[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] Fw: objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01

HI Randy
My last comment on this thread (probably)....

The position he stated was not conducive with his experience. He offered no supporting arguments, just an emotive comment that was highly critical of something I developed. It is like me saying the development of a market for selling IP addresses is poor. Does that statement from me carry any weight? As the developer of what he claimed to be poor, I think I had the right to point this out.
But as Brian said this is way of the topic now of adding abuse-c to legacy resources. So I won't make any more comments about the design of abuse-c in this thread. I did say long ago in this discussion that the technical aspects of abuse-c should be the subject of another discussion. But people just kept coming back with arguments against it.
I wish some of you would put as much effort into constructive discussions about the more serious technical issues of the database (including the route object issue and the data model) as you do into either condemning me or blanking me out. The clear and obvious refusal by the very small, unrepresentative group of people on these mailing lists to even engage in any kind of discussion on an important issue I have raised many times will not do this community or the RIR system any good in the long term.
cheersdenis

      From: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
 To: ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk 
Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>; "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
 Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016, 2:53
 Subject: Re: [db-wg] Fw: [anti-abuse-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
   
>> Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular
>> user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated
>> statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight.
> I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis
> expressed his opinion on my implementation :) 

your opinion was of elvis not his position.  this is called ad homina,
which you seem to repeat



  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160312/7d8b9a58/attachment.html>