On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Dean,
> 
> Please stop repeating assertions about alleged liars.

I haven't made any assertions about "alleged" liars. I have brought
attention to statements of _court-proven_ liars.  That is, those people
who have made false statements, have been sued for defamation, and have
lost those lawsuits. Having lost a defamation lawsuit establishes the
_fact_ of their lying.

It is inappropriate and against the IETF rules for the Chair to try to
suppress facts.  You should consult with the IETF attorney on the matter.

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc



> Sergeants-at-arms, please pay attention since I believe that we
> may need to consider action if this continues.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > 
> >>>>I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who 
> >>>>violate list policy egregiously.
> >>>
> >>>As one of the IETF list's "sargent at arms", I certainly don't see
> >>>Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
> >>>or form.  I also didn't see it as a personal attack.
> >>
> >>sorry for the badly written note.  i was trying to focus on getting the 
> >>procedure used, not specify who it should be used against.
> >>
> >>harald's posting was not what i considered to be egregious.
> > 
> > 
> > Since when are _true_ facts about liars on a subject (open relays)  
> > discussed in an IETF RFC, egregious?  Is it against list policy to assert
> > that the IETF should be honest, and not associate with liars?  I missed
> > that part. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out?
> > 
> > Your beef is with reality.  I didn't create the facts, I'm just the
> > messenger. The people who created the facts of their lies (by lying)
> > thought, like some others, that lies will never return to haunt them.  Of
> > course, that's what reputation is about: the return of past misdeeds.  
> > Associate with liars, and people will say you associate with liars. 
> > Reasonable, civil, rational people won't trust liars nor their associates.
> > Accountability is harsh.
> > 
> > I wrote this for another purpose, but its appropriate here:
> > 
> > Defamation sometimes results in a short term gain for the defamer, and a
> > short term loss for the defamed.  But, given time, it always results in a
> > long term loss for the defamer and a long term gain for the defamed.  Be
> > patient, but don't forget.
> > 
> > Before 1720, British defamation law didn't permit truth as a defense
> > against defamation. In fact, if the defamatory claims were true, common
> > law made the penalty worse because, as the courts reasoned before the 18th
> > century, truth was far more damaging than lies.  But around 1720, 2 people
> > writing under the pseudonym Cato argued that truth should be an defense
> > against defamation. They were subsequently sued for defamation for
> > revealing disparaging true facts. They won. Since then, truth has been an
> > absolute defense against defamation.  
> > 
> > It is remarkable that truth is more damaging than lies.
> > 
> > 		--Dean
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf