🚀 go-pugleaf

Kenneth Edward Smith (cg591@torfree.net) wrote:
: Nabil Mohamed El-Khodari (ad613@torfree.net) wrote:
: [major snippage to reduce this to size]
[and more; had to get out the last one quick as the warnings were up...]


: : : How many name servers a facility wants to have is a design issue, which 
: : : means there is choice involved.  Using your argument, why not have just 
: : : one since they hardly ever go down (by the way, I don't concur; 
: : : nameservers have the same downtime problems as any other system 
: : : component).  As to the issues about the T1:  this does not obviously 
: : : relate to the other matters discussed, and appears to be a tangent.

: : What is exactly your point?

: You just illustrated it.  If you don't understand, you simply try to 
: deflect the conversation or claim the other person didn't make sense.  
: David's explanation wasn't off here at all, but you tried to reroute it 
: by taking it off on a tangent.

: : : You obviously haven't delved into all the applications and 
: : : interpretations available with your new toys^H^H^H^H tools.  Again, if 
: : : you had half a clue you could.

: : Again, I can use a clue or two. Obviously this is not - yet - my 
: : speciality as you are. So if someone other than the system 
: : administrator or Rogers can monitor the usage, particularly by the system 
: : administrator himself, that would be nice.

: You could use a clue-by-four.  You are below newbie in this regard, 
: having actual misconceptions requring correction rather than a lack of 
: knowledge.  The sysadmin of a Unix based system IS God.  I am not one.  I 
: am what I would call a competent (reasonably) Unix user, who has bothered 
: to pay attention to material written about the operating system.

: I see no need to monitor the sysaadmins' activities unless it can be 
: shown there is some actual evidence that they are up to no good.

: : : No, actually even retail marketing experts now concede that the customer 
: : : is often dead wrong; and this is even more true when it comes to services 
: : : and advisory services in particular.

: : : Nabil, you seem not to grasp the fact that every machine on the Internet 
: : : constantly routes mail through its connections for countless other 
: : : machines on the Internet.  It is that very cooperation that makes it all 
: : : work; without it, there is no Internet.  Without it, what we have are 
: : : local networks serving as newer versions of bulletin board systems.

: : Unfortunately, I happen to know that. There is a difference between 
: : servers conveying messages to each other to reach their destination and a 
: : server that is actually acting like another server, but using other 
: : 'free' resources.

I might even concede this point, if I actually could make sense of your 
second sentence at all.  But I refuse to agree with any sentence that 
makes less sense than me.

: : : If you're suggesting that we should cut ourselves out of the Internet and 
: : : function as a community bulletin board only, then I think everyone here 
: : : must strongly disagree.

: : No. you are misrepresenting my concern. The TFN should not be married to 
: : GTS or CSAS or whatever. TFN can stand alone. Do not PLEASE tell me that 
: : the 'advantages' TFN has from this out-weigh the 'abuse' - and its 
: : consequences on TFN if whoever is donating these services knows what is 
: : happening - that - with a little salt - MAY - as I cannot prove it - happen.

You think we should cut loose Bruce, Jim and CSAS.  On the basis that 
they have fairly significant effects on our systems.  And little else 
other than the fact that you don't like them.  Understand this, Nabil; 
some person or group of persons must have the level of access Bruce has.  
It would be best for all concerned if that were person were at least a 
fraction as qualified as Bruce is.  That person or persons will have 
plenty of Opportunity to Maybe misuse the system.  So what's the specific 
problem with Bruce and CSAS?  Something more definite than the fact you 
don't like them would be nice.

: : : Unless TFN is paying the bill for his ISDN connection, Bruce is paying 
: : : appropriately for the service he's getting.

: : Again you are twisting my meaning. 

Maybe I'm not twisting it, but you simply have failed to express yourself 
with anything approaching clarity and as a result what I think you're 
saying isn't what you meant to say.  Saying I twisted it implies I am 
doing so deliberately, and I'm not.

: : : I expect the people at Rogers have greater understanding of how this 
: : : network of networks functions than you do, and likewise those at 
: : : Ryerson.  At least, I sure hope so...  No, the average TFN user has not 
: : : been affected.

: : : [snipping much material Nabil chose not to respond to...]

: : : : : No one is abusing TFN computing resources here.

: : : Except Nabil El-Khodari.  And he's abusing our greatest resources; our 
: : : volunteers who actually have the capacity to make this thing work.

: : : In summary, Nabil has insisted that he wanted these answers only from 
: : : David Jones, who alone of the board techies he deems worthy of his 
: : : respect.  Then, upon being told he's way off in left field, he decides to 
: : : ignore the explanations and attempt to refute them with his usual lack of 
: : : regard for conventional logic coupled with a profound dearth of actual 
: : : information.

: : : Nabil, you are far, far beneath contempt.  I know I'm violating my own 
: : : rallying cry here, but I suggest to David that attempting further 
: : : discourse with this man is useless and IMO even counterproductive.

: : Thank you any way.

I suppose this is an attempt to appear reasonable even in the face of a 
"cruel" attack.  Ah, what the heck, I get few enough thanks as it is.  
You're welcome.  Any time ;->

Ciao, Ken Smith <*>
cg591@torfree.net
--