[ncdnhc-discuss] End of the Crocker game? (Re: Time to stop playing (Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org))

[Marc Schneiders]

On Fri, 17 May 2002, at 12:27 [=GMT-0700], Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 09:12 PM 5/17/2002 +0200, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> > > Actually, the current topic is about MIStrust and making unsubstantiated
> > > attacks on someone's integrity.
> >
> >Records of ICANN meetings substantiate nothing?
>
> Go back and read Milton's original attack.  He asserts nefarious behavior
> by Rob.  The meeting notes do not substantiate nefarious behavior.

The meeting records show that Dr. Blokzijl's wife was there in some
capacity related to Neulevel. The fact that some people suggest _possible_
conclusions, does not alter that, even if these conclusions are wrong.
That is what a COI policy is all about. You know that. You are playing,
diverting, distracting.

> > > The responsibility for fixing that problem lies with the people making the
> > > attacks.
> >
> >Not at all, if you are on the Board of an organization like ICANN. That is
> >why ICANN has a COI policy. Why is it not being followed?
>
> The fact that you are making the direct statement that it is not being
> followed is a good indication that the problem lies with you and other
> attackers.  You are assuming facts that have not been established.

For once you are right. I assume that there is no investigation. I should
have been more careful: ICANN has made no statement about any
investigation. Have you any idea why not? You are much closer to the
source than most of us here.

> >I've asked Milton. He just denied flat out in an email to me that he was
> >involved with ANY org bid, precisely because he was on the org TF. So, now
> >you go ask Blokzijl, right? I guess not.
>
> Oh, well.  If Milton simply says a denial, then it must be true,
> right?

Yes.

> And you all would be equally satisfied with a simple denial by Rob,
> right?

Yes, if Dr. Blokzijl denies his wife was ever with Neulevel, I will
believe him.

> Not.

I will believe him. So arrange it, a plain denial by Blokzijl.

You won't deliver, like I did, right? You are just playing.

> >If anyone wonders why Dr. Mueller does not answer the allegations himself
> >here: He finds it a waste of time to read posts by Dave Crocker. I think I
> >will follow his example.
>
> Indeed, it is far easier to ignore postings that undermine one's sense of
> moral outrage, isn't it?

I cannot tell. This message proves that I still haven't followed the
example of Milton, and others, to ignore you.

Well, for the record: Dave Crocker made an allegation against Milton
Mueller. This was denied within an hour by Milton Mueller. (By the way,
Dave:  Did you make these allegations up, or have you got bad sources? How
about apologies to Milton? Or substantiation? You love substantiation,
remember?)

How old are the allegations against Blokzijl? 3 days. Did we hear from
ICANN? No. Did we hear from Blokzijl? No. Did we hear from Neulevel,
perhaps? No.

End of the Crocker game, I guess. Draw your own conclusion.