🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4630jr$n14@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Cyronwode <cyronwode@aol.com> wrote:
>I posted a *message*, for the love of pete!

You posted a message that is the equivalant of sending USMail to the
person in question. As well, this message demanded a bunch of
information and actions. Not to mention that you were incouraging people
to foward the message to the media. The only thing that would come out of
that is Fletcher to be fired, or atleast severely inconvienced. Now I
would feel severely threatened, not to mention unappreciated, by that.

Btw, would it have been different if he has used the example of someone
handing a bank a piece of paper with the message that it was a holdup?
How about a email to the President of the US saying that they were going
to kill him? After all, both of these are *just* messages.

>Sorry, but you are SERIOUSLY mistaken in your analogous attribution of
>causality here. I apologized FIRST.

Only *after* he had to deal with your ranting and raving. As well, the
appology seems to have only been posted to news.admin.misc, and not
news.groups, austin.internet, austin.talk or austin.polotics. (Did I
miss any of the newsgroups you failed to cross post to?)

>Several days LATER (4 days on my
>server) Fletcher closed the gateway.

I have the following dates on news messages, and I'm *very* close to
cs.utexas.edu's newsfeed. (1 node inbetween)

Original Post - Oct 10 17:37
Fletcher's followup - Oct 11 17:18
"Appology" - Oct 12 04:56
Retiring of gateway - Oct 13 17:17

As I see this, the first post arrived at the end, or after the workday.
Thus Fletcher gets in in the morning, has to deal with the idiocy
involved, and then make his followup. The next day when he gets in, he
has somewhat of an appology, as well as a number of supportive messages
and possibly more hostile messages. This gives him a little less than 3
work days, from start to end, to investigate how difficult the program is
to modify, when was the last time it was worked on, and if he truly had
the time.

Note, I didn't even go into the fact that he works in an understaffed
Computer Science department running their servers and whatnot.

>>> But, hey, you're right. I should have been polite. We both know that.
>And
>>> so does everyone else who is following this thread. Okay? 
>> It's too fucking late for that.  
>This is a repeat of the above. Once again, you have the time sequence
>reversed. The apology came DAYS before Fletcher closed the gateway.

The apology came a day *after* Fletcher had explained himself. Him
having to take the time to research and explain it is the demise of the
whole thing. Not the fact that you weren't sorry for being rude and
inconsiderate.

Btw, if you read the message that the gateway sends back, you will see
that the *last* straw was in fact your original message.

      Later this week we were bullied in news.admin.misc,
      see <45eg9h$pa2@newsbf02.news.aol.com> for details.

Yes, I admit that he's had other complaints and problems, it just so
happens that yours was the last one involved, and made *publicly* as
opposed to privately. Someone else used proximate to describe the
issue wonderfully. 

      1: immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of events,
      causes, or effects) <an interest in proximate, rather than ultimate,
      goals --Reinhold Niebuhr>]

Ciao,

-- 
Richard Bainter          Mundanely     |    System Analyst        - OMG/CSD
Pug                      Generally     |    Applied Research Labs - U.Texas
   pug@arlut.utexas.edu     |     pug@eden.com     |     {any user}@pug.net
Note: The views may not reflect my employers, or even my own for that matter.