[ppml] 2005-1:Business Need for PI Assignments

[Owen DeLong]

MD>> > Not at all. Innovation comes about when traditional ways of doing
MD>> > things can no longer cope. It has nothing to do with IPv6 address
MD>> > conservation. If we run out of IPv6 addresses in the year 2105, then
MD>> > that may spark some innovation.
>> >
OD>> So you're saying we should waste addresses today in order to limit the
OD>> useful live of IPv6 because that will accelerate our development of the
OD>> next protocol.  Michael, you have a unique way of viewing the world.
>
MD> And one of the reasons that I avoid mentioning names in replies is
MD> because it requires extra work to make sure that I really am replying
MD> to the train of thought of the named individual. It also leads to
MD> personal clashes which are not terribly fruitful. Here, you actually
MD> are quoting something that I wrote on fragmentation, but you are
MD> slandering
MD> me as well because this reference to my name again implies that I wrote
MD> Ed Lewis's words above.
>
Michael,
	It was not my intent to slander you, and, I had no delusion
that you were responsible for Ed's words.  I think my reply was
focused entirely on your statement, however, I left Ed's words in
for context because your words made little sense without them.

MD> It is better to restrict the conversation to ideas and not the
MD> personalities
MD> behind them. If you don't like the personalities, then don't reply to
MD> their
MD> messages at all. For instance, as a matter of policy, I never reply to
MD> anything written by Jeff Williams.
>

	Again, while I mentioned you by name in this case, it was not
intended as a personal attack.  I know we often disagree, but, I think
I have always respected you in those disagreements.  I mentioned your
name only to clarify which portion of the quoted text my reply was
directed towards.

	Hopefully my attribution clarifications above will address
your concerns on this message:

	OD = Owen DeLong
	MD = Michael Dillon

	BTW, as near as I can tell, you didn't address my interpretation
of your statement.  Can I presume from that, my interpretation was your
intended meaning?


Owen



-- 
If this message was not signed with gpg key 0FE2AA3D, it's probably
a forgery.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050427/35fb7426/attachment.sig>