FW: Hi

Wed Dec 12 02:36:00 UTC 2001

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 at 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 at corp.earthlink.net>
> To: "'nanog at merit.edu'" <nanog at 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 at callisma.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:01 PM
> To: measl at 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 at merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> measl at mfn.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:54 PM
> To: Rowland, Alan D
> Cc: 'nanog at 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.....