At 05:15 29/03/03 -0800, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Since you are presenting yourself as the self appointed 'executive
director' of what purports to be an international lobbying group
on the subject
Clue 1: I was not self-appointed. I was asked to fill the role - I'd rather
somebody else have done it, but so be it. In fact I'm pretty sure the
constitution on the web site explains how the appointment is made. (By the
way, I only include that information in my signature here for context and
disclosure).
you might want to think about your obnoxious
behavior.
Clue 2: Glass houses. (Actually I figured this was why you didn't call me
rude to begin with, but I guess you're less enlightened about yourself than
I previously thought - at least I *know* I'm rude at times).
In particular you might just find that the people you
are needlessly antagonizing might have some influence.
Clue 3: Don't overestimate your own importance.
Hint, who
do you think had the idea of a Whitehouse web site in the first
place?
Clue 4: Who cares? Namedropping is the last refuge of the insecure and
self-important, but of course I didn't need you to do this to realise this
about you, since you have also been known use membership affiliation
letters after your name, which is a similar indicator.
>Furthermore, he consistently pushes as "the only solution",
> something that
> would (if it were even a desirable approach or possible to implement)
> generate more revenue for his employer.
Completely untrue, I have pushed every solution except for those
that create as many problems as they try to solve.
I apologise for saying that you were pushing this as the "only" solution -
it was based on a single statement of yours that, when viewed in the
context of the whole, has a different character to my initial take. However
I do think the substance is fair in that you do seem to turn up on mailing
lists whenever there is the possibility of profit to your employer to
promote solutions that would yield that profit. This behaviour would not be
inconsistent with the belief that part of your job description is to do
exactly that.
In fact you have even used marketing speak - about the "reasonable rates"
Verisign offers.
... Troy initiated the insults with his
deliberately insulting bounce message...
I'm sorry you feel personally slighted by a bounce message that relates to
your domain being a repeated source of spam, but I fail to understand
taking offence at an automated message which, in 99.9% of cases it would
have been activated, is entirely accurate.
...The
reason for the blacklisting is irrelevant, Troy has sent
five emails to my _personal_ email inbox but does not feel
inclined to accept mail from me.
That's rude, not clueless. I admit to being rude, deal with it.
In any event, I try to avoid off-list copies unless:
(1) the message I am replying to had off-list copies; and
(2) The message retains some relevance to the people who
are being copied.
Of course this doesn't always occur, but I wouldn't interpret the sending
of a private copy of an on-list message to mean any personal intention to
send a private copy.
Secondly, yes inaniate objects can be described as clueless.
Most inanimate objects are clueless.
If you want to travel down that path, all inanimate objects are clueless,
so the comment is utterly redundant unless intended to be directed at the
most proximate human actor.
Ad Hominem was and
is accepted as a valid argument for accepting purely factual
statements that cannot be assesed in any other way.
True, however yours was not such a case.
Kee Hinkley wrote:
Since you obviously don't give a damn as to whether Phillip has anything
worthwhile to say--being blinded by the twelve letters to the left of his
at-sign.
Actually, I have been (to the degree reasonable on such a high volume list)
paying attention to what he has to say. However I assume that if he has
something to say that is worth reading it will be said on-list.
I'd consider the motive of earning money for Verisign--even if
true--potentially far more compatible with the goals of this list than yours.
Well there we'll have to differ - like many, I consider anything that gives
more power (or even revenue) to Verisign is a bad thing.
But of course I also consider anything that sacrifices the availability of
anonymity in email to be a bad thing.
--
Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU
asrg(_at_)troy(_dot_)rollo(_dot_)name Executive Director,
iCAUCE
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg