1) I'm Steve, not Richard.
2) Yes, I did find your analogy (which you admitted
was "crude") to be offensive. That was my point.
I really don't see the point of that sort of
comment in a technical discussion.
>From email@example.com Tue Oct 24 16:09:07 1995
>From: Tim Bass <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Initial Route Server Stats for MAE-East
>To: email@example.com (Steven J. Richardson)
>Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 16:06:08 -0400 (EDT)
>Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
> email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
>In-Reply-To: <199510241659.MAA17828@home.merit.edu> from "Steven J. Richardson" at Oct 24, 95 12:59:40 pm
>> >' make sure to put all the hair in your pants before
>> > zipping your zipper..... notes ... SPAMtastic
>> Is this really necessary? I don't see any technical point in this
>> sort of argument.
>No, Richard, it is not 'really necessary'. I hope that you did not
>find my crude analogy offensive.
>I plead guilty to taking
>my opinion to somewhat arrogant extremes in the above statement.
>Furthermore, I made the mistake of thinking that this tread was on
>If I had been more cognizant of the fact that this
>discussion was on nanog, I would not have posted such a harsh
>My mistake, too quick on the elm keys, for sure.