On Mon, Mar 01, 1999 at 10:36:34AM -0600, Adam Bailey wrote:
> Unless you can prove that AOL is somehow out to get you, [...]
Why would I want to prove it? I don't even believe it, and I have no idea
why you would think I would -- I've never said anything of the kind.
I have pointed out a particular incident -- which, by the way, was reported
by other independent observers at the same time. It is clearly not the result
of anything on my end, since the same mechanism worked before, during, and
after the problem, and before and after with AOL. This pretty much
eliminates everything but AOL from the diagnosis.
And yes, before you ask, I *did* test things to try as best as possible
to make sure it wasn't my end. If I had the slightest hint that it
might be, I would have erred on the side of caution and assumed that I'd
simply overlooked something. But such is not the case.
> There's plenty of clueless management at AOL, but the technical people
> know their stuff up and down.
I see no evidence that this is the case. I have seen lots of evidence,
over a period of years, which indicates the contrary. (And y'know, I didn't
just wake up one morning and decide to dis AOL's technical competence.
I don't even know who works there. Nor do I care, because I don't
think it really matters: it's the observed performance that I care about,
not the individual people.)
And unlike you, I am unimpressed by the sheer (and frequently exaggerated)
size of AOL. I do not consider it an adequate excuse for poor
performance/service.
---Rsk
Rich Kulawiec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
