[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Censure of Mr. Simpson




>  
>  So you are admitting that you do not know the particulars of this case, and 
>  that your reasons for wanting Mr. Simpson silenced are personal, not based on 
>  the technical merits of his work. Wonderful!

I believe my post was significant evidence that I do know the particulars of
this case. The censure of Mr. Simpson has nothing to do with the technical
merits of his work. It addresses his unacceptible behavior in the conduct
of IETF work.

>  > As evidence I hereby make public a post Mr. Simpson sent to me in regards
>  > to in-band keying. I have retained a record of the prior email on this
>  
>  Maybe my mailer ate it, but there is no date on that message. How recent is 
>  it? If it upset you so much, why didn't you bring it to the immediate 
>  attention of the group? Elementary good manners dictate that you do not make 
>  public a private piece of email without the author's consent. Is *your* proper 
>  behavior a function of other people's behavior? And in any case, I don't see a 
>  PGP (or other) signature. For all we know, you fabricated this.

Let me address your points in order. There was a date on the message, it was
Wed Mar 15 06:25:01 1995. I brought it to the attention of the IESG at the
time. If someone writes me a letter threating my life or the well being of my
family, I have no obligation to keep it private. In the same vein, if
someone is employing terrorist tactics to ensure his point of view prevails,
I have no obligation to keep these tactics private. For all you know the
complete record of this working group email list is fabricated. You don't
even know if Dan Nessett sent this message.

>  > topic, which I believe shows Mr. Simpson had no reason to adopt an insulting
>  > and scurrilous writing style. 
>  
>  I read the piece of mail. I cannot tell from it whether Mr. Simpson had a 
>  reason to adopt what you are calling "insulting and scurrilous." What I see is 
>  that you are making public a private piece of e-mail, an act which I (and many 
>  others, for that matter) consider unethical.

In regards to the ethics of divulging mail sent to me privately, see above.
If you believe there are any circumstances in which the writing style of
the message in question is excusable, then we have no basis for a continued
exploration of this topic.

>  
>  >                               It is interesting that Mr. Simpson's defender
>  > in this controversy is Mr. Metzger.
>  
>  Your point being? You seem to be implying that there is something wrong about 
>  being defended by Mr. Metzger. Whatever your personal animosity towards Mr. 
>  Metzger may be, the fact that he is defending Mr. Simpson does not ipso facto 
>  imply that the defense should be considered invalid. 
>  

The point is that Mr. Metzger's defense of Mr. Simpson may be biased. The
evidence for this is the statement by Mr. Simpson that "He's just trying to
piggyback on our work."

Dan Nessett


Follow-Ups: