have been hurting the feelings of IETF participants (or
> have been disturbing at least and clearly lacking respect for IETF
> participants).
With respect, I disagree that this is a valid reason for censoring this
individual. I also disagree that his postings were malicious or clearly
lacking respect for IETF participants. What's also clear is that this
effort is a personal attack on Dan, and that many of Dan's
supposedly-offending posts were his reactions to what he perceived as
personal attacks on himself or on the community. While everyone would
do well to avoid resorting to ridicule out of anger at being attacked,
that's an important part of the context that many people seem to be missing.
Essentially, your argument amounts to an argument that it's okay for the
IETF leadership to attack individuals whose opinions they do not like,
or that it's okay for IETF leadership to amplify individuals whose
opinions are offensive to some, and for defensible reasons.
Keith
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
