|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:31:16 -0400
From: Scott McGrath <mcgrath@fas.harvard.edu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
CC: Martin Hannigan <hannigan@gmail.com>, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <24500.1206134286@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
I'll take that bet Valdis
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:44:39 EDT, Martin Hannigan said:
>
>
>> <personal opinion>
>>
>> I dont think that there's any issue at all to be honest. NANOG isn't
>> just for the clued.
>>
>> </personal opinion>
>>
>
> And more to the point - if somebody manages to go through all the hoops needed
> to ask a basic question on the NANOG list, it demonstrates a desire to
> accumulate clue - so we should encourage those people. I'll make the
> prediction that in 5 years, the person who *started* this thread will be
> substantially more clued than the lead network engineer at many AS's (you all
> know the ones I mean - that AS that's 1 or 2 hops away from you that on a
> weekly basis do something that makes you want to go and inject clue with a
> baseball bat..)
>
>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |