At 10:42 AM 11/22/99 -0800, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
>At 10:34 AM -0500 11/22/99, Nick Simicich wrote:
>> In other words, your attack on me is simply as wrong as your perception of
>As everything that doesn't meet your standards seems to be wrong, Nick.
And everything that does meet your standards is right?
Chuq, other than this AOL thing, what is it you have said that I have
disagreed with that is so discouraging to you?
I'm serious about this. I happen to have a complete log of all mail I've
sent to list-managers since I subscribed.
I enumerated the messages by topic in a prior post.
I've posted a fair bit on topica. I've posted a fair bit on AOL. Assume
that all those were strong disagreements with you and attacks on you
Where is all the disagreement that justifies this personal attack? Where
are the personal attacks "every time you open your mouth"?
>If Ronald is the list troll, you're the list Eeyore.
And you are the ancient wisdom of the list, the ultimate arbiter in all
matters? I just want to get the titles right here so that I can show all
>> Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, Chuq.
>Oh, I won't.
>> But you are mistaking attacks on you for
>> attacks on your ideas. When you can no longer tell the difference, it *is*
>> time for you to leave the list
>it sure is. But the same is true when you no longer can tell whether
>you're attacking the idea or the person, or simply lashing out at
>anything you see. That goes both ways, Nick. I'm not burned out.
The point is that I'm not lashing out at anything I see. I am lashing out
at laughable ideas. By my posting record, I've lashed out twice: Once was
at the laughable idea that topica.com was somehow above the UBE customs and
rules that every responsible netizen lives by, and again at the laughable
idea that AOL was simply too big to do a good job of processing their
e-mail. I'm sorry, but these ideas were and are laughable, in my opinion.
By the way, many respectable and otherwise intelligent people hold
I can turn this one around as well. There was an idea expressed here:
That AOL should or should not be expected to do a better job of handling
mail. People were speculating on the prooblem. Some even speculated about
how to fix it. Those *ideas* might have been good or bad. You brought it
to a personal level by basically saying that anyone who thought it was easy
to do mail at this scale was somehow too stupid to comment about it because
you *knew* it was a real hard problem.
To quote a wise man from something I read just recently, "But the same is
true when you no longer can tell whether you're attacking the idea or the
person, or simply lashing out at anything you see. That goes both ways, Nick."
If you can't tell that you are and have engaged in personal attack, then I
put it to you that you are burned out.
Now, you want people to speculate on the future of mailing lists, which
implies e-mail, but we are too stupid to design a large system that works
well? We better stick to the simple stuff we understand real well. Which
means we are the wrong audience to discuss the futures of anything.
I wish you'd make up your mind.
>> But it is odd that you stay here to help people, while your perception of
>> the list does not include helping people.
>I do a lot of helping. Mostly privately. But bluntly, it's hard to
>stay motivated when every time yo open your yap, you seem to end up
>in the latest iteration of the same fights you've had time and time
And why does that happen, Chuq? Why are you, of all people, getting lashed
out at every time you open your yap? Why am I doing it? For that matter,
where is the e-mail that shows me doing it?
>> Chuq, if you want this sort of list, make sure only to invite people who
>> agree with you.
>Funny, there are only two people on this list I feel would be
>destructive to such a list, and which are the crux of why I'm
>considering leaving. And just as funny, there are lots more people on
>this lsit than two that disagree with me....
I stick by my point. If it weren't us it would be the next two who
happened to disagree with you.
If you do form this list, I promise I won't join, knowing how you feel
about this. Besides, my place is here as list eeyore. Maybe the list
troll will agree that the list you form would be a place he didn't want to
go as well.
>you can believe what you want, Nick, but "only invite the guys you
>agree with" is a stupid argument, and IMHO, juvenile and provably
Yes, I agree it is a juvenile. Because, frankly, I was just restating a
summary of your words back to you.
Look, Chuq, you've been around the net longer than I have. Frankly, the
"I'm taking my ball and bat and forming another list because I don't like
the people here" argument has been made many times, and it is *always*
juvenile. My restatement of your words was equally juvenile, but I didn't
originate the juvenile idea, I just put it into simpler terms.
I believe strongly that anyone who has been around for as long as you have
has seen this whole mess before and can recognize it for the ploy that it
It is not juvenile to form another list, especially if you want to talk
about something else. It is juvenile to use the "this list is somehow
inferior because it does not want to talk about things I want to talk
about, in the way I want to talk about them" argument.
> I don't require people agree with me. I leave that for Ronald
>and you. I simply wish that people give me the ability to disagree
>and hold my own views. the only thing I'm intolerant of is
But, Chuq, if represents my reading of your paragraph. You are looking to
reach consensus. So am I. You think that it is impossible for AOL to do a
good job on e-mail or that they are doing the best possible job with their
e-mail or that I'm too stupid to criticize the job that they are doing or
Your first comments were beliefs, you have the right to express them.
People have the right to disagree with you. When you start the personal
attacks with the "you people don't understand how hard this is or they
would just shut up bullshit," you brought this to a personal level.
Frankly, you invited the personal attacks in return.
>> The other point is that you run really large mailing lists,
>No, I run lists of all sizes, from about 12 up.
>> and are
>> interested in large mailing list architecture.
>No, again. That's ONE of the things I'm interested in. But I've also
>been researching where to go with the servers I run for small-medium
>systems as well.
Well, fine. When you have talked about list architecture, you've mostly
talked about big lists, in so far as I remember.
>> weight than what MJ2 looks to be coming up as, and the more I look at it,
>> the more a lightweight non-transactional free SQL engine like MySQL looks
>take a look at sympa. I think it's close to what you're looking for,
>and technically, looks pretty encouraging. I hope to run it through
>it's paces in january, once I get all my servers upgraded.
>> interested in really large mailing list architecture. Maybe this is not
>> the right mailing list for you anymore. That is only a decision you can
>No, it probably isn't, but not for the reasons you mention or imply.
>but the question is, should the list be changed? or should I take
>off? That's not up to me, it's up to the list at large.
>I don't pretend the list ought to be what I demand it to be -- but
>neither should you presume to believe that it shouldn't be changed (I
>specifically am avoiding using the term fixed, but it's tempting).
I put to you the same suggestion that was put before Allan Newsome: If you
want this list to be about something, post about it.
>Pokemon is a game where children go into the woods and capture furry
>little creatures and then bring them home and teach them to pit fight.
Come on, not *all* of them are furry.
Do you have 10 years experience?
Or one month's experience repeated 120 times?
Nick Simicich mailto:email@example.com or (last choice)
http://scifi.squawk.com/njs.html -- Stop by and Light Up The World!