On Mon, 17 Jun 2003, Tim Churches wrote:
...
> Enough on this from me - I have already had this argument ad nauseum
> with Andrew [XX] (who of course was correct <wink>).

Tim Churches,

   Here you go again with the same behavior.

  I sent you a private request (copied below) hoping that you will stop
making slanderous remarks about me and my work barely 12 hours ago.

   Here you go again with the same behavior.

  What is at issue is not whether you or I win any arguments. Rather, it
is about carrying on substantive discussions without resorting to personal
attacks.

  If personal attacks are allowable on this List, this List will soon
become a wasteland. Let's do what we can to make sure that does not
happen.

Best regards,

Andrew

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:18:43 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tim Churches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Discussing Tim Churches would be wrong too

On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Tim Churches wrote:
...
> If you look back through the archives of this list, you will see that
> Andrew is always correct, even if the rest of us are too stupid to
> realise it. A corollary is that no matter what the task, OIO is the tool
> for the job.

Tim Churches,

  I find it troubling that you continue to post specific, personal remarks
about me.

  I have appreciated many of your informative posts and sage comments. If
you disagree with anything that I said about your work or my work,
please feel free offer a substantive reply. That's why I post to and
subscribe to this list.

  On the other hand, making me the topic of discussion is unproductive and
risks initiating a flamewar. I do not wish to see that happen. Whether or
not Andrew is always correct is not an appropriate topic per the published
guidelines of this List.  If I am mistaken, then let's discuss the
personal attributes of Tim Churches next.

  I hope all of us can refrain from personal attacks on this List - even
if we have major differences in how we see the world.

[I was going to send this message to the List but decided to communicate
privately first. It is in your interest to offer a public apology before
I reply in public.]

Best regards,

Andrew

Reply via email to