Didn't Rodney King once say "Can't we all get along?"
Personally I enjoy reading, and have gain a great deal from, the emails
regardless of subject when I have time. When I don't, the delete key is a
useful "filter."
It ain't broke. Don't fix it.
Wayne E. Seth
Site Coordinator
FCBS/Fort Huachuca
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
520-538-6763
> ----------
> From: Randall, Mark[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 4:36 PM
> To: 'Bill Casti (System Admin)'
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: Time to break up: call for a plebiscite
>
> I agree.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Casti (System Admin) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 8:30 PM
> To: Bayard G. Bell
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Time to break up: call for a plebiscite
>
>
>
> Bad idea. I counter-propose we all just continue to hit our "delete" key
> when we find an asinine post (such as the one below?), thereby making it
> functionally irrelevant. Who would be the "cop" to try to enforce the
> separation of UNMODERATED lists--that's the kind of tasks moderation is
> designed to handle. Since no one is willing to volunteer to be the list
> moderator--Mr. Bell has certainly not volunteered to do so--his separation
> would be both irrelevant and unenforceable. That so being, there is no
> justification for going through the exercise.
>
> Regards.
> Bill
>
>
> On Sat, 31 Jul 1999, Bayard G. Bell wrote:
>
> > IF YOU AGREE WITH WHAT I SAY BELOW, DO NOT RESPOND TO THE LIST. I
> > propose several remedies below, and if you would like to see these acted
> > on, please send e-mail to:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Because I feel that large volumes of asinine posts are detracting from
> > this list and because a few members of this list seem to have persistent
> > problems with immoderate posting (or immoderate posting in response to
> > immoderate posting), I would like to suggest splitting this list in two:
> > the existing list should retain its name and restrict itself to
> > discussion of firewall technology, while another list called
> > firewall-policy should be created for all of the jackasses who wish to
> > make specious arguments and start lengthy digressive exchanges in
> > response to everything on this list that isn't their style. I should
> > hope that out of the frustration of having a list subscription turned
> > into a quasi-spam subscription such "contributors" will mend their ways
> > and make more earnest contributions.
> >
> > I don't mean to dismiss the topic of firewall policy, but I don't
> > believe the list as a whole has demonstrated itself capable of
> > sustaining productive conversation on this topic. My hope is that a
> > list on this subject will gain some greater coherence and be able to
> > consider this issue more cogently than this list has. If expertise in
> > many areas is required of firewall administrators, let it be expertise
> > and not amateurism (and certainly not dilettantism) in these areas that
> > all lists for the community of administrators encourages.
> >
> > And let us not forget to encourage a degree of professional courtesy...
> >
> > -Bayard Bell
> -
> [To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> "unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
>
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
