When one makes a contentious statement, then contention is to be expected. So, too, is an acceptable standard of debate.
William decided to abuse me off-list, with language that would not be tolerated on-list. I will not tolerate it it in my in-box, either. Therefore, regretfully, I forwarded our exchange to his ISP for comment and/or action. Regretfully because I once believed William to be a gentleman, and because I would rather resolve issues person-to-person and civilly. That is not possible when one party suspends debate in favour of obscenity. My letter to Accesscomm, including William's correspondence, is included in the "original message" following. FWIW, Sveinsson Knut (aka Canute the Great) was not the delusional crackpot that Monty Python's Flying Circus portrayed in some outro's. From Chamber's Biographical Dictionary: "..... As king of England he brought firm government, justice and security from external threat, and showed reverence and generosity to the church and its native saints. The story of his apparent attempt to turn back the tide has been totally misconstrued in folklore: in fact he was trying to demonstrate to his courtiers that only God could control the tide, not man. ....." I knew that, and my intention by the reference was never to compare William to the fallacious view of Knut, but to point ot that the digital takeover of photography is as ultimately inevitable as is the tides ingress. Unfortunately William never sought to clarify my meaning. Thus it was with sorrow, not for revenge, that I took my action, and then that was after cooling down and sleeping on it overnight. Regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2002 3:37 PM Subject: Fw: Cameron's Pentax Comments > Dear Sir/Madam, > > Please forgive me for raising what must seem to be a trivial matter. I am > an internet user living in Australia, and I have received an unacceptable > email correspondence from one of your subscribers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > containing an obscene reference. > > I unsuccessfully searched your Accesscomm.ca site to read your Terms of > Service, but could not find the document. If it exists, which I am sure it > must, I am also sure that obscene language is proscribed email content. In > the event that this is so I desire that some action, perhaps a warning being > issued or even a suspension of service if it is deemed appropriate, is taken > to satisfy me that you do not approve of your email service being used in > this manner. > > I include the offending email at the end of this message, with a suitable > censorship. I am sure that your imagination will fill in the spaces. > > Regards, > Anthony Farr > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2002 12:47 AM > Subject: Re: Cameron's Pentax Comments > > > > f**k you > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Anthony Farr <> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 6:00 AM > > Subject: Re: Cameron's Pentax Comments > > > > > > > For some reason I get a vision of King Knut commanding the > > tide not to rise > > > :-) > > > > > > Regards, > > > Anthony Farr > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > (snip) > > > > I liked this list a lot more when it was about film and > > > > photography. I thought I had useful stuff to contribute back > > > > then. > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > > >
