John,

In response to your spam, I offer the following:
>
>First off, I never accused Evan of making the post. I did ask him if he did. Given the fact that he was one of 3 very negative posts to me in this matter, I thought it was a legitimate question. There is a big difference between accusing somebody of an act, and asking them a question.

Only a lawyer would think to try to make a distinction like that. Asking Evan, "Are you the weasel?" means that, at the VERY least, you think he might be the weasel.

SNIP out personal attack on Michel Fournier...
>
>Does Evan have some need for you to give him absolution in the court of public opinion here..???

So, this is your response to someone offering an opinion you don't agree with, under his own sig? Impugn their motives? Slip another innuendo in there? Then, spam it out to a large mailing list? Can you spell "character assassination"?
>
>BTW, I got your phone message. I have no desire to talk to you at all until you do the right thing, expose the little shit the caused all of this crap.
>
>Cmon Michel, lets get consistient here. If you are going to say who did'nt do it, you might as well offer up the person who did, so this thing can die.

Fair comment. Fact is, only Michel can expose the perp. You can try to persuade him to do so. Public spam like this isn't the place to do that, though... unless YOU'RE trying to make use of the "court of public opinion" you pretend to disparage.
>
>For those of you out there, Erik, Evan, etc. that are bashing me for making a big stink about this, how would you like it???? I don't think it would sit well with you. Personally, I think you two are a couple of hypocrits for the stance you are taking.

You asked for it, you're going to get it.

How would I like it? I wouldn't. First of all, I didn't see the post, so I have to guess at the contents. However, I can offer up what I would do.

First of all, did the post contain any THREAT to me or my loved ones? If so, my reaction would be immediate and drastic - much more so than anything you've posted here so far. HOWEVER, it would all be PRIVATE. I'm certain that UT would cooperate in giving me the name of the poster. However, on the off chance they were not, be certain I would use every legal means and/or suasion to obtain it.

If the post didn't contain a THREAT, then it was OPINION. Next question, was it SIGNED? Obviously not. Therefore, the author is a coward. To have any weight, an opinion must be associated with one person or a group of people who become answerable for it. An unsigned opinion is of NO CONSEQUENCE. No doubt you've heard the expression, "Consider the source". In this case, there isn't even one.

Any contempt for anyone that might have been generated by that post was aimed at the unknown author.

What would I have done? First, sent a private e-mail to UT informing them of the situation. In a perfect world, UT would post a general message covering the following points:

1. Acknowledging, and apologizing for, the fact that an anonymous, scurrilous personal attack was posted on an open UT message board. I would specify in my e-mail to UT whether I wished to be explicitly apologized to, or whether it should be to "a UT Member".

2. Regretting that, due to this abuse, anonymous posts are no longer allowed.

3. Reminding UTers that all posts can be traced, that the perpetrator is known and has been appropriately punished. Punishment could include naming the perp. It would be up to me, in PRIVATE discussion with UT, to decide on an acceptable punishment.

Let me say again, PRIVATE. There would be NO value in involving the rest of the UT community in this affair. In fact, there are potential dangers. Look at some of the facts of this affair:

1. You exposed the contents of a confidential e-mail, without permission, to the UT at large.

2. You have engaged in personal attacks on Evan Delay and Erik Moore in the public UT forum. You have spammed these attacks as direct messages to many UT members, ensuring that they will see them.

3. Although you claim to want to improve the "signal to noise" ratio of the UT, you continue to waste UT members' time wading through unwanted personal diatribes in their mailboxes, and making it harder to find useful items in the "Chatter" section.

What does this add up to? Unprofessional conduct. What does it mean to me? Thanks to the 3 points above, I would find it very difficult to hire you in any professional capacity. Yes, John, due to your own actions, in my eyes you have seriously damaged your professional reputation.

But even that's not the most important point. If you read nothing else, read the following:

************************************
Since this affair began, you have been forced to resign from your position as a UT sysop, and in the eyes of at least one UT member your professional reputation has been seriously damaged.

Thanks to YOUR ACTIONS in response to his/her post, THE WEASEL HAS SUCCEEDED BEYOND HIS/HER WILDEST DREAMS!
************************************

I'm sorry I made you work through such a long message. However, I wanted to make sure my points were crystal-clear. I've tried to be as objective as I can, but I admit I personally know Evan and I got a little upset at all the personal attacks in your message.

I hope you can muster an apology to Evan; even if you don't think you accused him of being the weasel, it's clear he thinks you did. As for calling him and Erik hypocrites, follow your own advice and lay out your argument in detail, don't just call names. Making accusations like that is one area where your English had better be as "precise" as possible.