From: I.SaywardK on Wed, Jan 26, 1994 9:17 PM
Subject: RE: Some very general questions
To: Amanda Walker; PEM
I+pSaywardK+aVitro_Corp+p_Mail_Server%Vitro_NLON(_at_)mcimail(_dot_)com writes:
I didn't realize you could determine when a person has lied
in his message. This has grand implications.
If someone claims to have read a particular document, but shows no
indication of having done so (i.e., asks questions which are
specifically addressed in it), one can only conclude that either they
have not, in fact, read the document or they are too stupid to
understand the answer.
I think you missed my point.
I have read the subject RFCs and must admit that I don't understand
all that I have read. I also don't consider myself 'too stupid to
understand the answer'. My point was that there are more civilized ways
of directing someone's attention to the (perhaps obvious) references
than calling them a liar. I have spent a while on this list without
submitting my own comments, until I am able to get up to speed with the
subject matter. I'm sure others do the same thing, and eventually we
will probably have useful thoughts and insights to contribute. But
a little arrogance by the 'experts' on the list will certainly dampen
any enthusiasm to contribute.
How about "perhaps you should reread section ___ of RFC ___, because
most of your questions are answered there"?
Sorry if you consider this wasting bandwidth... I'm done now.
Ken Sayward
sayward(_at_)vsdec(_dot_)nl(_dot_)nuwc(_dot_)navy(_dot_)mil