RE: Flaming of Doug (was RE: Case Tools)

["Tony McCune" <tmccune@crosslogic.com>]

Your ignorance of Doug's involvement in AJUG is clear.  Doug is on the board for AJUG and is very involved.  He addressed a question that was directly related to his area of expertise and product he represents.  He has a professional interest in making sure that the best most accurate message about the TogetherSoft product is represented.  You are entitled to disagree with him but not to degrade him for making his comments.  

I guess its time to take my personal flaming now.  Hey, maybe we can get back to talking about things that bring value to Java developers?

Regards,

Tony McCune
CrossLogic Inc
770-962-1915
Interested in an enterprise portal that will run on any server?  try http://xportaldemo.eitasoft.net/

-----Original Message-----
From: John D. Mitchell [mailto:johnm-advanced-java@non.net]
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:03 PM
To: Fernandez, Obed
Cc: 'ajug-members@www.ajug.org'
Subject: Flaming of Doug (was RE: Case Tools)

>>>>> "Fernandez," == Fernandez, Obed <ObedF@mediaocean.com> writes:
[...]
> I hope that I'm not the only one that thinks your flaming and ridicule of
> Doug, a regular participant and supporter of AJUG, was uncalled-for and
> rude.

(A) Doug clearly isn't a "regular participant" on this mailing list.  I'm
not sure where you got that.

(B) I didn't "flame" him.  You might want to look up what "flame" actually
means. *He* asked a question about whether or not he offended anyone and I
responded with information about proper 'netiquette.  Please actually read
the posts that people make.

(C) In a later response, *he* directly insulted me and I responded with the
facts.  If you can't see that then there's nothing I can do about that.
BTW, FWIW, he sent me a private apology for his flaming response.


> Let's remember that the people on this list are guys and gals that we see
> in person on a regular basis and worthy of respect accorded to
> friends. It's great that this list almost always maintains friendly and
> local feel, even if it means putting up with occasional annoying and
> off-topic posts. So next time anyone feels the surge of 'net
> righteousness rising do us all a favor and keep it private.

Just because you are willing to put up with blatant commercialism doesn't
mean that everybody else is.

Hosting of functions such as the JUG meetings and what not *are* a helpful,
generous thing.  I don't see how that gives them any special right over the
myriad other vendors to (a) not participate in the community and (b) still
expect that blatantly commercial postings are acceptable without being so
identified.

In the future, if everyone is willing to grant them an exception (and given
their contribution w.r.t. hosting the AJUG meetings, etc. I certainly think
that a reasonable amount is quite reasonable) then I'd suggest that any
commercial postings should be identified with one of the usual tags such as
as the "VENDOR:" prefix on the subject line or the pseudo-XML "<vendor>",
"</vendor>" bracketing within the messages.

'netiquette has evolved over time just like off-line etiquette has (over a
much longer period of time :-) precisely so that people can learn them and
follow them so that every single group in the world doesn't have to try to
reinvent all the time and we can all have some basic expectations about
what's acceptable and what's not.

Take care,
        John