On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 6:50 PM Dan Szymborski <dszymborski(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
As long as people are going to continue to talk about
me and imply that I'm
actually *harassing* people, then I feel I have a right to defend myself.
Nobody ever denied you that right.
I brought up that the UCoC standard is a reasonable person standard, not a
"most offended person" standard and this was
never addressed. Instead, I
was demeaned by being placed on a special moderation protocol. Asaf Bartov
threatened me that if I continued to defend myself -- even as people
continued to discuss me -- that *I'm* hijacking the thread.
What I actually wrote to you, and I quote, was:
"I also must insist that you not hijack this thread, which is for
discussing the draft UCoC. If you see value in bringing up your concerns
on those other matters on this list, please do so on separate threads.
Since you have expressed the opinion that this UCoC draft is illegitimate,
I suggest there is really no reason for you to post further on this thread,
leaving it for those who *would* like to discuss it."
I then did indeed threaten that *if you continue to disrupt the UCoC
thread*, your messages won't be let through. As you can see, your latest
letter, since it was no longer disrupting the UCoC thread, *was* let
through.
I asked Asaf if Koerner was given a similar warning for a very long, smug,
patronizing screed about me as on-topic. Bartov
reiterated that nobody else
was given any warning about off-topic communication. Only *I* am not
allowed to talk about *my* apparent offense.
Since now you quote a question you asked privately, I will quote the answer
I gave you:
====================
"No, I did not warn Ms. Koerner about thread hijacking, because the very
problem with thread hijacking is that once the change of topic is made,
people legitimately want to respond. I have not observed Ms. Koerner
*initiating* a thread hijack.
I do encourage you to continue contributing on the list, including in
criticizing whatever flaws you find in the Foundation's actions. I
certainly find such flaws myself.
But again, as a professional, perhaps you can be less ornery and more
measured in expressing the *substance* of your concerns. It would at the
very least be no less effective, and perhaps more so."
====================
A.
--
Asaf Bartov <asaf.bartov(a)gmail.com>