ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith) (01/18/90)
In article <5299@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >In article <37833@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >>joshi@cs.purdue.EDU (Anupam Joshi) writes: >> >>> 1) Is there a difference between SWLing and DXing ? If so, what ? > >Well, chuq, since you obviously can't read (the evidence is in >Anupam's original posting, where he specifically asks people to >email him the answers to his questions and not to post) it seems >only fitting that you would have installed your mail-rejector >to prevent you from being asked to read. > >Way to uphold the cause of illiteracy in America, chuq. >I hope Apple knows that they allow dysfunctional people >to sully their image with moronic judgmental errors and >infantile reactions to criticism. If not, I know where >they live, and they soon will. Hello. I manage the Systems Administrators and Postmaster at Apple.com (along with other tasks...). Erik Fair is our Postmaster, and he is presently on vacation, so I guess I'll have to deal with this. Yes, we know that Chuq works here. All Apple employees are allowed to have accounts if they wish them. I don't know what 'dysfunctional people' are. I am partly deaf, but I don't think that you were talking about disABLED folks... I don't think Chuq qualifies for either category, but that is my personal oppinion. Your milage may vary. As for image and 'moronic judgment': Each Apple person is responsible for their own postings. We have no thought police enforcing correctness. I, personally, think that posting a reply which may be thought to be of general interest in response to a request for email is OK from time to time. It is an individual decision of little importance. Your posting seems to me to be self descriptive more than it is descriptive of Chuq's postings; but I may be reading it incorrectly, please forgive me if I am. >But here's what you missed: [ Bulk of automatically bounced mail message deleted.] > Golly, chuqqhhhhhch, but the first thing I noticed about our > young friend was that he had the gall, the balls, the > unmitigated audacity to ask that replies be sent via _e-mail_! > > I mean, the utter nerve of this little non.net.egotist, to > presume to deny you and me our Ken-Thompson-given RIGHT to > post answers to the simplest questions which thus prove that > we are scholars as well as verbal sluices. > > --Blair > "Get a fucking clue, asshole." Hmm, it would seem to me that your letter is mostly a personal attack on Chuq and that your posting is mostly another personal attack due to your mail being bounced. If this content is representative of typical mail, I can understand the desire to bounce it. From all the evidence I have before me, I see no reason to be critical of Chuq. While I don't post as much as he does, and sometimes don't agree with his positions, his behaviour seems reasonable and his postings are usually sound. I plan no action. (BTW, making the followup line on your posting 'misc.test' was an interesting action. I don't think this topic belongs in the original groups you posted to {rec.radio.shortwave,alt.flame} but 'misc.test' would also seem to be wrong.) Having stated my position on Chuq's postings, I will now leave this discussion (and the FLAME WARS that will undoubtedly follow). Further discussion on this topic will take place without my involvement. If you have further complaints about postings from Apple, please email them to me for reply and/or disposition. -- E. Michael Smith ems@apple.COM 'Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.' - Goethe I am not responsible nor is anyone else. Everything is disclaimed.
victor@walt.cc.utexas.edu (Victor Menayang) (01/18/90)
Could somebody tell me what's this all about? I guess this is the second Usenet-type of posting. Sure hope we got no more of this, and hope Chuq will reply directly to Blair. Victor Menayang victor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu vm@UTXVM.BITNET ------------------------------------------------------------------------