NANOG-futures
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Historical
Re: Topicality and audiences [was Re: tech support being flooded due to IE 0day]
- From: Patrick W. Gilmore
- Date: Sat Sep 23 10:58:27 2006
On Sep 23, 2006, at 1:02 AM, Gadi Evron wrote:
Of course, the 100s of posts from non-MLC members should have
probably had an affect by now.
50 of which are from you?
I think you need to check your mail log. I am a frequent poster, but
have been pretty damned quiet regarding this subject (not just this
thread, but the "what's on topic" subject in general).
If you honestly think I have posted half the "stop posting" posts,
then you have shown a clear and objective misunderstanding of the
situation. This calls into question all the things you say about who
is and is not in support of your posting activities.
I will answer every single email until this this resolved. No
misunderstandings will remain.
This is what nanog-futures is for, no? Let's put an end to this.
I disagree. "Me too" and non-substantive posts are NOT what nanog-
futures is for. Do -not- answer 'every single e-mail'. If five
people all say 'botnet posts suck', answering each in turn with the
same information is a waste of 100s of people's time. (It wastes
1000s of people's time on NANOG-l.)
Being concise, succinct, even laconic are qualities to be applauded.
If you can make your point in one post with three sentences vs. 100
posts of 100 lines each, vastly more people will read it, many more
understand it, and far fewer people will be upset about it.
--
TTFN,
patrick
|
