Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:06:21 +0200
From: Brian E Carpenter
To: Dean Anderson
Cc: Theodore Ts'o ,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Subject: Re: I'm not going to listen to this any more.
1) isn't true
2) is irrelevant to the intrinsic technical merit of the draft
Brian
Dean Anderson wrote:
> Its in-scope because
> 1) Alvestrand has broken the IETF code of conduct.
> 2) The IETF has asked for comments on an RFC that takes input from persons
> who have been convicted on lying on the subject of the RFC.
>
> --Dean
>
> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>
>
>>Dean,
>>
>>The point is that all this is out of scope for the IETF list,
>>which is why one of the list sergeants-at-arms decided to
>>issue a warning to you.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>Dean Anderson wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 1 Jul 2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 12:27:38PM -0400, Dean Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Dean, when I asked you about this in a private e-mail, you pointed me
>>>>at a _single_ person who lost a lawsuit regarding the listing of ISP's
>>>>in ORB's style anti-spam systems. So far, what you have shown to me
>>>>is a single person (not plural) who has last such a lawsuit. However,
>>>>just because someone has lost a particular lawsuit does not mean that
>>>>they habitually utter falsehoods.
>>>
>>>
>>>Very technically, only one person lost these lawsuits. But that was
>>>because only the "responsible" person for a blacklist was named on the
>>>lawsuits. There were many other people associated with that particular
>>>blacklist and associated with the false statements made by that blacklist
>>>which were the subject of the lawsuit. If it is your assertion that this
>>>is very isolated, that can also be refuted.
>>>
>>>Alan Brown of ORBS is also associated with SORBS, which was named by Doug
>>>Royer as a source for his claims. Brown made false claims about Av8
>>>Internet's IP address space that were picked up by SORBS, which shows the
>>>link between them. Brown is still associated with open relay claims, and
>>>open relay blacklist people still associate with Brown. [note also that
>>>you do not have to decide the truth of the claims about Av8 IP space to
>>>show that Brown is linked to SORBS. However, many people often view the
>>>claim about Av8 as similar to the claims made by ORBS: ORBS was found in
>>>Court to be lying about ISPs it merely did not like for financial
>>>reasons.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Futhermore, calling someone a lair instead of attacking a specific
>>>>statement for truth or falsehood constitutes an ad-hominem argument.
>>>>Please see:
>>>
>>>
>>>[I assume that by "lair", he means "liar". Precision is important, so
>>>please check your spelling]
>>>
>>>I am not calling anyone a liar, as in "liar, liar, pants on fire". I am
>>>reporting the fact that they are a proven liar, having been found to be a
>>>liar by a court of law on several occasions. A court of law has the
>>>authority to establish this fact. Mr. Ts'o seems either not to have read
>>>my statements, or is unable to reproduce them accurately.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
>>>
>>>
>>>The ad hominem issue is in regard to Alvestrand having called me
>>>"irritating" for asserting that the IETF should not associate with, nor
>>>accept statements from, court-proven liars. The irrelevant "fact"
>>>asserted by Mr. Alvestrand is that I'm irritating. That "fact" has nothing
>>>to do with whether the IETF should associate with proven liars, or even
>>>whether or not they are proven liars.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Worse yet, you are not even attacking the idea at this point via the
>>>>ad hominem fallacy, but you are rather attacking various people on
>>>>this list for _not_ using the ad hominem falacy, and for "associating
>>>>with lairs"
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't seem to understand ad hominem. A "fact" must be irrelevant.
>>>With respect to the question of whether the IETF shoudl assocatiate with
>>>liars, it is irrelevant that I may be irritating. It is not irrelevant
>>>that a person is a court-proven liar.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of a court judgement, nor the
>>>civil and social implication of associating with proven liars. A court of
>>>law has the authority to establish facts of this nature. The integrity and
>>>honesty of those so convicted is irreparably damaged, especially on the
>>>subject of their proven false statements. People and organizations of
>>>honesty and integrity don't associate with persons of questionable honesty
>>>and integrity. Doing so calls into question their own honesty and
>>>integrity. This is not an ad hominem.
>>>
>>>By contrast, an ad hominem is a logical fallacy. While it is logically
>>>possible that a proven liar can tell the truth [there was even a Star Trek
>>>episode along this line], civil people cannot accept that someone so
>>>convicted will be honest.
>>>
>>>It is not the logical inference made by proven liars that is usually
>>>questioned, though it too must be suspected of knowing falsehood. It is
>>>primarily the truth of their asserted facts and premises. The conclusion
>>>of logically valid inference with false premises may be true or false; The
>>>conclusion is not proven true. We cannot accept the assertions of proven
>>>liars to be honest and true because their integrity and honesty is
>>>damaged. So we can't accept that conclusions based on their assertions
>>>are true. Likewise arguments that use such conclusions as a premise are
>>>likewise not proven true. The assertion that such arguments are not true
>>>is not itself a fallacy, nor is it an ad hominem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>(and again, one proven act of a falsehood uttered maliciously does not
>>>>make someone who "lies repeatedly" ---
>>>
>>>
>>>Alan Brown did not lie just once. Brown lost several lawsuits:
>>>
>>> Domainz v Alan Brown
>>> Actrix V. ORBS
>>> Xtra V. ORBS New Zealand High Court May 2001
>>>
>>>See for example:
>>>http://www.findlaw.com/12international/countries/nz/articles/852.html
>>>
>>>
>>>These cases substantiate the assertion of "lies repeatedly". Perhaps Mr.
>>>Ts'o should try to check his facts, or at least check my facts before
>>>frivolously disputing them. I told Mr. Ts'o that Brown had lost 3
>>>separate lawsuits, so he had a clue to check out, or at least repeat
>>>accurately.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>and if you believe that anyone who associates with someone who has lied
>>>>even once, then attacking them on that grounds that they are somehow
>>>>violating societal norms is both (a) laughable, (b) nevertheless, still
>>>>a attack.)
>>>
>>>
>>>It is neither laughable, nor an attack. This is serious business that
>>>affects the integrity of the IETF. And while Mr. Ts'o plainly doesn't take
>>>such things seriously, there are certainly people who do.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The bottom line is that none of this is useful nor part of the IETF
>>>>mailing list charter. Please stop this beating this dead horse on the
>>>>IETF list. This is your first warning.
>>>
>>>
>>>If the IETF associates with known liars, and accepts their statements
>>>without criticism, then it too will be subject to criticism, as well as a
>>>loss of esteem, integrity, and public trust.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>