Denis wrote:

...

I was not making any decision just expressing an opinion just as Elvis expressed his opinion on my implementation :)

Randy Bush replied:

your opinion was of elvis not his position.? this is called ad homina, which you seem to repeat

Tell me Mr Bush, when you wrote, about me, at Fri, 04 Mar 2016 08:28:10 -0800

...

...

and i always love ad hominem attacks; a sure sign of a loser.

were you marking your position or insulting a wg member? Sander Steffann wrote:

Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working group chairs' job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know that even the chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus is based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge somebody worthy...

Whenever someone attacks the status quo, the keepers of this status quo, care to disqualify morally who requires changes. Obviously you guys do not have enough moral stature to give moral lesson anyone.

Consensus is based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge somebody worthy...

My complaints, my arguments, against abuse, were blocked, thrown in the trash by the status quo guardians. Who put the finger on the wound will be persecuted and disqualified. What remains is the certainty that we are not greedy psychopaths and want an ethical and honest email marketing. Marilson -----Mensagem Original----- From: anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 1:29 AM To: anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: anti-abuse-wg Digest, Vol 53, Issue 27 Send anti-abuse-wg mailing list submissions to anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to anti-abuse-wg-request@ripe.net You can reach the person managing the list at anti-abuse-wg-owner@ripe.net When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of anti-abuse-wg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 (Sander Steffann) 2. Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 (ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk) 3. Re: Fw: [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 (Brian Nisbet) 4. Re: [db-wg] Fw: objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 (ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:54:34 +0100 From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> To: denis <ripedenis@yahoo.co.uk> Cc: Database WG <db-wg@ripe.net>, "anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net" <anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] objection to RIPE policy proposal 2016-01 Message-ID: <BECAB65B-1EAB-477C-A3EC-4E1224ADE378@steffann.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Hello Denis,

Sorry Elvis but you are neither a software engineer nor a regular user inputting data into the RIPE Database. So your unsubstantiated statement of 'poor' does not carry much weight.

Excuse me, but you do not get to decide that a fellow working group member's contribution does not carry much weight. That is the working group chairs' job when deciding on consensus, and from experience I know that even the chairs only do that in very rare circumstances. Consensus is based on content and supporting arguments, not on whether you judge somebody worthy... Cheers, Sander