nanog mailing list archives
Re: FW: Hi
From: <measl () mfn org>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:36:00 -0600 (CST)
Actually, I thought it was quite funny. Absolutely no apology required here - I promise. I may be thin skinned on what looks like attacks on the defenseless, but I am personally endowed with about 5 feet of fully leaded epidermis: resistant to even the hottest flamethrower ;-) Can we all chill now, and get back to work? Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin () mfn org "King Of The Big Offensive .Sigs" On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Rowland, Alan D wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:10:11 -0800 From: "Rowland, Alan D" <alan_r1 () corp earthlink net> To: "'nanog () merit edu'" <nanog () merit edu> Subject: FW: Hi Sorry. My sig wasn intended as pure humor, not as satire of the poster I resonded to. My apology for any implication otherwise. Apology especially to J.A. -Al -----Original Message----- From: Joel Gridley [mailto:jarmaug () callisma com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:01 PM To: measl () mfn org; Rowland, Alan D Subject: RE: Hi As for being so sensitive about what is said in a public forum, I would look to my sigline. Imagine the problems that would result if everyone on the internet decided to warlord, and put a personal political statement - decidedly offensive to some - on each and every email they sent out. I for one understood what he meant. But then again, I look for the spirit of what a person says, instead of picking apart the words that they say it with. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of measl () mfn org Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:54 PM To: Rowland, Alan D Cc: 'nanog () merit edu' Subject: RE: Hi On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Rowland, Alan D wrote:One would hope a Cisco employee, or better yet, their employer would have enough clue to have whacked this mole 24 hours after it appeared let aloneaweek later. Guess not. Then perhaps guilty as charged?Guilty for clue-impairment is a lot different than guilty of intent to spread. As for clue-impairment, I think everyone here agrees that Cisco should have this well filtered. If this was your intended statement, then yes, agreed. It was the implication of malice that I think was inappropriate, especially in a public forum. We [hopefully] return to our regularly scheduled... Hmmm.....