Date: Fri, 06 Feb 1998 06:34:16 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Rob Levandowski <robl@phoebe.accinet.net> Cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>, davidg@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, "Matt Stein" <matt@ican.net> Subject: Re: Year 2000 compliance statement? Message-ID: <352.886775656@gringo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 06 Feb 1998 09:12:39 EST." <199802061411.JAA10160@phoebe.accinet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Given FreeBSD's nature, and that I knew there were mailing list > instructions on another page, I presumed that this address was more > restricted. Hence, when I got back that first message, whose phrasing > implied that it was from someone empowered to speak for the team, I was > upset. I think a quick glance at the header would still have been enough to make it more than clear that such was not the case, as David has already pointed out. > On the other hand, I do tend to feel that your response above begs the > question. The FreeBSD web pages, and its supporters, make a case that > FreeBSD is a reasonable alternative to commercial workstations, even in > corporate environments. It seems to me that the FreeBSD team wants to be > taken seriously. As an end-user, I don't want to be told to "shove it," It is and it does. We can hardly help the fact that some random person, and evidently a prankster at that, told you to "shove it" and that person has already sent an apology, so I'm not sure that anything more could or should be done about the incident. > Your response, which takes the tack of maligning my character and > questioning my faculties, doesn't make me think the FreeBSD team is > looking to be taken seriously. That's especially true in light of your > position as "Public Relations and Corporate Liasion," as the Web pages > state. You're free to come to that conclusion though there's ample evidence to the contrary. We are taken seriously, just as I take unwarranted attacks upon the project seriously. It's very simple: You made an entirely baseless assumption, leaped into the abyss on the basis of that assumption and now you'd like to compound your error by blaming the reporter for simply commenting on the actions of the reportee. I'm sorry, but that simply won't wash and I think you can only dig yourself in deeper by continuing to defend an indefensible position. Why not simply admit you made a mistake, acted rashly, and let us all move on? Any reasonably courageous person would feel contrite about laying blame on the wrong doorstep and not simply attack the first person to note that an error had been made. By doing so, you only further lower your estimation in the eyes of many on this very public mailing list and that hardly suggests to me that you desire to be taken seriously either, making your own accusations hypocritical at best. The next move is up to you. Have a nice day. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?352.886775656>