Sure Karl. I'm sorry. I'm not sure what for, but it's not a problem.
I didn't "out" myself Karl. I was never IN. You came charging forth to
bring to light the hidden secrets of the universe. The problem is, they
never were a secret.
>
> Thank you for admitting that you simply don't know what the central site
> hardware was that was on the other end of your K56Flex calls in your
other
> message which you recently posted.
>
> That pretty much seals it from my point of view credibility-wise.
>
> I was right - you didn't check - and now you've admitted it.
>
Not precisely. We don't care, and THAT pretty much seals it. I can find
out in a second who is running what. But it doesn't matter for this test.
It may matter for the test you would prefer we ran. But it doesn't for this
one. And need I repeat that you offered a public bet of $1000 in this
conference that NONE of the ports ran Livingston. We did present one, and
indeed it does, and indeed I haven't received a check yet.
>
> The email in support of my point of view on this just keeps rolling
in....
You've hit on this a couple of times Karl. Who are you trying to reach
with this? I've probably got over a hundred private mails over this
thread. That's how it always goes with public discussions. That's e-mail.
Everyone knows it. You've been in a zillion flame wars and are kind of
known for them in fact. What's new here? Do we take a tally? What's the
point? Did you just discover this phenomenon? It happens every time. And
it's probably a good thing. If everybody jumps in with "me too, I'm with
you" IN the public forum, it just clogs everything up. In addition to
"tons of love letters every day" in this case we've actually received some
data privately. And it's opened my eyes to some of the disjuncture.
Basically, ISP logs show the same thing we show, but from a very different
perspective. There's no delineation between ordinary V.34 calls and failed
K56flex calls that drop to V.34. This explains some of the evident
disparity between what we're seeing and what some of the ISPs are seeing.
You want a tally of attaboys? 123. Though some also had questions and
data.
I've also given some thought to your Boycott. I think there's something
you don't understand about these Boycott's and so I'm going to try to help.
First, if you DON'T come to an event or read a magazine, it kind of only
counts ONCE. If you double don't, it doesn't really increase the effect by
100% as you appear to imagine. If on three succeeding days, you post a
message that you STILL aren't coming, again, this does not improve the
impact much over the FIRST not coming. It only counts ONCE.
What you need for this Karl, is a forum. Some way for people to NOTICE
that you didn't come and perhaps CARE about it. Noticing and caring are
real important in boycott work. I can't really cause the latter to happen
directly. But I've given this some thought, and as a result of the
Livingston crises in faith in Boardwatch, I've got a couple of spare
session slots that have come up suddenly. We're going to host a KARL
DENNINGER ISN"T HERE session during ISPCON in Baltimore. I'll introduce
you, give a little background on the origins of the session and who you
are, and what I know of you over the years. Then we'll all look around and
see if you're there. If your're NOT there, see it will have some IMPACT.
Everyone will look around and say "Hey, Karl Denninger's Not Here!" Then,
at least those who care enough to attend the session, will know YOU'RE NOT
HERE. That's not a great impact, but it's something. It's the best I can
come up with on short notice. I think it will work.
It will be good for a laugh anyway, and then, since your not there anyway,
and of course, EVERYONE KNOWS IT, we'll open the session up to questions
and discussion of the call completion rate testing and everybody can throw
vegetables and such at me, and we'll discuss the test, and plot strategy
for doing more tests in the future. Then we'll all go drink gin. But
remember, the point is, KARL DENNINGER ISN"T HERE. I'll try not to let
that part get watered down, at least until we're to the gin part.
I think it will be fun.
> G'day; I have better things to do than deal with more of this... I've
said
> my peace, you've admitted that you have no evidence to back up your claim
> that the problem is protocol rather than vendor-specific, and since that
was
> my entire point in the first place there's nothing more to say.
Piece Karl.
It may have been your point, and ironically, it may have even been true.
You made it so badly, wildly jumping from one wierd accusation and
assumption to another, we'll never know, or at least not from this. But I
haven't admitted we have no evidence.Our evidence is we dialed every ISP
with more than 25 area codes, 95 of the 450 ports were K56flex, and
statistically, the results compare poorly with the x2 ports. You
immediately and publicly announced that they were all Ascend ports, about
fifteen minutes after I got off the phone with #87 of 90, who was running,
as it so happens, all Portmasters. And you've driven this since then into
some sort of "Jack has a vendetta against Livingston" thing that's
absolutely bizarre, with one hysterical conclusion after another.
As to the mailing list, what you say is true. I do apologize for having
maligned Mr. Sasek with this blackholing theory. But in truth, I have not
encountered a mailing list before that dumped non-subscriber messages
without at least sending a bounce message of some form noting that "your
little and ugly and your mother dresses you funny and we don't want you in
our club" message or perhaps more usefully, a message indicating how to
join. I got NOTHING back at all. The message just went into the swamp. I
guess it makes sense. So much spam comes from spoofed addresses these
days. But I hadn't encountered it. I did join the list a few minutes ago,
and the message did go through. Again, my PUBLIC and PROFOUNDLY SINCERE
apologies to Mr. Sasek. I do know better than to lunge at the paranoid
conclusion, but this was really coincidental looking.
The "blackballing" as you call it isn't precisely that from my point of
view. After reading his very public message, I assume he sincerely
believes we are on the take. I can't therefore take the man's money from
this point forward. Period. It has nothing to do with it being true or
not. It's his perception, and he believed in it strongly enough to post it
in portmaster-users as the VP of sales of the firm. I kinda/sorta think
you egged it on Karl, but that's between you folks to sort out.
Piece
Jack Rickard
Boardwatch Magazine
Details on the KARL DENNINGER ISN'T HERE session will be at
http://www.ispcon.com this week.
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>