Myth: Andrew’s post has utility to the 10K+ people reading it. (Not watching Twitter makes me braindead? really? Yeah, it’s 2015. Get up-to-date, should have sent a snapchat. Duh.)
Fact: Andrew should probably just un-sub since he finds NANOG useless. That would actually provide utility to the rest of us. I repeat: The UN-PAID VOLUNTEERS on the Communications Committee do a great job. If you think you can do better, please please please volunteer. Otherwise, simply thank them for doing what you refuse to do and get on with your life. -- TTFN, patrick > On Oct 26, 2015, at 4:56 PM, Andrew Kirch <trel...@trelane.net> wrote: > > All, > > Myth: NANOG supposed to be the gold standard for best practices. > Fact: 500 spam messages over the weekend. > > Myth: there were no complaints and this issue was raised over the weekend > Fact: I raised it this weekend via twitter twice @NANOG, and requested > contact from SCNET (NANOG's upstream) trying to find a live person to shut > it off. > > Myth: blah blah blah social media is a bad way to get ahold of netops/abuse. > Fact: Social media is an acceptable way to report abuse. My marketing > department certainly knows how to get ahold of me when such an issue > occurs. It's 2015, and if you and everyone you know isn't watching twitter > I can't help you, because you've gone braindead. > > Myth: but you could have reached out to someone else and maybe done > something to stop this quickly. > Fact: I reached out to several people at ARIN and elsewhere trying to get a > live person at NANOG to no avail. > > Myth: this is acceptable because NANOG has political clout in the US and > elsewhere. > Fact: If I was still running the AHBL, NANOG would be it's own private > intranet right now. > > > Andrew
