It seems that LJ has taken the high road here. I am going to throw my voice into the conversation. I think Joe was very polite in his explanation of why LJ might have asked as well as saying it was ok if there was a reason to not share your name.
John seems very intelligent from what I can see, but I would say there is something suspicious going on here simply because of his defensiveness. That alone bothers me. Substantially. To be asked if the name given is your real name is not offensive unless you are hiding something. All that was needed is to say, yes it is. In fact, even though LJ said he did state his name was Johnathon Doe, he didn't. He actually stated who said it wasn't. A negative doesn't equal a positive. Sorry, the immaturity of John's responses really got under my skin. I am done on the subject now. Brian Goralczyk. <<----- Only my name insofar as my birth certificate claims that it is my name. On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 5:55 PM, JD Hood <[email protected]> wrote: > ** The list should have "Troll-Tags" like "Deer-Tags". Dan B. can be the > game warden. > Sounds like you may be getting close to busting one! > > Back to the peanut gallery, > -JDHood > > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 6:12 PM, Rick Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> >> Pretty sure. I have been wrong before, but I did some research before I >> said that, and I think I know your real name and where you live. As has been >> said before, if you need to be anonymous for whatever reason, it isn't a >> huge deal, and I won't share what I think your real name is here. >> Threatening other people over it is. We are a community here. You >> obviously have the technical skills and experience to be a valued member >> here. The only question is your attitude toward others. Might suggest you >> focus on that. >> >> Rick >> On Oct 15, 2011 3:03 PM, "John Doe" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Really Rick? Are you certain? >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Rick Cook <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 15, 2011 3:40 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: John Doe >>> >>> ** >>> It isn't his real name, LJ. You didn't do anything wrong. >>> Rick >>> On Oct 15, 2011 10:26 AM, "LJ LongWing" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> ** >>> I did ask if that was your real name…this is the first time I have seen >>> that you said it is…I was simply curious and asked a question. Sorry that >>> you consider that question harassment. I’ll consider the matter closed if >>> you would like.**** >>> ** ** >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John Doe >>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 15, 2011 10:50 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9**** >>> ** ** >>> ** **** >>> Joe, >>> >>> You logic is off. How do I know your real name is Joe? I don't and >>> neither of you know if my real name is NOT Jonathan Doe. There are a few >>> people who have that name. But see I don't accuse you of this as you both >>> have now done. >>> >>> If your way of saying hello is accusing someone of hiding their real name >>> when it might be their real name then you have some serious problems. This >>> has nothing to do with the subject matter, sorry. >>> >>> I have identified myself and you continually harass me. It doesn't matter >>> how senior you are harassment is harassement and I am asking nicely to >>> please stop. >>> >>> Thank you, >>> Jonathan Doe**** >>> ** ** >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *Joe Martin D'Souza <[email protected]>; >>> *To: *<[email protected]>; >>> *Subject: *Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 >>> *Sent: *Fri, Oct 14, 2011 5:30:41 PM **** >>> **** >>> LJ has been known to this forum for a few years and I can assure you he >>> doesn’t harass people participating on here..**** >>> **** >>> It is one of the forums etiquette if you are not aware, to identify >>> yourself instead of coming in as John Smith. Dan Bloom the founder of this >>> list had compiled a few list etiquette a few years ago, and identifying >>> yourself was one of them. If you do not wish to identify because it may be >>> against your corporation policies or whatever other reasons, you could say >>> so and we all understand that, but its presumptions to assume that a long >>> timer such as LJ is harassing you by asking to identify yourself.. Its an >>> attempt to keep this list not just rich in its technical content, but to >>> build a true social circle of Remedy professionals..**** >>> **** >>> I do understand you may be relatively new on here so may not be aware of >>> this lists etiquettes, but I’m sure Dan would be happy to send them to you >>> if you do wish to go through them..**** >>> **** >>> Cheers**** >>> **** >>> Joe**** >>> **** >>> *From:* John Doe **** >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2011 12:59 PM**** >>> *Newsgroups:* public.remedy.arsystem.general**** >>> *To:* [email protected] **** >>> *Subject:* Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9**** >>> **** >>> ** **** >>> What does my login ID have to do with the subject matter, sir? >>> Please do not harass fellow posters or it will be reported. >>> Thank you.**** >>> **** >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From: *LJ LongWing <[email protected]>; >>> *To: *<[email protected]>; >>> *Subject: *RE: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9 >>> *Sent: *Fri, Oct 14, 2011 3:29:30 PM **** >>> John,**** >>> I noticed your name on the list a few days ago, and thought to myself >>> ‘who is that, why are they trying to hide’…so I looked back through the >>> archives and found posts going back to Feb timeframe…and all of the post I >>> found are well worded and such….just wondering if your name really is John >>> Doe, or if you have a different name that you are hiding for some reason. >>> **** >>> **** >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *John Doe >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2011 8:29 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9**** >>> **** >>> ** **** >>> Oh Matt...here we go again my friend, **** >>> **** >>> Unfortunately, this compatibility matrix answer falls into the all to >>> familiar category of "latest versions and higher are supported." This was >>> also the answer to Windows 2008 server 64 bit. Because the compatibility >>> matrix states as long as the VENDOR does not significantly change their >>> software higher versions are supported. When is their a higher version not >>> supported? Answer - there isn't a time. Respectfully, this falls under the >>> SDLC of release it and the community will find the bugs. I never used to >>> see this happen before the exponential growth of ARS into the BMC movement. >>> Mostly, after 7.6. I understand with growth, this happens. But at what >>> point to engineers tell management this type of reasoning does not work in >>> the technical world? I appreciate the need to grow. Certainly, but at what >>> cost? Why did Firefox become a replacement for IE? IE had much larger >>> growth. The answer is because Firefox was engineered better and due to this >>> performed better on javascript. Sometimes, it is not always about growth. >>> **** >>> **** >>> In the case of Windows 2008 server 64 bit the OS location for the ODBC >>> drivers (folder location) were changed. This was not caught when you would >>> think, during testing of the product. We (the customer) caught this after >>> the official release. We filed an RFE, which has been out in RFE land >>> somewhere since. The official explanation and fix was blamed on Microsoft >>> because, you guessed it, they changed the software. My question is, when is >>> it ever BMC's responsibility to test the software for complete compatibility >>> prior to release. Not just operational compatibility? Since this fell >>> under the statement "compatible unless the vendor has any significant >>> changes" we fell under the party line of "it's compatible". When we >>> demonstrated the incompatibility with the ODBC we were met with silence. As >>> seems to be a popular technique currently employed by premier support. I >>> mean no disrespect because I know those engineers are doing the best they >>> can. But they are handcuffed. **** >>> **** >>> I am not trying to sandbag here. What I am trying to say is that >>> statement on the compatibility matrix is a catch all and an example of a >>> greater problem. If you use that statement, one could logically say that as >>> long as the date/version of the vendor's release is a higher more current >>> version, BMC is compatible. Which is extremely presumptuous and the flaw >>> with that logic is demonstrated above. That is just one of so many >>> examples. This is the unfortunate case with the compatibility matrix and >>> strategically, BMC currently. I understand your explanation Matt. I >>> respect it. However, it's just not technically sound from an engineer >>> standpoint. It is sales and management coating over a technical flaw with >>> the system. A wise salesman once told me, never invite engineers to a >>> demo. Why? Because sales explanations are not compatible with engineers. >>> **** >>> **** >>> Back to the point. In order for this compatibility matrix statement to >>> really work, Microsoft, Oracle/Sun and Red Hat would need to go to BMC and >>> explain every change that was made to the OS (and DB's etc). I don't >>> believe that will happen and honestly, BMC has probably realized this too. >>> BMC is a one customer among millions to these companies. However, in lue of >>> this, complete and correctly engineered test scenarios would catch things >>> like ODBC folders simply being placed in a different directory. Instead this >>> compatibility matrix is the fix. I am not trying to be blunt or short in >>> any way but I have seen this become the standard answer from BMC during 7.5 >>> and after 7.6 release. Unfortunately, it appears the user community is >>> becoming the test engineers for BMC. **** >>> **** >>> Matt, this is one of the specific problems we spoke about in the other >>> posts.**** >>> **** >>> **** >>> **** >>> **** >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* "Chowdhury, Tauf" <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2011 8:31 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9**** >>> ** **** >>> You’re a lucky man. **** >>> **** >>> *T**auf** **C**howdhury** **|** **F**orest** **L**aboratories**, **I** >>> nc.***** >>> Service Portfolio Manager**** >>> Infrastructure – Service Management**** >>> Office: 631.858.7765**** >>> **** >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto: >>> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Shafqat Ayaz >>> *Sent:* Friday, October 14, 2011 4:22 AM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9**** >>> **** >>> ** **** >>> I have been using IE9 with Windows 7 with ITSM 7.6.04 without any >>> problems for a while now.**** >>> **** >>> * >>> >>> Shafqat Ayaz* >>> >>> **** >>> **** >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Jason Miller <[email protected]> >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2011 7:03 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9**** >>> ** **** >>> Could these tips be added to a BMCDN document to make them available >>> without having to open a support issue?**** >>> >>> Jason**** >>> >>> On Oct 12, 2011, at 12:30 PM, Matt Laurenceau <[email protected]> >>> wrote:**** >>> >>> ** **** >>> The "or higher" statement on the compatibility matrix is the answer: IE9 >>> is supported :)**** >>> **** >>> BMC Support has tips to optimize performances.**** >>> **** >>> Take care, >>> >>> Matt Laurenceau**** >>> Senior Community Ambassador, BMC Communities**** >>> [email protected]**** >>> Follow me @Matt_L**** >>> Skype: matt.laurenceau**** >>> **** >>> >>> On 12 oct. 2011, at 20:54, Guillaume Rheault <[email protected]> >>> wrote:**** >>> >>> ** **** >>> There have been posts that there are problems with ITSM 7.6.04 and IE 9 >>> Whether ITSM 7.6.00 is compatible with IE 9... you may be the first one >>> to find out! >>> >>> Guillaume**** >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [ >>> [email protected]] on behalf of Spangler Robert C CIV USSTRATCOM/JWAC >>> [[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 12, 2011 2:30 PM >>> *To:* [email protected] >>> *Subject:* Windows 7 and Internet Explorer version 9**** >>> ** **** >>> We are getting ready to upgrade to Windows 7 and Internet Explorer >>> version 9. Does ARS 7.5 and ITSM 7.6 support these? Thanks**** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ **** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ **** >>> >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ **** >>> >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ **** >>> **** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_**** >>> ------------------------------ >>> This e-mail and its attachments may contain Forest Laboratories, Inc. >>> proprietary information that is privileged, confidential or subject to >>> copyright belonging to Forest Laboratories, Inc. This e-mail is intended >>> solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If >>> you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, or the employee or agent >>> responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, you are >>> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or action >>> taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this e-mail is >>> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this e-mail in >>> error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the >>> original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout.**** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ **** >>> **** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_**** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_**** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_**** >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >>> >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >>> >>> >>> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >> >> _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ >> > > _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > -- Brian Goralczyk Phone 574-643-1144 Email [email protected] _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
