ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Sergeant at arms: please deal with mars(_dot_)techno(_dot_)cat(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com

2013-10-22 08:12:24
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 3:02 PM, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

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(_dot_)techno(_dot_)cat(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
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/