On Fri, 26 Nov 2004, Danny Angus wrote:
Dean
At the risk of provoking you further I would say that Matthew's post is not
particularly unfair.
You do indeed appear to hold views on dealing with spam at odds with very
many others, and you communicate that robustly.
"At odds" with zealots perhaps. But I've been in this business a long
time, and have been dealing with nutty zealots for many, many years.
Matthew reminds us of views you have expressed in public, in fact I
remember reading them first time round.
You can't complain about that surely?
I complain about the attack. He doesn't dispute the views. If he had
facts to dispute them, he would present them. Instead, he just says they
should be ignored. Facts being far too inconvenient for radicals.
I admit that he could have worded this more tactfully, as an attack on
what your opinion rather than your personality, but sometimes it becomes
necessary for our sanity to cut through the crap and get on with the
work in hand.
Yes, I'm all for cutting through the crap.
You should perhaps consider whether your reaction is more likely to
engender yourself to others or to reinforce Matthew's point.
The point that is made by my complaint is that Matthew has no point.
If he had a point, he would have made it, rather than engage in personal
attack. Personal attack is the method of those who don't want to admit
they are wrong.
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000