From: John Stanley (stanley@peak.org)
Date: Thu Jun 20 2002 - 13:40:55 CDT
David Barr (barr@visi.com):
> I think he's doing an excellent job, especially considering the nonsense
> that people try to pass off as meaningful arguments.
Would you be referring to the argument that redefines "unacceptable" as
"not not acceptable" by any chance? No, I didn't think so.
> You raise a few valid points, but it is intermixed with such long
> diatrabes, rantings,
I explain the process step by step because it seems that people have a
hard time without the intermediate reasoning. Others leap from A to Z and
can't be bothered to explain how they got past B. To you, I"rant" and a
"diatribe". Well, sorry you feel that way, but part of working on a
committee is dealing with the differing styles of the people involved.
I ask explicit direct questions that never seem to be answered, but might
explain why we have differing opinions. Yes, it is easier to wave your
hands and call it a "rant" instead of answering the hard questions. I'm
sorry you chose that way out.
> and personal attacks
When I get attacked, I fight back. I understand your rationalization that
it's ok for people to attack me because I am a "kook" and argue unpopular
opinions sometimes, but it is hypocritical to complain that _I_ make
personal statements when people attack me or stuff words in my mouth for
me and then blame me for the heat in the kitchen. This crap about how I
didn't speak up before last call being a problem, but not a problem for
anyone else who is doing it, is just one straw.
> It takes someone else to pick out the few morsels of truth in your emails
If "someone else" is always responsible for the truth, then we are left
with draft 7 of USEFOR. What I seem to hear you saying is that I am right
but you don't care because you don't like the way I say things. Ok, point
understood. Got it. Check. Roger.
> and frankly almost everyone is tired of it.
And you don't think I am tired of it, too? I get tired of people putting
words in my mouth, insulting me, and ignoring explicit direct questions
that might help explain the differences. (Why does a followup agent care
what is in the From header? What news systems are damaged by invalid email
addresses? etc.) This is supposed to be a working GROUP, not a few sage
old owls patting the rest of us on the head saying "trust us, we're always
right".
I guess if you don't care, why should I? It's not like this standard is
going to have much attention paid to it anyway.