[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: calling Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> [the long version]

On Thu, Jun 03, 1999 at 11:50:03PM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jun 1999, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i have been talking about DULs all along. my initial message in this
> > thread was specifically in response to Branden's unwarranted attack on
> > paul vixie for running the MAPS DUL.
> > 
> > pay attention. this thread has already gone on too long without people
> > making it worse by jumping in without knowing what the discussion is
> > about.
> As the originator of this thread, I find it as backwards as all of
> your other arguments when you say that I am the ignorant one who is
> "jumping in without knowing what the discussion is about". Dispite
> my attempts to "educate" you about the actual conditions of the
> discussion, you insist on continuing your battle with Branden.

threads shift.  the originator of a thread is not the owner of it.

(approximate) order of events so far:

1. you complain about not being able to communicate with phil
2. (1 or 2 msgs later) problem appears to be on it's way to being resolved
3. branden jumps in and attacks paul vixie and DULs
4. i respond to branden
5. thread continues between me and branden and some others, focusing
   on DULs and rights of various parties.  simultaneously, other people
   talk about other related and unrelated issues.
6. one of my posts to branden says "lets agree to disagree".  he doesn't
   respond so i guess that might be fine with him too.
7. joseph jumps in flailing in his usual tightly-focused and coherent style.

(#5,6,and 7 are all happening at roughly the same time, as threads are wont
to do)

8. you respond to one of my messages about topics listed in #5, going on
   about your problems with ORBS (which were being resolved back in #2), 
   and confusing issues about ORBS with issues about DUL.
9. i point out this continuity problem.
10. you ignore said continuity problem.
11. repeat #9.
12. repeat #10.

> As I have said repeatedly, your DUL argument has nothing to do
> with the problem I have been experiencing 

i'm so glad you noticed. i've only had to point it out about 3 times per
message for the last few messages.

> and has no value to this discussion.

obviously, i do not agree with your value judgement.

> If you really want to talk about those issues, start your own thread!

what? and abandon the time-honored traditions of usenet and mailing lists

btw, speaking of time-honored traditions....isn't it about time for
someone to compare ORBS and DUL users with adolf hitler?

> It is you who are "jumping in without knowing what the discussion is
> about", dragging this thread out far too long over something that is
> useless to the discussion. There are better things for us to be doing.

i repeat: i entered this thread for the sole purpose of responding to
branden's comments about vixie and about DUL.

i am sorry if you find this so difficult to comprehend, but i really can
not think of any simpler or less ambiguous way of stating it.


craig sanders

Reply to: