[742] in North American Network Operators' Group
Why not NANOG....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mike O'Dell)
Tue Oct 17 11:46:21 1995
To: Tim Bass <bass@dune.silkroad.com>
cc: bmanning@isi.edu, com-priv@lists.psi.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:19:20 EDT."
<199510171319.JAA02550@dune.silkroad.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 11:37:52 -0400
From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo@uunet.uu.net>
Tim,
My point is eluding you...
Spam is in the mouth of the taster (to blast the Bard).
We do not need consensus for *me* to view the continued barage
of the NANOG list with this topic as a clear example of spamming.
So we have a bit of a quandry, don't we? Who and how many get to decide
what is Spam and what is Treat? (an alternate brand of similar
"luncheon meat" for the non-US enduring this) Any attempt to
make rules must address this first and foremost. And I humbly
suggest that such an effort will go onto the rocks right there.
As for why not NANOG?
I have no interest in pursuing this but also have on intention of
dropping off NANOG until this dies down. Further, I don't
see a groundswell of support by North American Network Operators
(everything but the Group - and that's the point).
If com-priv wishes to grind the grist of this topic until
the particles are invisible, please, be my guest. Com-priv has
a long history of chewing bones 'til the marrow is long-gone.
Just please take the bread and mayonaise elsewhere.
Cordially,
-mo
PS - appologies to NANOG for carboning on this.
It will be my last one on this topic.
