<p>Please feel free to point out anything that I said that you feel is a personal attack. Feel free to point out anything that I have said that is factually incorrect, and point out why in an objective manner. Otherwise, I don't care to hear/read it.</p>
<p>If "you are wrong" is an attack, well, then there are a lot of people worthy of "attack". You are making statements that range anywhere from just misinformed to completely off the fucking wall, and standing by their (perceived, by youself anyway) correctness without bothering to read up on anything that has been discussed here. You are spreading misinformation, simply put. Now, I might not be able to call out Gibson for it, because he is not here for it to matter nor be relevant. And frankly, pursuing such a thing is really not worth my time.</p>
<p>I can't speak for everyone, but I have the opinion that this group exists for us to help and learn from each other. That cannot happen in an environment where misinformation is allowed to go uncorrected. I and others here are absoutely willing to explain things (sometimes repeatedly if necessary!) to those who are willing to be receptive. Otherwise, we're all just wasting our time. I don't know about others, but I sure do hate wasting my time.</p>
<p>You acknowledge others' expertise, but only as a backhanded compliment. Your sentences are constructed such as to be insulting and "holier than thou" in some cases, particularly in some of your responses to my mails (such as your continued claims WRT NAT in responses to my messages). You are careful to heavily qualify things so as to make the implication that it is okay to blatently disregard helpful standards of communication on your own little island. Repeatedly you state that your "advanced" knowledge is sufficient for you to help others.</p>
<p>A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Your posts and the misinformation in them is a prime example of why. Your lack of desire to reference the standards AND YET CONTINUE THE THREAD is why you are looking more and more like an Internet troll. You'll note that I did not say that you *are* an Internet troll. But your posts on this thread sure do seem that way. You persist with your claims instead of doing the rational thing, which would be to study the referenced materials (and doing some independent research using the standards themselves) before continuing. I fail to understand why.</p>
<p>Moreover, I am not sure why whether or not I know you has a bloody thing to do with any of this. If the implication there is that I would need to know you better in order to better understand where you are coming from, I don't see how that'd be helpful at all. Information---lots of it---has been provided to you, without so much as a single advertiser putting one red cent in any of our pockets to post on this list. You have been repeatedly referred to the RFCs where there is absolutely correct information in order to clarify your misconceptions. Still, you insist that you are correct when in fact you would appear not to really have a clue.</p>
<p>Furthermore, absolutely none of this thread has been about opinions. I find it excessively common that people hide behind the vague notions of "just my opinion" and "interpretation". Discussing philsophy or religion is one thing. Discussing computer networking & security, especially in the context of best practices and standards, is another thing entirely. Its not like we are talking about anything new, bleeding-edge, or experimental here.</p>
<p>--<br>
Sent from my phone... a G2 running CM7 nightlies!</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Feb 11, 2011 4:51 PM, "Ron Frazier" <<a href="mailto:atllinuxenthinfo@c3energy.com" target="_blank">atllinuxenthinfo@c3energy.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"></div>