On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM, brett watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 8, 2008, at 9:48 AM, Laurence F. Sheldon, Jr. wrote: > >> Patrick Giagnocavo wrote: >> >>> Turning nanog into a rehash of digg's technology section or the front >>> page of news.com reduces nanog's utility. >> >> As does the days and days of rehash of one of Gadi's postings. > > And all of this BS is even *more* off topic than folks are claiming Gadi's > post was. This list goes off topic all the time, at least Gadi's post was > technical. > >
Not only was his post technical, it was relevant to operator revenue. "Application" doesn't take these calls, the network operators do. I can't think of a more relevant NANOG post of late. Saving us a headache by predefining an issue seems quite on topic to me. FWIW. YMMV. -M< [ No offense towards "Application" intended.]
