On Mon, 6 Dec 2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
You expect? Bill, nothing personal, but your S:N is 0:6 at this point. Not
one single op post ever. No meeting attendance. Not one answered technical
question. How about earning a few stripes before making demands of NANOG?
Srh may be in need of a config
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Paul Vixie wrote:
first of all, who somebody is or how longstanding or how clueful are all
subjective measures at best, and actually quite irrelevant. meritocracy,
which this and all similar street-level forums must be based on, depends
on the quality of what you're saying
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
I think Paul's idea is a good start: each message needs to have more signal
than noise, but we can all tolerate (or even enjoy) a small percentage of
noise so long as it's spread thin. I'd much rather the moderator(s) focus
their efforts
On Sat, 4 Dec 2004, J.D. Falk wrote:
On 12/04/04, Patrick W Gilmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think that makes it nearly impossible to run a good, informative
list. Certainly FAR more difficult than just leaving the list
completely unmoderated. I do not believe anyone here would argue
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Lou Katz wrote:
I was puzzled by this, since I basically lurk on the list, and
have made very few postings. I replied to Susan privately that,
among other things, I had no record nor recollection of any
previous warnings, and asked politely for information regarding
these,
On Fri, 3 Dec 2004, Hannigan, Martin wrote:
This is my first post directly to the NANOG list. Ever.
I'm not sure why you chose this thread as your sunshine, but
welcome.
In brief, I've never been largely concerned with where I jump into the
pool, or if my speedo matches the popular cut. Apologies
101 - 106 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
