Sigh, Dave.
It is very unlikely that there is any language on this planet that would equate ""No, I do not wish to state an opinion" with "I wish to state an opinion but you have no provided a category that covers my opinion".
What about English?
If I ask you "do you prefer A or B", and you say "I don't wish to say whether I prefer A or B, because you have not provided a category that covers my opinion", in what way have you said something where "I do not wish to state an opinion" is an inappropriate description?
I could have written the option in the poll as "I do not wish to state an opinion on whether I prefer Scenario C or Scenario O", but I thought this was so obvious from context that I did not.
--On 28. september 2004 09:41 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc2@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Your particular reasons for not wanting to state an opinion are your own, and well known to the IETF list.
Let's skip over just how remarkably inappropriate and unprofessional it is for the IETF Chair to make an ad hominem comment like this.
Let's just consider the likelihood that you have no idea what my reasons are. However you appear to be certain you do, so please educate me and everyone else about my reasons. Since you chose to make this exchange personal, let's at least deal with things explicitly and openly.
I did not state what I intended to say in an unambiguous manner.
Based on your previous postings to the list, I thought your reasons were those you stated in your messages to the list on September 12 - that you thought that what we are doing with reorganization is wildly inappropriate, and we should do things in a completely different way; I saw no reason to search further than that.
If you have other reasons for not wanting to say whether you prefer Scenario O to Scenario C or the other way around, and have not shared those with the list - they are not well known either to the list or to me.
Harald
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf