[OpenID] Anti-endorsement of Eran Hammer-Lahav

[Eddy Nigg (StartCom Ltd.)]

On 12/15/2008 01:07 AM, SitG Admin:
> >Anybody has the right to remain anonymous (right, up to a certain 
> limit usually). But with it comes a price - apparently a price you 
> aren't willing to pay either.
>
> What price is that? "You can be anonymous, but we don't want you to 
> exist in our world - not to have to deal with you, or your ideas."?

No, that's not what I said. The price you have to pay for your choice of 
remaining anonymous is, that you can't be a member apparently and 
therefore can't vote. What I suggested is, take it as is, without 
complaining. Or better, not in the current state of voting. I simply 
view it extremely unfair to send out emails with the subject line 
"Anti-endorsement of..." at the generals list as somebody who prefers to 
remain anonymous, non-member with non-voting rights so far. Not that it 
will hinder Eran a bit, but just the act of it, is in my opinion disgusting!

>
> Now who's stooping to personal attacks? Forget diversity: who would 
> WANT to be (out as) a woman on the Board, when even in the *community* 
> people are told to be men?

Well....no problem with whatever gender would be on the board. The CEO 
of Mozilla is a woman too and she's gotten balls for both of us ;-)

>
> The conscious decision was not forced upon me, no. But when you say 
> things like "pay the price you have to pay", it seems like you WOULD, 
> perhaps, act to force upon us consequences that are not necessarily 
> mandated by our choices.

Apparently you can't contribute or be a member without full disclosure. 
I didn't make those rules, but since you know them you know which price 
is to be paid for the privilege to remain an alias. If you thought about 
changing that you'd have made your point differently than to attack 
others and at this point.

>
> I was very conservative in describing the position he took, because I 
> do care about quoting people accurately, so I am confident that you 
> will not be able to find this, if you look - I *encourage* you to 
> look, therefore, so you can satisfy yourself that no slander has occurred.

Maybe it wasn't slander, but it was certainly incitement not to vote for 
a nominee! Why that was specially bad I explained in the previous mail 
already.

>
> Any fame I've accrued is probably due to people making a big fuss over 
> what is just due process, in a community such as we claim/aspire to be.

Than please explain me with which right did you incite against a 
nominee? Nobody has done that - not even those with voting rights. That 
has nothing to do with due process my friend. Just for the record, I'm 
not known to be specially gentle and diplomatic either, but at least I 
use my name....


Regards
Signer: 	Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd. <http://www.startcom.org>
Jabber: 	startcom at startcom.org <xmpp:startcom at startcom.org>
Blog: 	Join the Revolution! <http://blog.startcom.org>
Phone: 	+1.213.341.0390


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081215/e7aab07e/attachment-0002.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 6724 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.openid.net/pipermail/openid-general/attachments/20081215/e7aab07e/attachment-0002.bin>