Re: DSRM is...

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Steve Zvillis" <szvillis@netspace.net.au> wrote in message
9b3pqk$12no$1@otis.netspace.net.au">news:9b3pqk$12no$1@otis.netspace.net.au...
>
> Tony Gatt <baulko@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:gLqA6.2075$hb.4893@news1.belrs1.nsw.optushome.com.au...
>
> > We were having our own discussion, the members invited themselves into
the
> > discussion.
> > We weren't pestering the members, they invited themselves to speak on
the
> > issue.
> > and to date, there speaks have not done a great deal to sway the opinion
> of
> > those originally having the discussion...
> >
> > Tony
>
>
> As you were having a discussion in a public forum, attacking the
> organisation of which we are members, with exaggerations, distortions,
> assumptions and plain untruths, do you seriously expect members to have
sat
> back, reading the crap being posted and not respond???

So since you agree that it is a public forum, you agree with the right of
those involved in the discussion to state their views on what they perceive
as the shortcomings of the DSRM, and you will not attack them for expressing
those views (since it is a public forum)?

> How about I start a thread attacking the organisation(s) you support (if
> any) in the same fashion. Can I expect you to ignore it and not rally to
the
> defence of "your" organisation?

Of course not. But I would expect Tony to defend his organisation (whatever
that is), something I have not seen done with DSRM - everything posted does
not mount to a "defence".)

Dave