On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--
Website: http://hallambaker.com/
And we see below a perfect illustration of the difficulties that can
be caused by codification.
- I am very suspicious of the word "professional". Who knows what the
hell it means? Is the previous sentence "unprofessionally" worded? If
you think so, good. I typically see "unprofesional" used as a cudgel
against the strong _expression_ of opinions the critic does not like
when they have no real counter argument to those opinions.
+1
There is a technique known as 'agenda denial' in which the way a proposition that can't be answered is addressed is to reject attempts to raise it.
One of the examples used in the literature has to do with water rights in parts of Texas. There are existing homes without potable water and developers wanting to build new homes. The only way the politicians can achieve their desired outcome is to divide up the two questions so that these are never seen as alternatives.
So it will never be the right day to talk about water rights for the existing residents. They will never raise the issue in precisely the correct form.
I frequently see someone raise an issue repeatedly in the 'professional' way only to be dismissed or ignored or promised that something will get done when someone has time. Then they raise the same issue in a more aggressive way and are in effect told 'because you have behaved unprofessionally we are never going to address it'.
Which is of course a catch 22 situation.
The salaries of ISOC staff are a completely legit topic as far as I am concerned. It is a not for profit company and it is paying a very very large sum to the person in charge.
Who is that person accountable to? Well, I was rather under the impression it was us.
There are reasons to make anonymous postings and reasons to call ISOC staff to account. But there are no good reasons to make an anonymous call for accountability of a named person.
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Techno CAT <mars.techno.cat@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Calling someone a troll is an ad hominem. We aren't supposed to do that in
> the IETF. At least, not publicly."[1]
No, it is not ad hominem. Ad hominem is an argument of the form 'Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore vegetarians are NAZIs'
This is an argument of the form 'Hitler was a NAZI' which is a completely valid statement of fact.
> "It is rude.
> It is bullying." [2]
>
> HARASSMENT by Brian E Carpenter has been noted for the Legal Record
That looks like a threat to me. Threats of legal action are certainly harassment.
Website: http://hallambaker.com/