Yes, I agree with Ron on this point. I absolutely am pleased that there is an NCSG statement putting this position - it is great to see that we can deal with internal disagreements. The language used, however, doesn't read like a statement of a minority position - it feels like a cranky continuation of internal argument by different means. Misrepresentation of opposing positions, so that you can then argue against the caricatured version, accusations of opponents being 'hysterical'. Frankly I expect better of most of the signers. Cheers David On 05/03/2013, at 10:36 AM, Ron Wickersham <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > i especially find that the wording borders > on "bullying" when you state that "we find these claims to be hysterical..." > i don't recall hysterical language being used by dissenting views posted > on the mailing list. i find the use of emotional language unpersuasive > and unfitting in a position document. > > would it be impolite to ask that the title be changed and the content > modified to limit the scope of general support/consensus implied on the full membership of the NCSG? > > -ron wickersham