> > Thomas Gal wrote: > > [..] > > I hope that being too > > forceful, stubborn, or persistent (NOT oblivious or ambivalent) > > doesn't become justification for reprimand. > > Since when have political conspiracy theories, allusions to > impending legal action and references to other people's > dating lives been admirable examples of 'forceful, stubborn, > or persistent' discourse? > I guess those first two kinds of things (my personal least favorite is the age old "if the IETF doesn't [insert personal uber-issue here] then it shall be doomed to irellevancy") usually end up slipping in as an adjunct to heated converstation, hence I proposed a cooling off mechanism in another email. That being said references to other people's dating lives (true or not) clearly has no way of being on topic, and definitely would make a good example of what I mentioned could be a series of examples of innapropriate posts. In fact even in the case of political conspiracy and impending legal action, despite being dropped here and there, there's nothing to stop the parties at any time from lapsing back to pointed objective discussion of the facts. It just usually doesn't work out that way. > cheers, > gja > -Tom
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf