dunce cap on
irrelevant to the mlc action, but ...
as someone just pointed out to me, i was confusing two ex-ceos of qwest,
joe nacchio, who is a convicted felon, with sol trujillo, who is not,
but is currently the ceo of telstra.
apologies.
randy
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
no sc hat at all
the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc.
No, it did not. It earned you a polite request from Marty to show
some leadership and not engage in off-topic personal sniping on the
list. When you asked if it was a
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 03:31:10PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
no sc hat at all
the appended message earned me a formal complaint from the mlc. they
have accused me of making a personal attack. of course, joe nacchio
(apologies for misspelling at first), is a very well known public
figure;
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/mlc-complaint.mbox
Randy Bush wrote:
no sc hat at all
I did not think at the time that, that particular message contributed
much to the general tenor of the discussion. The implication I derived
was not that joe nacchio was a felon, we all know this (19 counts of
insider trading), but that .au is still a penal
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which
are both against the AUP
[mild tangent: How can the blanket label of political be
off-topic given the serious time and energy spent with both
informed and
On 10/8/07, Joe Provo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 12:11:17PM +0100, Stephen Wilcox wrote:
[snip]
i guess it could be 'character assassination' or 'political' which
are both against the AUP
[mild tangent: How can the blanket label of political be
off-topic given the
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:24 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
http://rip.psg.com/~randy/mlc-complaint.mbox
Can't we all just get along.
Look, Randy's comment was a bit gruff (although deeply humorous to quite
a few folks). Considering it was made at 2AM I'd have to say that it's
not as bad as I've
On Tue, 2007-10-09 at 05:54 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
Jim Popovitch wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 16:24 +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
Considering it was made at 2AM
i am in tokyo
randy
:-) well, I read your emails in Atlanta at 2am and your late-night
attitude really shows through even though
[ snip, nobody cares about Telstra or the embedded baiting ]
if it was just marty being on a piss off about me, then no big deal; i
can handle marty (and certainly am in no position to abuse him for being
hot-headed).
Hot-headed for what reason? Because you are off topic as usual? Not
quite.
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the
AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly
seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I encourage it. :-)
I think that is Randy's
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
when i asked if it was formal, assuming it was so because it had been
cc:d to the sc ($deity knows why), rob said yes it could be taken that way.
I'm sorry that you misunderstood my communication; obviously I should
have laid it out more carefully. The
Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the
AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly
seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In fact, I
Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but i am certainly guilty of terseness and obscurity, as well as
confusing two ex-cseo of qwest. my apologies.
...
this would have been very clear as to the formality of the message, and
have allowed discussion and explantation.
Matthew 7:5
On 10/8/07, Randy Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to
the AUP wrt to being on topic.
your complaint to me was not about topic, but rather about ad homina.
to quote
And as you know, the NANOG AUP specifically discourages
On 10/8/07, Jim Popovitch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2007-10-08 at 18:46 -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
Just so we're clear, you will continue to see requests to adapt to the
AUP wrt to being on topic. If you don't like that, you can certainly
seek to have me thrown off the MLC. In
Martin Hannigan wrote:
How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures,
there's nobody really here, but I mean community wide overall? How do
we determine what people really want to hear about and act
On 10/9/07, vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/8/07, Joel Jaeggli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martin Hannigan wrote:
How do we determine what people do want to read vs. what they don't?
It would be nice to have some direction. I don't mean from futures,
there's nobody really
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
- -- vijay gill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of
focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and
actual value to be had from NANOG,
I'm glad someone finally said
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, vijay gill wrote:
Really, reading this thread has left me stupider. I guess instead of
focusing on things like the lightweight agenda, abysmal content and
actual value to be had from NANOG, we are getting tied up discussing an
offhand remark about a convicted felon. I
I suggest with the best intention possible that marty unwad his shorts
and the rest of us STFU and GBTW.
I'll add others to the list, but yes, in the simplest possible terms, this
thread was a ridiculous waste of time of everyone involved.
Well, Vijay can KMA, but point taken. My shorts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I realized after I sent that message that it was unfair of me
to make statements without properly characterizing them with
context.
Let me say this: I believe NANOG has very much lost touch with the
base of it's constituency.
For instance: I made an
22 matches
Mail list logo
