Re: I'm not going to listen to this any more.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
> >>I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who 
> >>violate list policy egregiously.
> > 
> > As one of the IETF list's "sargent at arms", I certainly don't see
> > Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
> > or form.  I also didn't see it as a personal attack.
> 
> sorry for the badly written note.  i was trying to focus on getting the 
> procedure used, not specify who it should be used against.
> 
> harald's posting was not what i considered to be egregious.

Since when are _true_ facts about liars on a subject (open relays)  
discussed in an IETF RFC, egregious?  Is it against list policy to assert
that the IETF should be honest, and not associate with liars?  I missed
that part. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out?

Your beef is with reality.  I didn't create the facts, I'm just the
messenger. The people who created the facts of their lies (by lying)
thought, like some others, that lies will never return to haunt them.  Of
course, that's what reputation is about: the return of past misdeeds.  
Associate with liars, and people will say you associate with liars. 
Reasonable, civil, rational people won't trust liars nor their associates.
Accountability is harsh.

I wrote this for another purpose, but its appropriate here:

Defamation sometimes results in a short term gain for the defamer, and a
short term loss for the defamed.  But, given time, it always results in a
long term loss for the defamer and a long term gain for the defamed.  Be
patient, but don't forget.

Before 1720, British defamation law didn't permit truth as a defense
against defamation. In fact, if the defamatory claims were true, common
law made the penalty worse because, as the courts reasoned before the 18th
century, truth was far more damaging than lies.  But around 1720, 2 people
writing under the pseudonym Cato argued that truth should be an defense
against defamation. They were subsequently sued for defamation for
revealing disparaging true facts. They won. Since then, truth has been an
absolute defense against defamation.  

It is remarkable that truth is more damaging than lies.

		--Dean

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   






_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]