wwp@yahoogroups.com:
false claims
Yuval Levy 2008-Nov-13 14:10:00
Jakob Norstedt-Moberg wrote:
> Slightly off-topic on the WWPano list, isn't it? These discussions
> should be somewhere else.
Indeed bringing the discussion here was an intentional sabotage of the
task-force. Unfortunately it also means that a few things have to be
said here. I'll try to keep them to a minimum. The decision itself is
obviosuly not being taken here. My mandate, which derives from
<http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wwp/message/9713>, is submitted to
people in that group, not to the whole general public.
Michael wrote:
> Carsten has been excluded immediately from the Task-Force
> and Friends-List. He has no other choice to inform WWP members about
> this and to open up for an additional approach.
He has not been excluded immediately. The story has been going on for
months, and compromises have been made to try to accomodate him. He has
broken his own committment to those compromises. When he initiated
unilateral action, discussion of his text had just started in the
task-force. With his unilateral action he has actively undermined the
task-force and it has been previously discussed that such behavior
warrants expulsion. All of this is well documented in the task-force
archives, mostly in German.
Carsten indeed had many choices:
He could have discussed civilly in the task-force. Preempting a decision
that does not suit him is unacceptable.
Being a task-force member and firing on it from the outside at the same
time is not acceptable either. He could have resigned from the
task-force, and even this does not justify spreading the dirty laundry
in public.
Last but not least, membership in ZKM-Friends has conditions attached,
as laid out in <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/wwp/message/9713>.
Not everybody subscribes to those conditions, and it is their right.
They can even change their mind mid-course and leave the group. But it
still does not justify spereading the dirty laundry in public.
danheimsoth wrote:
> I have been very satisfied with the current leadership of the group,
> but you are asking me to make a choice in an obvious difference of
> opinion when I have essentially zero information about the details of
> that difference. Your earlier post states that Rees is guilty of lies
> and obstruction, but gives no specifics.
Thank you, Dan. The details and specifics obviously don't belong in a
public space like the WWP-List. As a member of the ZKM-Friends who is
going to make the decision for himself, you will be informed there, in
due time, with specifics and details. And you will also be given access
to the task-force archives.
To conclude this sad public display of public laundry, I would like to
make a few of statements about wrong claimes made about me. Up to you to
judge.
1. Unlike claimed, the questionable post has not been censored. It had
been delayed and discussion was started, but that discussion has been
preempted by unilateral action.
2. Unlike claimed, what I presented was only the worst-case scenario of
a thought through plan and not the intended course of action. The plan
was sketched in collaboration with and based on input from Professor
Pustejovsky.
3. I have have never lived neither in the USA nor in England and unlike
claimed I do not refer to the legal framework of those countries to run
a case in Germany. All my reference whas the advice from the lawyer and
his written answers that are documented in the task-force. I've been
living in Canada for the past five years, whose law indeed is derived
from the English Common Law; but in Quebec, the province where I live,
the current language is French and the legal system is of Napoleonic
descendance, much like in continental Europe. Prior to that I lived most
of my life in continental Europe and I have some basic knowledge of
Swiss law from my business science studies in Switzerland.
4. Unlike claimed, what I laid out is not a plan, only the worse-case
scenario of what could happen. The same worse-case scenario that can
happen if you follow Carsten's plan, and it is more expensive than the
1.000 EUR he claims - the difference is that he is not preparing for it,
I am.
5. Unlike claimed, I am not rushing into legal action in court. With my
preparations I make sure that ZKM-Friends are aware of and prepared for
the worse case. In Italian there is a saying: "can che abbia non morde".
A barking dog does not bite. An "Abmahnung", even from a lawyer, is just
barking; and while we hope that barking works, what if it does not?
6. Unlike claimed, the half-baked "plan" presented is not less risky. If
the reaction to the "Abmahnung" is insufficient, what then? with my
preparations, I make sure that we are ready to bite if necessary. I
don't intend to bite unless necessary, but I also don't need to bark
unless I know I can bite.
7. Unlike claimed, the half-baked "plan" is not less expensive. We have
already reached what can be reached through negotiations - the initial
action taken within the ZKM-Friends group has achieved that the ZKM is
no longer using my work and that they will not use it in the future. I
don't need to pay 1.000 EUR for them to sign it on a piece of paper with
a contractual penalty, and Professor Pustejovsky has clearly written
that it is unlikely that they will even cover the cost of that paper.
Further evidence of Carsten's lies and obstructive behavior are
available to those concerned.