On Sun, 28 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 11:27 AM 2/27/99 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote [replying to Dave's relentless
personal attacks]:
> >Dave, you are boring everyone.
> > ...
> >That's true. You have nothing positive to say, nothing to contribute.
In other words, stop attacking me, stop attacking other people, start
getting on topic.
> Given how vigorously you asserted the incorrectness of my assessment of
> your positions concerning gTLD and IANA proposals, and given that your
> response to the repeated request that you cite contrary data is, instead,
> to continue a barrage of attacks at me, one is left with a pretty strong
> basis for believing that the original assessment was correct.
Your original claim was that I never contributed anything, that I
just complained.
I replied by listing some very solid contributions to real, working
Internet bodies.
> As always, anything you wish to provide to the contrary would be helpful.
>
> To the extent that you have any doubt about the nature of such contrary
> data, please note that ad hominem's do not qualify.
Dave, what exactly are your contributions to this debate? IHAC? The
well-named POC?
If I search through the last couple of weeks of contributions to this
list from yourself, what I find is this:
--------------- a compendium ----------------
Sun, 14 Feb 1999 16:19:26 +0800
> Lisse,
>
> Presumably the "Dr" in your title came from doing something constructive,
> at some point in the past.
>
> Please consider returning to that realm and refraining from constant
> personal attacks on others who are trying to do constructive work in THIS
> realm.
Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:20:08 +0800
> >Oh, isn't this rich.
>
> Is that a subtle way of saying that you approve of Lisse' constant ad
> hominem responses to Kent?
Sun, 14 Feb 1999 17:36:59 +0800
> >Tt is me saying that I find it rather humorous that you would accuse someone
> >else of attacking people, and criticize them over it.
>
> I see. So the way to deal with concerns expressed about one set of ad
> hominem abuses is to pursue another set.
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 17:18:16 +0800
> I'm sure NSI appreciates the constructive nature of this offer. Since this
> puts forward no viable alternative, its sole effect is to assist pursue
> further delay, maintaining NSI's uncontrolled monopoly position that much
> longer. Very helpful, indeed. Internet users must also appreciate how
> much this helps their access to competitive services.
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:18:49 +0800
> Roeland, I'm impressed with the creativity of your multiple
> interpretations, particularly since they have nothing to do with anything I
> said.
>
> 1. You use a style of logic which says that if one is not in favor of one
> thing, then one must be in favor of another other, no matter how extreme or
> unfounded the second and no matter how many other possible positions are
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:58:01 +0800
> >I'm just putting all this together with the things you have stated in the
> >past. It is possible that I have mis-interpreted them, of course.
>
> I've never stated that I wanted anything remotely like a pact with the
> devil and I've never stated anything remotely like wanting NSI crushed.
>
> So, no, I rather think your interpretation comes from somewhere other than
> my own statements.
Mon, 22 Feb 1999 22:00:20 +0800
> >In other words, we need delay. We do not need a vast bureaucracy
> >overseeing the Internet. If the cost of killing off the vast
> >bureaucracy is a few hundred million going to NSI, let them have it.
> >It's the cheaper solution. The ICANN empire will cost far more.
>
> Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
> not be faced with the "vast bureaucracy" that is now developing. But too
> many people chose to vocally and vigorously and politically oppose that
> much simpler effort and these people pressured things towards the current
> develops.
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:48:52 +0800
> >What "compromise" effort?
>
> The IAHC.
>
> It's been convenient for the constant complainers to attack it, as they
> attack everything else, but it was created after two years of efforts to
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 08:33:52 +0800
> At 08:00 AM 2/22/99 -0800, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
> >which half to respond to, out of context. The defining clause, to the
> >paragraph you spoke to was thus;
> > "Personally, I think it is caused by their business structure.Non-profits
> > *always* are short of funds. That's not real good for stability."
>
> Does it matter that your "personal" assessment is factually wrong? Does it
> matter that the points I made about the funding basis and timing for ICANN
> are correct?
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 10:50:30 +0800
> >>Does it matter that your "personal" assessment is factually wrong? Does it
> >>matter that the points I made about the funding basis and timing for ICANN
> >>are correct?
> >
> >Sure, if they were correct. IMHO, they weren't.
>
> I said that ICANN was established without significant funding. Was that
> statement incorrect?
>
> I said that the ICANN folks have too much to do and that fund-raising was
> only part of their part-time activities. Was that statement incorrect?
Tue, 23 Feb 1999 23:18:30 +0800
> >ICANN has four objectives: management of the top level of the DNS,
> >management of IP address space, protocols, and operation of the
> >root name servers.
