Re: Complaint on personal attack by Matthew Elvey

[Dean Anderson <dean@xxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Danny Angus wrote:
> Dean
> 
> At the risk of provoking you further I would say that Matthew's post is not
> particularly unfair.
> You do indeed appear to hold views on dealing with spam at odds with very
> many others, and you communicate that robustly.

"At odds" with zealots perhaps.  But I've been in this business a long 
time, and have been dealing with nutty zealots for many, many years.

> Matthew reminds us of views you have expressed in public, in fact I
> remember reading them first time round.
> You can't complain about that surely?

I complain about the attack. He doesn't dispute the views.  If he had 
facts to dispute them, he would present them. Instead, he just says they 
should be ignored.  Facts being far too inconvenient for radicals.

> I admit that he could have worded this more tactfully, as an attack on
> what your opinion rather than your personality, but sometimes it becomes
> necessary for our sanity to cut through the crap and get on with the
> work in hand.

Yes, I'm all for cutting through the crap.

> You should perhaps consider whether your reaction is more likely to
> engender yourself to others or to reinforce Matthew's point.

The point that is made by my complaint is that Matthew has no point.

If he had a point, he would have made it, rather than engage in personal
attack.  Personal attack is the method of those who don't want to admit 
they are wrong.


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