From: Paul D. Robertson[SMTP:proberts @
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 1997 4:23 AM
To: Stuart Johnson
Cc: firewalls @
Subject: Re: Apology
On 10 Apr 1997, Stuart Johnson wrote:
> Marcus responses have become emotional and I may have let my own postings to be on the
> emotional side. Based upon his private emails he sent me, I find it ironic that he publicly impugns my character, yet privately encourages me to consider his soon to be delivered and competing technology. I guess the world will soon find out why Marcus' technology is "better than Haystack and Wheelgroup" but at the same time, not competitive.
Marcus' responses were very level considering the personal attack
directed at him.
> The questions I raise are legitimate concerns for anyone considering the
> implementation of this technology across their enterprise.
The way you raised them was indicitive of a media tabloid. If you expect
to be taken seriously, and professionally, then you'll have to start posting
> I am sorry valid business concerns are construed as lunacy and mud
> slinging. Sometimes the truth hurts especially for the
I'm sorry you can't seem to articulate yourself without appearing to be a
raving, mud slinging lunitic.
> With asking these concerns, I am stunned that some of these security
> "experts" without any standards would publically dennounce
> someone as a "Network Loon" and try to put someone on trial.
If you don't understand the concept of extension of trust, and how anyone
with any depth of experience in this arena deals with it on a professional
basis, then you have a great deal to learn. Ask yourself what *you* have
done to earn the trust of this list (hint: posting negative innuendo
without facts doesn't gain trust points). Try to look at the apparent
veracity of what you have posted, and how long you have been posting, and
then look back at your target's behaviour. Marcus has acted *very*
selflessly in the past, and has contributed a great deal to this
community without any direct gain other than perhaps to his ego, which
certainly isn't as bad as it could be.
> I should have never been drawn into Marcus' roast as I am not
> evaluating his products anyways (as they don't exist).
Funny how you see yourself being drawn in, when, as far as this list is
concerned, the exchange looked like this:
1. Stuart pruports to have 'inside info' on Wheel Group's demise, phrased
as a very leading series of questions.
2. Marcus responds to questions with actual info.
3. Stuart attacks Marcus personally.
4. Marcus defends himself.
5. Stuart's "apology" turns into another looney rant.
> Contrary to emotional flames, I only desired to determine if the
> employee at Haystack was a disgruntled exception or whether the company
> was truly in as much turmoil and decay as was indicated. This concerns
> me and any other potential customers of this software. And to this
> end, customers of both Haystack and Wheelgroup have shared their
> experiences and have confirmed many of my observations with
> unbiased facts.
I haven't seen you post a *fact* yet. Innuendo, slurs, and even some
valid questions, but the meat just ain't in there. Gossip and innuendo
aren't appropriate here. We've gone from "I heard" to "my observations"
in the above paragraph. If it's "my observations", then indeed you were
not being forthright in your original post, and if it's "I heard", then
you've obviously made up your own mind already, and aren't objective.
Either way, stop deluding yourself, you've bought nothing of value to
Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions
net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact."