Actually, I thought it was quite funny. Absolutely no apology required here - I promise. I may be thin skinned on what looks like attacks on the defenseless, but I am personally endowed with about 5 feet of fully leaded epidermis: resistant to even the hottest flamethrower ;-) Can we all chill now, and get back to work? Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "King Of The Big Offensive .Sigs" On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Rowland, Alan D wrote:
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 18:10:11 -0800 From: "Rowland, Alan D" <alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net> To: "'nanog@merit.edu'" <nanog@merit.edu> Subject: FW: Hi
Sorry.
My sig wasn intended as pure humor, not as satire of the poster I resonded to. My apology for any implication otherwise. Apology especially to J.A.
-Al
-----Original Message----- From: Joel Gridley [mailto:jarmaug@callisma.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:01 PM To: measl@mfn.org; Rowland, Alan D Subject: RE: Hi
As for being so sensitive about what is said in a public forum, I would look to my sigline. Imagine the problems that would result if everyone on the internet decided to warlord, and put a personal political statement - decidedly offensive to some - on each and every email they sent out.
I for one understood what he meant. But then again, I look for the spirit of what a person says, instead of picking apart the words that they say it with.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of measl@mfn.org Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:54 PM To: Rowland, Alan D Cc: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: RE: Hi
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Rowland, Alan D wrote:
One would hope a Cisco employee, or better yet, their employer would have enough clue to have whacked this mole 24 hours after it appeared let alone a week later. Guess not. Then perhaps guilty as charged?
Guilty for clue-impairment is a lot different than guilty of intent to spread. As for clue-impairment, I think everyone here agrees that Cisco should have this well filtered. If this was your intended statement, then yes, agreed. It was the implication of malice that I think was inappropriate, especially in a public forum.
We [hopefully] return to our regularly scheduled... Hmmm.....