Re: please don't feed the Dan

Allen Gwinn <allen@mail.cox.smu.edu> Fri, 08 August 1997 21:46 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa15039; 8 Aug 97 17:46 EDT
Received: from mail.proper.com (mail.proper.com [206.86.127.224]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.7.3) with ESMTPid RAA23354; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 17:44:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) id NAA29864 for ietf-822-bks; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from amex.cox.smu.edu (root@mail.cox.smu.edu [129.119.80.101]) by mail.proper.com (8.8.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA29858 for <ietf-822@imc.org>; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 13:59:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from p1.cox.smu.edu (p1.cox.smu.edu [129.119.81.10]) by amex.cox.smu.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id QAA30028; Fri, 8 Aug 1997 16:04:17 -0500
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 1997 16:07:00 -0500
From: Allen Gwinn <allen@mail.cox.smu.edu>
To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
cc: ietf-822@imc.org
Subject: Re: please don't feed the Dan
In-Reply-To: <199708081641.MAA01668@lust.cs.utk.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.WNT.3.95.970808160232.-978595D-100000@p1.cox.smu.edu>
X-X-Sender: allen@mail.cox.smu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
Sender: owner-ietf-822@imc.org
Precedence: bulk

Well, I haven't posted in a long time, so, here goes!

First off, I disagree with you, Keith.  Dan usually has a very good
technical sense about him.  The only thing, perhaps, that I could side
with you on is the alt.flamisms.  Although I don't post alot, I feel that
his rationale and arguments wrt subaddressing and this whole line has been
well thought out.  Perhaps if everybody stuck to the issues and spent a
little less time flaming -- but on the other hand addressing the concerns
of the other parties (rather than toting their own party line) we'd
actually do things that benefitted the 'Net, eh?

Cheers!

Allen

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Keith Moore wrote:

> As usual, Dan Bernstein has managed to take a civil, technical discussion and 
> turn
> it into a sewer -- with insults, inappropriate accusations, and 
> misattributions.
> 
> Dan is right some of the time, and occasionally he even manages to produce a
> cogent and convincing argument.  So it's sometimes worthwhile to read his 
> opinion
> on a subject.
> 
> But I've never seen an occasion where responding to a message from Dan yielded
> anything useful.  Either you agree with him, in which case he'll use it against
> you later, or you disagree with him, in which case he'll respond with insults.
> 
> The result of replying to Dan is nearly always to polarize the discussion --
> to change it from a discussion aimed at honing technical details or fine tuning
> language, to a discussion about whether Dan is right or wrong.  
> 
> While such a discussion might be entertaining to those involved, it's certainly
> not going to produce anything useful. 
> 
> So please - don't feed the Dan.  
> 
> Read his messages if you want to, but resist the temptation to respond.  If 
> you
> do respond, consider responding directly to the list, rather than replying to 
> Dan
> with a cc to the list.  Address the topic of discussion in your own language, 
> with a new Subject header, rather than responding to his diatribes on a 
> point-by-point basis.    
> 
> This will make it possible for the other list members to see the variation in
> opinion, rather than how strongly people agree or disagree with Dan.
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
>