Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing

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

To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
From: Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 14:05:20 -0400
Cc: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <CAMm+LwiMSdxq=grFfkbs5HZX3LXe3UdOOwb7JQDX6f1UQ_qfCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F2D6FBAB-7DED-41AE-9560-4D0D13B15107@ericsson.com> <1BF349D9-8ABB-4844-965A-A43964E18A41@fugue.com> <CAMm+LwiMSdxq=grFfkbs5HZX3LXe3UdOOwb7JQDX6f1UQ_qfCw@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0

On 9/10/19 12:06 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:

Tone policing not exactly unknown in IETF but the strategy of poisoning a debate by being disruptive is much more common.

So is accusing well-intended people of bad intention.

Keith

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
  - From: Ted Lemon

References:
- Re: tone policing
  - From: Christer Holmberg
- Re: tone policing
  - From: Ted Lemon
- Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
  - From: Phillip Hallam-Baker

Prev by Date: Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
Next by Date: Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
Previous by thread: Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
Next by thread: Re: Agenda Denial Was: tone policing
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

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

Powered by Linux