North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: FW: Hi

  • From: measl
  • Date: Tue Dec 11 21:38:30 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?


J.A. Terranson
[email protected]
"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" <[email protected]>
> To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>
> 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:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 6:01 PM
> To: [email protected]; 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2001 5:54 PM
> To: Rowland, Alan D
> Cc: '[email protected]'
> 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.....

  • References: