[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Reinier Bakels]

>> As to what we should do when he says that, I don't know. One solution is 
>> simply to ignore it. Another is to start a personal correspondence with 
>> him outside of the mailing list.
>>
> I did it some days ago, that approach of the personal correspondence; I 
> (then) even offered him to shake hands, and he refused. He even denies 
> being using scornful and/or insulting language.

1. I don't think a private conversation was appropriate. I always talked 
about the substance - even if you sometimes thought I did not. If I say "you 
are wrong", than I don't mean that I blame you for making a mistake, but 
that I have a different view (wich could be a fact or an opinion).
2. My "denial" is essential. Being insulting or scornful requires the 
*intent* to do so (or at least "dolus eventualis" - I don't know the term in 
English), and if I say that it is NOT my intent, you have to accept that as 
a fact.

It is like foorbal: one must always play the bal, not the man. Even when I 
called you a "fifth column" at some time, that was about your opinions. A 
"fifth column" - as you know - is some who works for the "ennemy". Which was 
perfectly appropriate - not as a serious complaint, but as a caveat - when 
you cited an UNDR provision which is often used by the proponents of a 
strong and long copyright. And, frankly, my patience is not infinite. I 
thougyht that perhaps a shock effect might straighten the conversation. It 
was a dreadful mistake.

This morning I tried another shock effect, calling you "amusing". Should I 
use even stronger words to clarify my point?

reinier