Subject: Re: I'm not going to listen to this any more.

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:27:38 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

> Dean,
> 
> Please stop repeating assertions about alleged liars.

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.

It is inappropriate and against the IETF rules for the Chair to try to
suppress facts.  You should consult with the IETF attorney on the matter.

Dean Anderson
Av8 Internet, Inc

> Sergeants-at-arms, please pay attention since I believe that we
> may need to consider action if this continues.
> 
>     Brian
> 
> Dean Anderson wrote:
> > On Mon, 27 Jun 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > 
> >>>>I thought we also had a mechanism for taking action against posters who 
> >>>>violate list policy egregiously.
> >>>
> >>>As one of the IETF list's "sargent at arms", I certainly don't see
> >>>Harald's one-time, single line posting as being egregious in any shape
> >>>or form.  I also didn't see it as a personal attack.
> >>
> >>sorry for the badly written note.  i was trying to focus on getting the 
> >>procedure used, not specify who it should be used against.
> >>
> >>harald's posting was not what i considered to be egregious.
> > 
> > 
> > Since when are _true_ facts about liars on a subject (open relays)  
> > discussed in an IETF RFC, egregious?  Is it against list policy to assert
> > that the IETF should be honest, and not associate with liars?  I missed
> > that part. Perhaps you could be so kind as to point it out?
> > 
> > Your beef is with reality.  I didn't create the facts, I'm just the
> > messenger. The people who created the facts of their lies (by lying)
> > thought, like some others, that lies will never return to haunt them.  Of
> > course, that's what reputation is about: the return of past misdeeds.  
> > Associate with liars, and people will say you associate with liars. 
> > Reasonable, civil, rational people won't trust liars nor their associates.
> > Accountability is harsh.
> > 
> > I wrote this for another purpose, but its appropriate here:
> > 
> > Defamation sometimes results in a short term gain for the defamer, and a
> > short term loss for the defamed.  But, given time, it always results in a
> > long term loss for the defamer and a long term gain for the defamed.  Be
> > patient, but don't forget.
> > 
> > Before 1720, British defamation law didn't permit truth as a defense
> > against defamation. In fact, if the defamatory claims were true, common
> > law made the penalty worse because, as the courts reasoned before the 18th
> > century, truth was far more damaging than lies.  But around 1720, 2 people
> > writing under the pseudonym Cato argued that truth should be an defense
> > against defamation. They were subsequently sued for defamation for
> > revealing disparaging true facts. They won. Since then, truth has been an
> > absolute defense against defamation.  
> > 
> > It is remarkable that truth is more damaging than lies.
> > 
> > 		--Dean
> > 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Av8 Internet   Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net         faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000   

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Dean Anderson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2005 13:15:17 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> 	Calling someone a "lair" is making a claim that they are
> knowingly stating a falsehood.  

That is correct. Fortunately, there is a legal procedure to redress a
"knowing falsehood": It's called defamation. A "court-proven liar" is
someone who has been found responsible in defamation lawsuit.  That's what
it means to be guilty of defamation: To have knowingly stated a falsehood.

> However, making assumptions about another person's motivations is never
> a good thing to do if you are trying to promote conversation.

I make no assumptions. The Judge in a court of law has already
investigated that person's motivations: They were seeking financial gain.

> 	They may have observed a different set of facts in their
> geography or in the circles they frequent; they may see a few cases
> which you consider to be highly important which they classify as
> unimportant exceptions; they may simply be mistaken.

Truth is an absolute defense to defamation.  If they spoke truth, they
wouldn't lose defamation lawsuits.  Simple mistakes are not usually
sufficient for a defamation lawsuits.

> 	Instead of writing a treatise about lairs and defamtion law,
> it would have helped moved the debate forward if you had written what
> you have observed, why you think it is an important indicator, and

I'm not writing a hypothetical treatise on defamation.  

If you want in terms of "observation": I observed people found responsible
(guilty) in defamation lawsuits, not just once but multiple times, where
the false statements involved open-relays.

This is important to the discussion of an RFC under consideration by the
IETF, because the RFC has statements predicated on claims of people found
in court to be lying on the subject of open relays for financial gain, and
their associates. Supportors of the RFC have offered similar statements,
similarly predicated.

These facts are fairly well-known, I think, unless you have never heard of
ORBS or SORBS.

My statement that Harald found "irritating" is also true, but not specific
to ORBS.  It is an axiom of civil society which applies to the IETF. Here
it is again:

> The IETF cannot accept the statements of known, court-proven liars, nor
> can it suppress this fact in its deliberations.  If the IETF accepts
> court-proven and documented liars as reliable sources of fact, then it
> will have no more credibility in its statements, as they will be based
> on lies, not on truth.

Plainly, those who don't accept the axioms of civil society are by
definition uncivil.  Such axioms should not be irritating. 

		--Dean