Re: Frank Carmickle and Marco Paganini must die

[Thomas Bushnell BSG <tb@becket.net>]

Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 02:27:34PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Adam McKenna <adam@flounder.net> writes:
> > 
> > > On Mon, Sep 27, 2004 at 07:20:46PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> > > > And I also find it quite interesting that you make it sound like my 
> > > > summary was wrong (and making you appear in a bad light) and yet Thomas 
> > > > Bushnell reports that the explanations he received via private email 
> > > > accurately matched my summary.
> > > 
> > > You're both wrong.  Not surprising, really.
> > 
> > Will you grant me permission to post publicly the responses you sent
> > me in private mail?
> 
> No.

So, since I cannot post them, I will summarize the upshot.

While in public he insisted that one could distinguish reliable
between a dynamic and a static address, privately Adam quickly and
happily conceded that in fact this is not possible, and that one can
only rely on what an ISP happens to say, or assume that a hostname
with the string "dynamic" is dynamic, and the like.  He offered
nothing about the cases I mentioned where even the ISP doesn't know
whether the address was dynamically assigned.

He did not insist on his definition that "dynamic" means "obtained by
DHCP".

He said that if one has been listed by these "services" as dynamic,
then you must already know it, because you'd be bouncing lots of mail,
but he did not provide any information about how frequent in fact the
use of such "services" is.

He said that he was not talking about university or corporate sites,
but he did not give any indication about how one is to reliably tell
that one is dealing with such a site.  (Asking the ISP excepted, of
course.)

Aside from being extremely rude and insulting in his first message, he
was polite and concise, entirely reasonable on all counts, in his
private email to me.  He seems to me (this is only a guess) to be
extraordinarily unwilling to admit his mistakes in a public forum,
which doesn't matter much to me.

I am distressed that he denies what he said privately.  If he
persists, then I will put his email messages on a public www server so
that those who are interested (if there is anyone left) can read them
at leisure.  I suspect he is afraid that people will read them and
learn for themselves whether he says different things publicly and
privately.

Unlike the usual practice, however, I was interested that it is his
private messages which were clear and helpful and led to
understanding; it was his public messages which (to my eyes) are
consistently overbearing and unreasonable.  I can only guess about why
he wants to keep this a secret.

Thomas