This is cause for a Kick --- Dan am I wrong here? On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Brian Goralczyk <[email protected]>wrote:
> ** 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] > > _attend WWRUG11 www.wwrug.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ > -- Patrick Zandi _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug11 www.wwrug.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
