From: Dogan Goecmen (dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Fri Nov 16 2007 - 04:31:03 EST
Jerry, since you are the only signer of this mail may I ask who has made this decision. Dogan -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU An: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Verschickt: Fr., 16. Nov. 2007, 6:11 Thema: [OPE-L] Suspension I. Chronology of Recent Events ================================ . Although there was a long pre-history for this dispute, Ajit Sinha 's essage of November 12 http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0095.html> nitiated the most recent controversy. Ajit accused Rakesh in that essage of violating the January 24 Advisory Committee statement olicy(hereafter call "the agreement") - Section # 2 of http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0701/0080.html> . Upon reading Ajit's message, I immediately instructed everyone that the iscussion on this matter would proceed *OFF-LIST*: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0096.html> We had already determined in an Advisory Committee (AC) "Statement on lames" that in the future all complaints concerning alleged flames (or, y inference, charges of violations of the January agreement) must be made OFF-LIST*: see 4.b) of http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0707/0099.html> . *AFTER* B.) Rakesh sent *two* on-list replies to Ajit's message: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0097.html> nd <http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0098.html> The second message violated two policies: 1) it alleged *ON-LIST* hatanother member had written a flame; and 2) it quoted Ajit ("your tupid editorializing") and hence was a violation of the January 24 greement. It was all the more outrageous a violation because he had just_ been instructed that discussions on that issue were to take place OFF-LIST*. D. I replied immediately to Rakesh: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0099.html> nsisting that he not again discuss the matter on-list. . Almost immediately afterwards, Rakesh used that same expression "editorializing" ("oh just some editorializing") http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0107.html> Everyone on the list by this time knew that was a reference to what Ajit ad written earlier that day. . I *once again* instructed Rakesh not to continue to quote Ajit on-list: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0110.html> e was told in no uncertain terms to "*STOP IT, NOW!*". Almost immediately afterwards, Rakesh once again referred to editorializing" in *two* separate messages in reply to Ian H: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0113.html> and http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0114.html> Anyone who had read the sequence of posts that day was aware that the eference to "editorializing" was a reference to what Ajit had written. . In reply to these events - and what he perceived as the unwillingness f the list administrators to act against Rakesh, Ajit resigned: http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0711/0125.html> Ajit remarked - among other things - that there had been a "blatently humming of nose" by Rakesh at the list coordinator and that he ad repeatedly violated the January agreement. I. Conclusions =========== The above - beyond a shadow of a doubt - establishes that akesh Bhandari: . Violated list policy by alledging on-list that he been flamed; . Violated the directive to discuss Ajit's complaint off-list rather han on-list. C. *Repeatedly* violated the January 24 agreement by referring to what jit had written. The January agreement specifically says that there are to be "NO XCEPTIONS" and that any violations of the agreement by Rakesh would esult in a suspension for a "substantial period" of time. Given the bove, there is NO ALTERNATIVE allowable under list policy other than to uspend Rakesh for a substantial period oftime. Accordingly, Rakesh has een suspended for a substantial period of time -- the amount of which ill be decided shortly. n solidarity, Jerry ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 30 2007 - 00:00:03 EST