North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: FW: Hi
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 [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.....