Subject: Fw: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour. figures)

From: "Doug" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 21:59:16 -0500

I am wondering, is Daniel Senie normally rude to people she doesn't know or
is she just having a bad day? I sent a message out with some informal
suggestions in it that I thought might be helpful and she instantly jumps
down my throat with a nasty reply? It isn't like she or anyone can accuse me
of being a troll as I have only posted once or twice before. I am sorry I
didn't consult my english professor or a text for proper form before I sent
it (I really am), but I guess I thought it was an INFORMAL forum and I know
my email was intended as an informal thought process to be shared with the
group on an INFORMAL basis. Well anyway let me know what is going on with
this as I am confused now (I really don't understand the attitude). I have
included the entire text of her message below as well as my reply so
everyone might know what I am talking about.

Her message

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Senie" <[email-masked]>
To: "Doug" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued

> Paragraph breaks MIGHT have made your email readable. Instead, I suspect
> many folks will just hit delete.
>

My reply to her

Well, I am sorry Mrs. Senie, that you feel the need to flame me for throwing
out a few informal ideas in an informal open forum. Next time I will be sure
to consult my old english professor on the proper format.

Jeesh Couldn't come up with one descent comment could ya?

What's next spelling errors and typos

Doug

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Senie" <[email-masked]>
To: "Doug" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: namedroppers, continued

> Paragraph breaks MIGHT have made your email readable. Instead, I suspect
> many folks will just hit delete.
>

---

From: Melinda Shore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:10:56 -0500

I'm not sure which is more impressive - that you chose to
forward private email to several mailing lists, or that you
chose to insult someone by referring to him as a woman.  

Melinda

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2003 23:34:55 -0500

> chose to insult someone by referring to him as a woman.  

Could be worse.  We've had no complaints from any of the robotic or
space-alien intelligences about the human-centric language used on this list,
even in the face of evidence that there are multiple representatives
of each of those categories lurking (and sometimes even posting)....

In addition, I can think of a number of lunatic-fringe feminists who would
start frothing at the mouth for the undeserved compliment implicit in the
gender error....

---

From: "Doug" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 00:59:41 -0500

Grenvill Armitage,

That is not the point and you know it. It is all about the nonsense
attitude.
Just ask yourself if it was all about making a polite suggestion then tell
me
why the word "might" was capitalized. Try reading what she wrote and
putting emphasis on that word. Oh yeah I am going to continue to repost
the nonsense as long as they are rude enough to keep sending it. The
purpose of it is so that everyone knows how they are treating people and
so that the other people that are being harassed by this incredibly rude
person know that it is not just them and that this person is an incredible
TROLL. What you are refering to as netiquette is an unspoken rule of
USENET not a mailing list as far as I know, so I don't believe it applies
here.
In addition, I would like to add I thought this was a forum for
professionals
not kids. Before you start claiming that this person is not being a TROLL
check out what the next response was. It isn't very professional or
condusive
to getting anything done in my opinion. Of course maybe the IETF isn't
interested in getting anything done or talking about any real ideas. What do
you think? I think that anyone that makes replies to messages in a public
forum
like THIS one which (unlike what usenet has turned into) is supposed to be
about solving problems and getting things done, needs to be revealed to the
group as a TROLL and a CHILD. I will personally be filtering the rest of the
email from her since I don't have the time nor the desire to deal with the
stupidity
and I know there are plenty of other people here with things to say that are
worth hearing. Hopefully you won't be the next person to go in my filter
Grenville
since I actually believe you were trying to do something here even if it was
misguided. Bye bye Daniel. Oh, don't bother replying to my message with the
obligatory "well fine I will ignore you to" because I won't see it.

P.S. If you doubt the my claim that it was the entire message either time I
can
always post them as file attachments for the whole group to see.

Done with this nonsense now,
Doug
[email-masked]
704-721-0212

what follows is the childish reply I got from Daniel Senie
------------------------------------
At 09:40 PM 1/5/2003

>>Well, I am sorry Mrs. Senie,
>
>Mrs.? heh.
>
>>  that you feel the need to flame me for throwing
>You perhaps mean "decent"? The word you used refers to decreasing altitude.
>>
>>
>Absolutely. Should you wish to communicate your ideas to others, it'd
>REALLY help if you learned to communicate effectively.
-------------------------------------------------
end of childish rant from Daniel Senie

Oh and for your information Daniel I think anyone with a reading level over
fourth grade could understand what I said and I think everyone that did
bother to read it knows it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "grenville armitage" <[email-masked]>
To: "Doug" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2003 10:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour.
figures)

> Doug wrote:
> > is she just having a bad day?
>
> My reading of what you claim is the entirety of Senie's email to you
> is that you received a perfectly valid and succint suggestion. You seem
> to be overreacting, and committing a greater netiquette sin of re-posting
> someone's private email to you.
>
> What exactly are you upset about?
>
> cheers,
> gja
> --
> Grenville Armitage
> http://caia.swin.edu.au

---

From: grenville armitage <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2003 18:10:42 +1100

Doug re-posts and cross-posts yet another private email and writes:
	[..]
> What you are refering to as netiquette is an unspoken rule of

I respectfully suggest you are mistaken. (On a number of points, and
this one in particular.)

	[..]
> Hopefully you won't be the next person to go in my filter
> Grenville

Either way is fine with me :)

	[..]
> always post them as file attachments for the whole group to see.

No need. I just wasn't sure if you'd posted the entire message because,
based on what you re-posted, there didn't seem to be enough to
get all worked up about. Still doesn't, but you're free to assume
all you want about how things are supposed to work in the IETF. You've
clearly been around this organization and our mailing lists for a long time.

cheers,
gja
-- 
Grenville Armitage
http://caia.swin.edu.au

---

From: "Doug" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 02:33:26 -0500

----- Original Message -----
From: "grenville armitage" <[email-masked]>
To: "Doug" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 2:10 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: namedroppers, continued (flamed in less than an hour.
figures)

> Doug re-posts and cross-posts yet another private email and writes:

the reason it was cross posted was that I was not sure which mailing list
you were reading it on or Daniel either for that matter.

> > USENET not a mailing list as far as I know, so I don't believe it
applies

"as far as I know, so I don't believe" IE take it for what it is (my
opinion) and if I am indeed mistaken sorry to bother you with my mistake.

> Either way is fine with me :)

Me to... I doubt you will be going there as your actually replying to me in
some sort of a civil manner but I guess you never know what tommorow will
bring.

> get all worked up about. Still doesn't, but you're free to assume

Good I really didn't want to have to post it again. The insult she levered
against me is that she was implying that not only did I not format it
incorrectly but that readers of it would not be able to understand it even
if I had inserted the paragraph breaks she was requesting. This was intended
as a shot at my ability to communicate.

> clearly been around this organization and our mailing lists for a long
time.

As far as how things work in the IETF well I am kind of new here since I
have only been subscribed to the list for about a year now and I have only
made as I stated one or two other posts. I guess I just assumed this was a
forum for professional adults that would be free from the usual trolling and
childish insults found in other arenas like usenet. Perhaps I was wrong but
I would like to think that I wasn't. Then again don't we all like to be
right about things like that.

> gja

Now can we be done with this nonsense?
Thanks,
Doug