Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 17:49:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dean Anderson
To: Theodore Ts'o
Cc: Brian E Carpenter ,
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Subject: Re: I'm not going to listen to this any more.
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.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000