>
> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
> turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
> other areas, though none existed before.
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:25:41 +0800
> William, and all others who continue to respond to this sort of silliness:
>
> When someone gets continuing pattern of obscene telephone calls, they are
> faced with trying to decide how to get the calls to stop. This is made
> difficult by the psychology of the people who make such calls. The caller
> is sufficiently starved for any sense of control over their life that they
> find it necessary to try to use the telephone as a means of claiming some
> control over others.
Thu, 25 Feb 1999 17:44:43 +0800
> >> ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
> >> the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
> >> turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
> >> other areas, though none existed before.
> >
> >The mother of all conspiracy theories. What is as obvious as the nose
>
> I hope that your bit of hyperbole, is meant as humor, Jim. In any event, I
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:02:18 +0800
> Jim, you provided an extensive vitae of your various community
> involvements. My question was rather more simple than that and your
> response was, well, non-responsive.
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:40:16 +0800
> Since you typically try to offered reasoned and reasonable notes and since
> is the second note you have posted to this thread using hostile, ad
> absurdum statements, let me suggest that you are either reacting rather too
> defensively or you are consciously trying to distract us from serious
> consideration of my statement.
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:44:04 +0800
> >To say that Adam Todd, Richard Sexton, and Einar Stefferud are stacking the
> >deck in NSI's favor is a total mischaracterization.
>
> Sadly, no it's not.
>
> It does not matter that each person will claim independence of NSI, while
> taking their money. In terms of micro-behaviors, that independence is
> entirely valid. In terms of serving NSI's interests, it's not.
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:06:07 +0800
> >You didn't ask a question. You said that I only complained and never
> >actually contributed anything. My reply was that in a time in which you
>
> I did not say that you never contributed. I DID say that you had opposed
> every developed, detailed, pursued proposal that had been put forward. You
> said I was wrong. I have now twice (or perhaps 3 times, I've lost track)
> asked you explicitly what proposal you HAVE supported.
Sat, 27 Feb 1999 17:58:44 +0800
> >This is very interesting;-)...
> >
> >I have seen no hostile ad homonim comments from Chuck Gomes, though I
> >might find the accusation of making them to be a case of making them.
> >}Chuck,
> >}
> >}Since you typically try to offered reasoned and reasonable
> >}notes and since
> >}is the second note you have posted to this thread using
> >}hostile, ad
> >}absurdum statements, let me suggest that you are either
>
> Ad absurdum is not the same as ad hominem.
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 10:38:43 +0800
> I hope that you can appreciate the considerable irony in having a company
> whose substantial business is as a monopoly, granted and protected by a
> government, offer itself as a promoter of free market values. The irony is
> enhanced by the fact that NSI's interest in competition has curiously
> continued to be delayed for years.
Sun, 28 Feb 1999 11:06:13 +0800
> Given how vigorously you asserted the incorrectness of my assessment of
> your positions concerning gTLD and IANA proposals, and given that your
> response to the repeated request that you cite contrary data is, instead,
> to continue a barrage of attacks at me, one is left with a pretty strong
> basis for believing that the original assessment was correct.
------- end of the Crocker compendium -------
This is every message you have posted to this list in this period. By and
large, what I have extracted is your first few words. There is a
remarkable consistency to these messages.
* most are personal attacks
* most focus on history, or what you regard as history
* most are attacks on others who are proposing action
* none of your messages propose anything new
* almost all are drenched in ill-will
Looking back over the last couple of years, this is pretty much
chracteristic of messages from Dave Crocker on these lists.
Is this significant? Yes, I think so.
The IFWP represented a chance for a change. But that movement and these
lists have been buried in this sort of negative material. Any suggestions
for change, any new ideas are met with instant attacks, attacks that
concentrate on the personal instead of policy. Don Heath exhorted his
troops to "overwhelm" the IFWP. This didn't mean meeting it with
rational arguments or seeking to reach a compromise. It meant drowning
it in vitriol.
This particular sub-thread began when I proposed that the ICANN process be
delayed, arguing that recent developments have betrayed an imperial
tendency that would cost more than any damage resulting from delay. The
response from Dave Crocker was simply a personal attack: I always
complain, never propose anything positive, etc. The substantive claim was
glossed over.
Those of us who hope for something positive from the arguments on this
list must rise above this. This means coming to understand that it is
not just the jesters, Jeff and his imitators, who distract everyone from
issues of substance. It is also those who have nothing to say and are
here only to attack anyone with any positive ideas. Dave, of course,
stands in their front ranks.
I couldn't say all this without acting on it and encouraging others to
do the same. Let's all shun and filter Dave Crocker. I will do so from
today.
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
