Re: Example of order (Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 14:51 06.01.00 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote:


>On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > >As Jeff Williams pointed out earlier - that's nonsence.  The filtering
> > >criteria is a group of people in the shadows and I'm waiting for the rest
> > >of your report to me.
> >
> > You have my report.
>
>You know what I expect - full disclosure - as promised.

I have disclosed the answer to your specific question - when you were 
censored, why, and the fact that you are no longer censored.

I have never promised to waste all my time trying to imagine what you want.


> > >   So can we get on with it and spend less time trying
> > >to justify the mistakes of the pirates who run icann and the dnso.  Don't
> > >drop the ball harald.
> >
> > Note: Under Robert's rules of order, the use of the word "pirates", 
> being a
> > characterization of a person or group of persons, and not of an action on
> > the floor or a consequence thereof, is not within decorum.
> >
> > It is therefore within the rules to ask you to apologize for using it in
> > this debate, if you claim to be willing to follow Robert's Rules of Order.
> > If you don't apologize, a motion to have you censured, punished or 
> expelled
> > would be in order in a parliamentary body following Robert's Rules of 
> Order.
> >
> > Do we have your apology?
>
>One can't appologize until the rules are in place, can one?

One certainly can, although it may be a novel experience.
When one asks for rules to be imposed where one of the preconditions is to 
behave civilly, behaving civilly is a good way to show that debate under 
those rules is possible.
I do not find your behaviour consistent with the way you want others to behave.

>Now - Harald - if I don't get further disclosure - there's going to be
>some more ass kicking.

Threat noted.

                   Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no