Tony,

I have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and I will call people out on it
whenever I see it.

Seriously, if you feel belittled and hurt by me calling you an a-grade
twit, then might I suggest you stop acting like, well, an a-grade twit. If
you can't do that, then I have nothing more to say to you but toughen up
princess!

Oh Tony, by the way, the case you mentioned involved a student who posted
comments on facebook about a music teacher at Orange High School, accusing
her of being responsible for her father leaving the school -- his father
used to be the music teacher.

There is a vast difference between me expressing my personal opinion of you
being a twit, and the student essentially accusing the high school teacher
of....would corruption fit the accusations? Isn't corruption exactly the
same thing that you have accused others of on numerous occasions, including
in the subject of your initial email. Wouldn't this open you up to legal
action?

So Tony, take your threats of legal action and shove em where the sun don't
shine.

You really are your worst enemy!

Scotty




On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 PM, <to...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

> Dear subscribers
>
> I reply to comments in this thread:
>
> To Scott Bibby (Russavia): Thank you for your in-principle support; your
> argument was compelling and well expressed. However, I find the personal
> attack in public belittling and hurtful. Please note the recent Australian
> court judgement in which a schoolboy was ordered to pay his former school
> teacher $110,000 in damages for what he said about her on the internet.
> Calling me an "a-grade twit" on a public list exposes you to the risk of
> legal action.
>
> It's interesting that Steven Zhang, as an administrator of the mailing
> list, chose to let this attack pass without mention, while at the same time
> accusing me of having "engaged in repeated personal attacks on a number
> of individuals". No evidence of personal attacks by me has been provided. I
> am careful not to insult or belittle anyone in public. Accusing the
> committee of neglect or wrongdoing in their official capacity is quite a
> different matter--if we try to censor criticism of legal propriety and
> governance, we're better off in Putin's Russia, and we certainly don't
> deserve to use the WMF trademark.
>
> So where exactly are the are the "personal attacks" I've made on this
> mailing list, aside from raising uncomfortable questions about governance
> and transparency?
>
> I, too, would like to know who the WMF staff member was. Did Zhang explain
> the actual situation to them properly? Was I maligned in communications
> with them? For the Foundation to support what amounts to the
> maladministration of one of its mailing lists needs to be investigated.
>
> Transparency is required in the way the WMAU committee does business. I
> raised several issues concerning governance and transparency in the post
> that seems to have prompted Steven Zhang to ban my email address from the
> list. Rather than responding to the issues I raised, there was a blunt
> refusal to do discuss them. This should be of concern to all members of the
> WMF movement. There is an implicit expectation that the ways in which
> $80,000 in donors' money is spent should be open and accountable. What
> recent spending decisions have been made? Are all members of the committee
> consulted about financial decision-making?
>
> Was Andrew Owen legally a member of the chapter when he stood for election
> last November? Did he pay his renewal fee "in advance on or before 1 July"as 
> required by chapter by-law 4(12)? If not, was his cessation of
> membership recorded on the members' register by 14 July, as required by
> section 56(3) of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012? Did the
> committee "approve" his application for membership that was made just
> before the November election in which he stood for the position of
> secretary? (Formal approval is required under chapter by-laws 4(5) and
> 4(6).) If not, I believe that neither his membership nor his position on
> the committee is legal.
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" <wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> To:
> "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" <wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc:
>
> Sent:
> Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:23:18 +0800
> Subject:
> Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list
>
>
>
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists
>
> "Please respect 
> Wikiquette<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette>and avoid
> personal 
> attacks<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks>on the 
> mailing lists, especially in the subject header as this is likely to
> be repeated by those replying."
>
> It's in black and white.
>
> kindest regards
> Andrew
>
>
>
>
> On 16 March 2014 17:18, K. Peachey <p858sn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 16 March 2014 17:50, Steven Zhang <steven.zh...@wikimedia.org.au>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  2. ... but actively disrupting the list is against both the rules and
>>> spirit of the list, and always has been. ...
>>>
>>
>> [Citation Needed], I see no rules
>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Mailing_list or
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l.
>>
>> And what and which foundation staff members where involved in this?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

Reply via email to