Dean,
You are wasting my time and personally yours.
Please take this somewhere else or at least take the ietf mailer
off your emials. Others have indicated a lack of desire to
hear your comments also.
Mike
On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Dean Anderson wrote:
> These are generally good rules. Too bad you don't follow them.
>
> Crocker, Royer, and Alvestrand et al should try to apply rule 1 to
> themselves. The fact that they engage in personal attacks (including
> further attacks of "having to put up with Mr. Anderson", "Proper behavior
> towards irritating persons [Anderson and Staff]") demonstrates that they
> have no rational arguments to make. It is an axiom that personal attacks
> are the last resort of the wrong and weak-minded. I'll leave it up to
> others to categorize those making the personal attacks. They are very
> vague about my "egregious irrational bad behavior", yet I am very specific
> about theirs.
>
> On the subject which brought their attacks: I think it is an axiom of
> civil society that accepting the claims of well-known, court-proven liars
> is unreasonable and unacceptable. For some (plainly irrational) reason,
> they find this axiom irrating. They are being unreasonable on this count,
> not I. By contrast, there is logic and wide civil agreement to this
> axiom: its an axiom of society. They just don't like that I've revealed
> their unreasonable behavior, and don't like that I've revealed facts
> they'd rather not have revealed. They would prefer us to ignorantly
> accept the word of court-proven liars unaware they are court-proven liars
> on an RFC topic.
>
> They don't like it that this fact of court-proven lying on the subject of
> open relays has been pointed out, thus making it unacceptable as the basis
> for an RFC. But this isn't a trivial Homer-Simpson mistake on their part:
> They are not shocked by the fact of the court-proven lying. They do not
> recoil from the fact. They attack the messenger of this fact. It is not a
> mistake by their own ignorance of the fact. They knew about this fact.
> They intended to mislead. They are angry that the attempt to mislead has
> been foiled.
>
> And what they've had to "put up with" in the past has also been merely
> unwelcomed truth about flawed schemes and false assertions. Schemes which
> were then abandoned by rational people, I might add. And I've been
> vindicated in many disputes on both spam and non-spam subjects, as well as
> in disputes with spam radicals and liars. I am President of the League for
> Programming Freedom, I have a fairly impressive resume, and a good
> education with good grades at MIT, and my associates are leading people in
> Computer Science. I have proven some organizational and political skills.
> I can articulate my arguments without excessive vitriol. It is reality
> that is annoying them. I'm just the messenger: I didn't create these
> facts, nor the court judgements, nor pass the laws. They just hate the
> facts that they can't dispute, so their only recourse is personal attack.
> The personal attack is a distraction and diversion from the facts under
> discussion.
>
> I will try to apply rule 3 to the rather spiteful and angry responses of
> Crocker, Royer, Alvestrand, etc. But it is good to know who prefers to be
> associated with known, court-proven liars, and who would like to mislead
> both the IETF and the public. This knowledge is a useful set of facts to
> be documented. Eventually, there is always an accounting of such things.
> It is just a matter of time.
>
> The IETF and the ISOC have rules and codes of conduct that should be
> enforced impartially by those in charge. Redress in several documented
> instances has not been made. These cases will not be forgotten, and the
> longer they are ignored, and as patterns develop, the more serious the
> problem becomes. These problems don't go away because those in charge
> ignore them. They fester in the public mind, and harm the IETF and the
> ISOC.
>
> Dean Anderson
> Av8 Internet, Inc
>
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > Since Nick Staff's response is edging towards the subject of proper
> > behaviour towards irritating people on the IETF list, I thought it might be
> > worthy of response.... I found no reason to respond to earlier messages in
> > this thread.
> >
> > I learned long ago some rules for reasonable behaviour on mailing lists.
> >
> > Some of those include:
> >
> > 1 - Argue rationally. Use arguments related to what's being discussed.
> > Support those arguments with facts. When the facts don't support your
> > argument, shut up. RFC 3184.
> >
> > 2 - When you think that other people behave unreasonably, ignore their
> > unreasonable behaviour unless your role requires you to respond to it
> > ("don't feed the troll"). Alternatively, complain off-list. RFC 3005.
> >
> > 3 - When other people respond angrily to the unreasonable behaviour, you
> > may sometimes advise them that following rule 2 may be a better option.
> >
> > I've chosen to apply my strongest version of rule 2 to mr. Anderson - I
> > won't see his messages unless I look for them. The reason being that I do
> > not wish to expend my resources in cooling down to the point where I'd only
> > make reasonable responses.
> >
> > I think that's a good thing for people to do when they discover that they
> > have the same kind of reaction to mr. Anderson's posts as I far too often
> > have. So in the spirit of rule 3, I have shared the information on what I'm
> > doing.
> >
> > Believe me, if I wished to attack mr. Anderson, there would be no doubt
> > whatsoever that I wished to attack mr. Anderson. But I don't.
> >
> > Or, summarizing my advice in a very short sentence:
> >
> > Killfiles are good for you.
> >
> > That's all.
> >
> > Harald
> >
> > --On tirsdag, juni 28, 2005 00:50:30 -0700 Nicholas Staff
> > <nick.staff@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > You could also reasonably rule it obnoxious, childish, and pubescent.
> > > Moreover since according to your earlier post you don't think fact is an
> > > acceptable defense of a personal attack your response is at best a curious
> > > double standard. Unless of course your comment about it being fact was
> > > just some snyde payback from an earlier discussion.
> > >
> > > Clearly Harald included himself in the conversation for the sole purpose
> > > of being a jerk and his success in that area was disruptive and
> > > deconstructive at least for me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf mailing list
> > Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
> >
> >
>
> --
> Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
> www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
> 617 344 9000
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@xxxxxxxx
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
>
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf