[anti-abuse-wg] anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 27

Denis wrote:
>> I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis
>> expressed his opinion on my implementation :)

Randy Bush replied:
> your opinion was of elvis not his position.? this is called ad homina,
> which you seem to repeat

Tell me Mr Bush, when you wrote, about me, at
Fri, 04 Mar 2016 08:28:10 -0800
>>> and i always love ad hominem attacks; a sure sign of a loser.

were you marking your position or insulting a wg member?

Sander Steffann wrote:
> Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group 
> member's contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working 
> group chairs' job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know 
> that even the chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus is 
> based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge 
> somebody worthy...

Whenever someone attacks the status quo, the keepers of this status quo, 
care to disqualify morally who requires changes. Obviously you guys do not 
have enough moral stature to give moral lesson anyone.

> Consensus is based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you 
> judge somebody worthy...

My complaints, my arguments, against abuse, were blocked, thrown in the 
trash by the status quo guardians. Who put the finger on the wound will be 
persecuted and disqualified. What remains is the certainty that we are not 
greedy psychopaths and want an ethical and honest email marketing.

Marilson

-----Mensagem Original----- 
From: anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 1:29 AM
To: anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 27

Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to
anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://mailman.ripe.net/
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
anti-abuse-wg-request at ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
anti-abuse-wg-owner at ripe.net

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
      (Sander Steffann)
   2. Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
      (ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk)
   3. Re: Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
      (Brian Nisbet)
   4. Re: [db-wg] Fw: objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01
      (ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:54:34 +0100
From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
To: denis <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>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal
2016-01
Message-ID: <BECAB65B-1EAB-477C-A3EC-4E1224ADE378 at steffann.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"

Hello Denis,

> 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.

Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's 
contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working group chairs' 
job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know that even the 
chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus is based on 
content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge somebody 
worthy...

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: 
</ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160311/be474011/attachment-0001.sig>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:10:41 +0000 (UTC)
From: <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk>
To: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>,  "\"anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net\""
<anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal
2016-01
Message-ID:
<607658268.12667086.1457712641822.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Sorry I hit reply instead of reply-all...


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk" <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk>
To: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
Sent: Friday, 11 March 2016, 17:06
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 
2016-01

Hi Sander
I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis 
expressed his opinion on my implementation :)
cheersdenis


      From: Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
To: denis <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: Friday, 11 March 2016, 16:54
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 
2016-01

Hello Denis,

> 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.

Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's 
contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working group chairs' 
job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know that even the 
chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus is based on 
content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge somebody 
worthy...

Cheers,
Sander





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
</ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160311/f90fb96a/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:03:33 +0000
From: Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie>
To: ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk, Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>,
"anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy
proposal 2016-01
Message-ID: <56E2FA65.9090904 at heanet.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

There is a difference and I think, as has been pointed out, that the
discussion is veering a little too much into ad hominem.

So please, everyone, as always, robust discussion, but please discuss
the topic, not people.

Thanks all.

Brian

Brian Nisbet, Network Operations Manager
HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
Registered in Ireland, no 275301  tel: +35316609040  fax: +35316603666
web: http://www.heanet.ie/

On 11/03/2016 16:10, ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Sorry I hit reply instead of reply-all...
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> *From:* "ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk" <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk>
> *To:* Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> *Sent:* Friday, 11 March 2016, 17:06
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal
> 2016-01
>
> Hi Sander
>
> I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis
> expressed his opinion on my implementation :)
>
> cheers
> denis
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl>
> *To:* denis <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:* Friday, 11 March 2016, 16:54
> *Subject:* Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal
> 2016-01
>
> Hello Denis,
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group
> member's contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working
> group chairs' job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know
> that even the chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus
> is based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge
> somebody worthy...
>
> Cheers,
> Sander
>
>
>
>
>



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 04:29:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: <ripedenis at yahoo.co.uk>
To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Cc: Database WG <db-wg at ripe.net>, "anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net"
<anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] Fw: objection to RIPE policy
proposal 2016-01
Message-ID:
<261884462.79439.1457756972752.JavaMail.yahoo at mail.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

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>

End of anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 27
*********************************************