Re[2]: [ga] IMPORTANT: Status of endorsements for GA chair and alternatechair

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Eric,

Friday, March 30, 2001, 12:37:55 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> Anyone care to refute my statement?

Certainly.

> Now from this post forward we have the premature declaration of who was
> winning

No, all we have is a list of the number of ENDORSEMENTS, which were
already available on a public webpage, and were an integral part of
the process.

>  the ridiculous change of rules which were not mentioned in the
> first place but then brought into play by you and no one else

The rules were not changed, but the point wasn't made clear
apparently, and the post by the secretariat did not address this
point.  That is an error, but not a fatal one, and not one that is
really all that important, to be honest.  The need for endorsements
should have been readily apparent, even from the posted rules, and
from the many endorsements that were CC'd to this list, showing that
the GA was in fact supporting a particular candidate over the others.

> Meanwhile you suspend Jeff Williams for nothing of any import and post too
> many times on your own agenda.

Jeff was suspended for cause, as is usual for him, just as you were
recently.

There are no posting limits, those are guidelines, and are meant only
to stop excessive posts that are serving more to quell positive
discussion than anything else.

> Your timing is wonderful and most of your posts are antangonistic toward
> those involved with the WG-Review.

I have seen no such thing,and this kind of an inflammatory and
absolutely baseless charge lends little credibility to your comments,
Mr Dierker.

> Certaainly two of your posts today
> were worse than Mr. Williams'.

References please?  I have seen no such thing, but if this is true,
provide references to the messages you are complaining about, and if
you are in fact correct, I will be right there with you to file a
complaint with the Chair over it.

> All of this after your co-chair Roberto
> was scolded and apologized for making comments which hurt the credibility
> of this assembly, then you do the same thing.

You're propensity for exaggeration doesn't help, Eric.  Certainly the
above is not an accurate portrayal of what has happened here.

> While your at it would someone defend Mr. de Banc as he seems willing only
> to attack the weakest messenger.

I presume you mean Peter de Blanc.  Peter doesn't need a defender, he
can certainly hold his own, and presents his views and positions in a
clear and respectable manner.  No one is attacking him, so what
exactly are you suggesting he be defended from?

> And by the way I can appreciate receiving no endorsements after the brutal
> attacks I received by Mr. walsh which went un-admonished by Mr. Harald.

You were never attacked by me, Eric.  Your suitability for the
position you sought was challenged by me, and I provided the reasons I
felt that you were not suitable.  There was no attack involved, and
there was no reason for those posts to be subject to any action
whatsoever.

The rules are not there to protect you from yourself and from the
views of others about you, especially when you make yourself a
candidate for an office in this assembly.

Had I not focused on your suitability, and instead directed my
comments to thinks that I personally dislike about you, that would
have been a personal attack.  I suggest you might want to learn the
difference.

Have a nice day, Mr Dierker.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html