>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from ["Roeland M.J. Meyer"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:49:40 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jul 20 18:49:39 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.226])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D367F002
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 20 Jul 1999 18:49:37 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from hawk (hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com [199.108.175.236])
> by condor.lvrmr.mhsc.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with SMTP id PAA11395;
> Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:43:18 -0700
>Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IDNO-DISCUSS] Re: [IFWP] Kent Crispin applies for IDNO membership
>Date: Tue, 20 Jul 1999 15:43:18 -0700
>Message-ID: <006e01bed301$42e36760$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
>In-reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
>Importance: Normal
>
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
>> Behalf Of Dave Crocker
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 3:09 PM
>>
>> Great note. Extremely instructive:
>>
>> At 09:10 AM 7/20/99 , Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>> >comes as somewhat of a surprise. I hope that you are sincere.
>>
>> Please forgive me for pointing out than this sort of
>> statement, coming from
>> an office holder and decision maker of the organization, is extremely
>> prejudicial and reflects an up-front lack of impartiality.
>>
>> Unless, of course, you present a similar challenge to all
>> applicants. Do you?
>
>No and I don't claim to either.
>
>> > > > requirements, in an open and transparent fashion.
>> Unlike the ICANN
>> > > > and the DNSO, we don't consider the position they are
>> likely to take
>> > > > with regard to their plans as a factor in membership decisions.
>> > >
>> > > Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!
>> >
>> >For the interest of fairness, I will ignore this bit of rudeness, on
>>
>> That is appropriate, since you seem not only to ignore, but
>> to entirely
>> miss, the bit of rudeness to which he was responding.
>
>This is good, Kent can be fallible and I can't? Sorry, I don't do double
>standards, nor do I claim the "higher standard" hypocracy. I'm people,
>just like you are, I think.
>
>> >Nor does the IDNO. BTW, in your job, you have taken a
>> loyalty oath. As a
>> >US citzen, you have taken the "pledge of allegiance", yet another
>>
>> Actually, no, a native-born American has no requirement for
>> such an oath,
>> absent that taking one of a small set of special jobs.
>
>Kent claims a DOE "Q" clearance (see his resume, at songbird). To my
>understanding, this requires a loyalty oath. To my certain knowlege, any
>DOD work also requires a pledge of allegiance. There is the distinct
>possibility that Kent may have take one also, although I can't swear to
>it. And yes, every native born american has learned the pledge of
>allegiance, in school, as part of primary education. They used to take
>it every morning. I know it has been a long time since your childhood,
>but surely you remember that.
>
>> In any event, IDNO is not on that scale of governance and it
>> is just this
>> sort of escalation that makes people afraid that ICANN is
>> forcing things
>> towards governance.
>>
>> >loyalty oath. Please don't bore us with tripe about how loyalty oaths
>>
>> Roeland, as an officer of this organization you need to watch
>> your mouth.
>
>As a visitor, you need to watch yours.
>
>> Indulgence in this sort of rude and offensive and dismissive
>> language is a
>> very good reason for doubting the legitimacy of IDNO.
>
>It is no worse than what you've been spouting.
>
>> Lack of professionalism is particularly less tolerable from
>> an official,
>> than from other participants.
>
>Again, I don't do the double-standards schtick.
>
>> > > > This is totally in line with the ICANN dictates over
>> > > constituency self organization.
>> > > I don't think so.
>> >
>> >You are entitled to your opinion.
>>
>> Well, the question is very much appearing to be whether he IS
>> entitled to
>> his opinion, or whether you are going to penalize him (more than you
>> already have) for holding and expressing it.
>
>Dave, you have taken what I thought was as non-confrontational a message
>as I could write and take the worst possible context out of it. I can
>not think of a better example of Dave Crocker style.
>
>> >BTW, I take my position very seriously, including dealing with folks
>> >that I may personally dislike, in as fair and objective a manner as
>> >possible. Kent, you have been known to stretch such tolerance to the
>> >extreme, I recognize that. However, this is exactly why we
>> have so many
>>
>> And, Roeland, for a second time you are here demonstrating an
>> extreme bias
>> in your position, since you seem unable to appreciate the
>> importance of
>> refraining from undermining participants with ad hominems.
>
>This whole tirade of yours is one giant ad hominem. You are doing
>exactly the same schtick you played on the ORSC list. It made Stef
>crazy, frustrated him to no end. Well, unlike Stef, there are key parts
>of your claims that I don't buy in to. I understand and admit human
>fallibility and I won't allow you to pressure me into claiming
>otherwise. I am simply doing the best job I can. That folks voted for me
>(without any campaigning on my part BTW), earns them my heartfelt
>thanks. But, it also gives me a bit of mandate that Stef never had, as
>well as, an obligation to do the best that I can, in the same vein that
>I've been doing it in. In no part of that do I claim any sort of
>uber-mensch perfection of personality or motives. I do claim a certain
>hard-line sense of ethics and morals, which I do not impose on others.
>
>
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
