Folks, I¹m responding in my role of sergeant-at-arms. I¹ve received complains about the tone of a few messages of this thread. I¹ve re-read the last few days, and I agree that some messages could be understood as ³ad hominem². So please, calm-down and re-read your emails before hitting send, ir order to avoid me taking further actions and restrict posting rights to anyone. Thanks ! Regards, Jordi -----Mensaje original----- De: Dan Harkins <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> Responder a: <dharkins@xxxxxxxxxx> Fecha: lunes, 23 de marzo de 2015, 8:57 Para: <dcrocker@xxxxxxxx> CC: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Asunto: Re: perspective of discussion about I-D.farresnickel-harassment > > Congratulations Dave. Just as I predicted you have successfully >derailed this unfortunate thread. And just as I imagined it was >through denial. But it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. > > Dan. > >On Mon, March 23, 2015 5:11 am, Dave Crocker wrote: >> On 3/22/2015 3:53 PM, Dan Harkins wrote: >>> If you haven't realized that non-governmental committees to >>> deal with harassment in their organizations have been greeted >>> with quite a few false accusations of late then you PROBABLY >>> aren't paying attention. >>> >>> Furthermore, if you haven't realized that when these committees >>> dispense justice it sometimes violates due process and opens up >>> those organizations to great risk then you are the focus of why this >>> discussion is happening. >> >> >>>From the Lisak study: >> >> "A recently published comprehensive review of studies and reports >> on false rape allegations listed 20 sources whose estimates ranged from >> 1.5% to 90% (Rumney, 2006). However, when the sources of these >> estimates are examined carefully it is clear that only a fraction of the >> reports represent credible studies and that these credible studies >> indicate far less variability in false reporting rates." >> >> The 'of late' in your text was an interesting stylistic touch, adding a >> sense of immediacy and a sense of growth in mis-reporting, neither of >> which was supported by the citations you provided. >> >> Adding to Brian's counter to the interpretation you chose for the >> citations: >> >> The citations refer to rape, not harassment. They are dramatically >> different behaviors and occur in dramatically different contexts. >> >> Attempting to apply statistics about one to the other is grossly >> inappropriate methodology. >> >> The first citation's own study has a number of unfortunate >> assumptions, such as: >> >> "its police agency is not inundated with serious felony cases >> and, therefore, has the freedom and the motivation to record and >> thoroughly pursue all rape complaints." >> >> The presumption that the agency has motivation, given that it has >> freedom, is without basis. >> >> "investigation of all rape complaints always involves a serious >> offer to polygraph the complainants and the suspects." >> >> I wonder how intimidating this 'offer' is likely to be, for a victim, >> serving to alter their choice of making an accusation? >> >> The list of biasing factors in that study goes on. Yet it still >> produces a result that 95% of rape claims in that small mid-western town >> were valid. 95 fucking percent. >> >> Then, of course there are quite a few counter-citations available from a >> simple web search on false felony charges, such as: >> >> http://web.stanford.edu/group/maan/cgi-bin/?page_id=297 >> >> (It is almost interesting that searching for items on false accusations >> seems to produce google results only concerning rape and no other pages >> or articles on statistics for other kinds of false felony accusations. I >> was looking for a baseline, so that a statistic on false rape >> accusations could be compared against reports on other kinds of false >> felony accusations. The rate of 1, 5 or 10% might be higher than for >> other crimes, or lower.) >> >> >> Besides the problems with the meager citations you offered -- while >> ignoring material against your claim -- all of this, as others have >> noted, is secondary to the irrelevance of your original posting, to the >> discussion at hand. The proposed procedure includes assessment of >> validity. (It's handling of that phase of processing could be written >> more clearly, but that's a different discussion.) >> >> Equally unfortunate is your responding to criticism by making a direct >> and vigorous ad hominem attack. That's against IETF rules, Dan. >> >> d/ >> >> >> -- >> Dave Crocker >> Brandenburg InternetWorking >> bbiw.net >> > >