On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 05:44:45PM -0600, Vernon Schryver wrote:
Doesn't that style of rhetoric voilate the IETF's rules?
Let's do a simple experiment:
Take the mail archive of this mailing list. List all mails from
Vernon. I find about 355 within about 2 months. These mails do not
contribute. They are jamming the mailing list with wrong technical
informations, heaps of useless informations, and absurd objections
against just everything which could bring this group to a result.
The conclusion is that Vernon's intention is to defeat any
success in finding a solution against Spam, thus to sabotage
this group. I do not see that the IETF and especially the
ASRG working group is able to defend against such kind of
sabotage or work group jamming. Meanwhile people are starting
to use a stronger language to defend themselves.
A similiar effect happened with Dave. He is posting strong
objectives against any technical proposal made on the list,
but these objectives are just wrong. Dave has been asked by
several people in the background to read and understand the proposals
before objecting them. He has been asked kindly, and he has been
asked with more intense. He still refused to stop spreading
wrong technical informations about those proposal he wants to
object. That is false propaganda. Several people tried to explain
why he is wrong in a very kind and comprehensible way. He didn't
take that. But he still continues with objecting the proposals
while using wrong technical informations. So if he doesn't understand
plain technical language, then there is no option to switching
to a different language that he is willing to understand. If someone
is refusing to understand what people do explain, and is again
and again spreading wrong information in a way that appears
to be intentionally, in a way that is destructive for the working
groups success, and he still repeat it again and again, then it
must be allowed to say "That's crap." Because it is crap.
The sheer mass of nonsense posted to this group already keeps many
people from reading and following the group. It is impossible to
pick the important information out of an ocean of noise and
disinformation. And that's the intention some people have.
The problem is, if you try to explain again and again, as
several people from the group did, this turns out to be
contraproductive, because it helps those people to jam the
group with noise. Again, it must be possible to say "Stop this,
this is crap". And if people do respond to such explanations in
a way that is not reasonable, then it must be allowed to ask
"Are you stoned"?
Which procedures does IETF/IRTF have to defend against sabotage?
To defend against "Spamming" of the group mailing list?
Hadmut
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg