<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Scandal, Discussion and Argument
- To: Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>, "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] Scandal, Discussion and Argument
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 16:30:54 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:
#ffffff;color: black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16825" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Matthew and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> By in large I agree with most of Matthews remarks and
observations. I differ on his opinions of my experience</P>
<P>and sharing of already established legal president and case law. But I
will be more than happy to</P>
<P>accept a legal challenge from Matthew on any of those posts to which is very
generally referred committing</P>
<P>the age old logical fallacy of "Glittering Generalities", at his
convienance. I gleefully await his service</P>
<P>in a court of proper jurisdiction and competence accordingly. My guess
is that such a challange</P>
<P>will NOT be forthcoming ever. As such, I can only reasonably conclude
that Matthew has a more of a</P>
<P>personal dalema with me and as such would likely best serve everyone
including himself if he</P>
<P>would be so kind as to take such deaema's off list as he himself suggested
in the beginning of his</P>
<P>remarks and observations below. <BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 0px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff
2px solid">
<P>-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Matthew Pemble
<MATTHEW@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: May 5, 2010 3:19 AM <BR>To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> GA" <GA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: [ga] Scandal, Discussion and
Argument <BR><BR>Folks,<BR><BR>Please consider this a general reply to the
various messages ...<BR><BR>I think, perhaps, Hugh meant 'prudish' rather than
'prurient' in his warning. Personally, I have no problem with discussing
'sex', per se - in fact, the whole ICM Registry / xxx tld issue and any
potential court action would be an entirely valid one for this list (my 2p - I
am appalled by the naivety of those on one side of the arguments that think
that it will encourage sex on the internet or make it easier to find - remember
"The Internet is for Porn" - and the same for those on the other who think that
all of that icky stuff will magically disappear from other tlds or ccs.) But,
to the very limited extent that any person's private life is the business of
anybody other than those directly involved, I don't believe it is the business
of a public list. If we want the GA to have any chance of being taken
seriously, we need to demonstrate that we are capable of behaving like serious
professionals.<BR><BR>Having said that, there is a distinct cultural divide
between the USA and ROW (I have limited experience of non-military Canadians,
they might also bat prudish) regarding relationships at work, having seen it
cause issues working in a large multinational with significant US
subsidiaries. Unlike the US, where it is seen as anathema in many
organisations, most jurisdictions don't allow attempts to interfere with
people's relationships but many will allow you to move people to different
roles if there is a serious conflict of interest. It is professional to recuse
yourself from positions of judgement but then many people aren't professional.
Anecdata: I met my wife when she worked for my father, a long time ago now, and
we are now co-directors.<BR><BR>If there is an allegation of serious misconduct
or 'heinous acts' then, provided that it is directly related to the business of
the list then I have little problem with it being aired - my issues with the
whole Joe / John / Thomas 'debate' were around the pointlessness of it all and
the lack of any evidence. As Hugh said, repetition of mere allegation
does nothing to prove (or disprove) your case. <BR><BR>George's recent
highlighting of inconsistency, error and probable negligence in UDRP judgements
- as well as the embedded bias towards the complainant - shows that this list
can be of significant value. (I would note the interesting split
judgement in the AdventureRV 1st point - the 2 US panellists ruled one way on
common law, the English one another - there are significant variations in what
is generally assumed to be a consistent base.)<BR><BR>If we do have
sock-puppets on here, as opposed to trolls (and the fact I think that some of
Jeff's postings are trollish - and many just wrong in his understanding of how
US law applies to the rest of the world - doesn't mean I doubt his personal
existence), then we may need to control them. The only accusation of
such, I believe, is Joe claiming that John and Thomas are the same
person. However, given the lack of influence and general lack utility we
are demonstrating, that is largely irrelevant at the moment.<BR><BR>I'm happy
to discuss this further off-list but I feel that I am beginning to contribute
to the noise rather than the signal ...<BR><BR>Matthew<BR><BR><BR
clear=all><BR>-- <BR>Matthew Pemble<BR>Technical Director, Idrach
Ltd<BR><BR>Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175<BR>Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690<BR></P>
<P>Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over
294k members/stakeholders and growing, strong!)<BR>"Obedience of the law is the
greatest freedom" -<BR> Abraham Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go
with the performance of duty and not with what is very<BR>often the accident of
glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the probability be called P; the injury,
L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends upon whether B is less than L
multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."<BR>United States v.
Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827<BR></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|