Tami-
While I appreciate your predicament, and do agree with the absurdity of
someone making a bold blanket rule like "no telnet" and then having no
explanation for it, I don't think starting a flame campaign is your best
option. Also, I don't think this is the forum for starting that kind
attack. And yes, I say attack, because if everyone DID do as you say and
send this person mass numbers of emails stating why his rule is illogical,
it could prohibit his ability to use his email. It could very easily become
a primitive DOS attack.
I've always felt linuxchix techtalk was against flaming or RTFM'ing
listmembers; making a group effort to do that very thing to someone outside
the list just seems against the whole spirit of the thing.
But, in the words of Dennis Miller, "That's just my opinion. I could be
wrong."
-Brian
> Message: 3
> From: Tami Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 19:32:53 -0400
> Subject: [techtalk] The manager to send flames to:
>
>
> Last week I sent out email detailing my experience as an accused telnet
> criminal. No one has yet made any convincing argument that I was in any
> way jeopardizing the machine I was telnetting from, but the unnamed system
> manager has completely halted my ability to job-hunt by his irrational and
> ignorant prohibition of my use of telnet to my shell account where I
> receive email.
>
> Since the rules of the site state that the resources of the site
> (including
> the computers and their installed programs) are to be used for job-search
> activities and I was using the telnet program ALREADY INSTALLED on the
> machine, I cannot be accused of breaking the rules.
>
> The rules DO NOT state that "thou shalt unquestioningly obey
> every order of
> the system manager", which is really the heart of the issue. Even in the
> Army, we were taught that "just following [illegal] orders" is no
> defense -
> one is obliged to disobey illegal orders. I'm not saying his order was
> illegal, but it IS stupid, and following it effectively ends my
> job search,
> thus making his order to me in contradiction to the purpose of the TWC -
> which is to help people find jobs.
>
> After some thought, I think my best strategy is to have hundreds of emails
> on my behalf flood the site manager's mailbox about the clueless and
> counterproductive behavior of the
> system-manager-who-refused-to-identify-himself who is this man's
> subordinate. That way, when I finally DO appear in person to complain, I
> will have a host of experts who have already explained to him
> (hopefully in
> excruciating detail) the complete lack of any danger to the
> site's machines
> posed by my use of telnet from TWC. I ask this because I fear the site
> manager is no more clueful than the anonymous manager who issued the
> unreasonable edict, and I need the strength of many professionals
> (the more
> credentials, the better) to help me make my point and educate
> these people.
> Otherwise, I fear the site manager will blindly and unquestioningly back
> his system manager, right or wrong, and I might be placed in the position
> of making the job-hunting situation worse for all Texas residents. So far
> this anti-telnet "rule" is vapor. I do not want it to become
> cast-in-stone
> policy.
>
>
> The administrator to which the unnamed machine manager referred me
> and to whom complaints about the anonymous clueless one may be sent
> (cc: or Bcc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] please) is:
>
> Theodore Andrews III, Site Manager
>3401 Webberville Rd, Bldg 1000
> Austin, Tx 78702
> (512) 223-5459(voice)
> (512) 223-5464(fax)
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> I appreciate everyone's help.
>
>
> .Tami
> .signature: syntax error at line 1: `(' unexpected
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> (512) 699-7175
> Austin, Tx.
>
___
techtalk mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/techtalk
