On 5/11/2014 3:26 PM, Al Iverson via dmarc-discuss wrote: > On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Dave Crocker <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote: >> Although it does prompt the question of why you are working so hard to >> avoid responding to the substance of the question I asked. >> >> And no, I'm not expecting a useful response. > > Dave, I apologize for frustrating you.
Al, More from the Book of Distraction. FWIW, I'm not frustrated; actually your responses are mildly amusing, since you keep responding -- even as you note here that you are not obligated to -- but consistently without attending to the substance or embellishing it with biasing descriptors, like inviolable. > What you call carefully formed, I look at and > go, interesting questions, but very cart before the horse, and I'm not > a student in attendance at a lecture you're presenting, so, no, you > don't get to call on me and demand that I answer you. The normal way to not answer a question is to not answer it. The normal way to conduct productive exchange is to respond to substance. The question I asked is the predicate to possible later questions: Should an archive be a record of what is received? All sorts of additional questions might follow, including the ones you sought to jump to. The horse is the assertion that an archive is supposed to be a record of what was seen by recipients. You appear to think otherwise and so I asked after that key point. > I find the > tactic distasteful and declined to respond to it as you desired. I can certainly see the possibility that you find it distasteful for you to ask a rhetorical and apparently dismissive question, but then have someone respond by asking you to respond constructively to a substantive, basic question. What's impressive is that you'd work this hard to dodge such a simple and basic question. > Back to the point, which is: I'd like to understand the operational > issue before I'm willing to jump to the existential crisis of what I > should or shouldn't want from a list archive. The posting of yours that I first questioned did not seek understanding. Your responses to me have not sought understanding. So to the extent that you really do seek to understand the operational issue, please consider responding to points of substance rather than process. > I saw John say, "the mail going into the archive isn't the same as the > mail going out to the list." In what way? I look at the archive and I > see several ways. Note that an exercise like this is relevant only if one thinks it significant that an archive might differ from what is received. Note that the message I originally sent questioned your apparent lack of concern for that difference and so I asked for explicit clarification from you. Looking at the detailed differences and considering which might be significant and which might not could be a reasonable exercise... once one decides that an archive should be a record of what recipients see... d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list dmarc-discuss@dmarc.org http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
