Re: *** ISN-Citizens squabbles! -- MIDRANGE-L

jt, I am new to this list in the form this year. My understanding is it has
rules.

However, it seems to me to be better that this type conversation be taken as
personal E-mail between you and the several others on the other side.
I am sure many other subscribers feel you should take this PRIVATE entirely,
and NOT load up our mail boxes. Couldn't care less about I said you said, in
a public manner.

I am not getting involved, going to listen or referee.

In a message dated 07/24/2001 11:52:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jt@ee.net
writes:

Subj: RE: *** ADMIN: New list -- ISN-Citizens!
Date: 07/24/2001 11:52:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    jt@ee.net (jt)
Sender:    owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
Reply-to: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
To:    MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com

Rob,

As always you have a sharp eye for detail. However, I could disagree with
you on several points.

Rather than what Leif suggested, I would suggest we take this topic
off-line, if you want to debate. I'm never averse to debating with you, but
I have some work to do for a paying client at 2:00pm and there was some talk
about going out to dinner with family. So, it ain't gonna happen today.

While I got you "on the phone" let me ask you this: I visited the IAiC site
today, for the first time since I "un-joined". I was looking for one
particular paragraph, for a letter I'm writing to someone at IBM. It was
the one that listed 4 steps to collaboration. I couldn't find it. If you
feel like it, and you know the post I'm referring to, can you e-mail it to
me PRIVATELY please. TIA.

Later,

jJt

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-midrange-l@midrange.com
[mailto:owner-midrange-l@midrange.com]On Behalf Of Rob Dixon
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:34 AM
To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
Subject: Re: *** ADMIN: New list -- ISN-Citizens!

JT

I am somewhat surprised and sorry that I find a need to correct your
statements
twice in one day.

<snip>

> You may, or may not, know that one of the *many* reasons I left the AAG
was
> because Rob Dixon refused to allow the topic of how your listserv is run
on
> Unix. I wanted to talk about doing the AAG on a 400 (how else could we
> complain about IBM running their business on Eunuchs...?) But speed is of
> the essence... Whatever it takes to get a listserv up and running is OK
> with me and I'm sure others, under the circumstances.

</snip>

It happens that I kept all the posts on Advocacy.

In the post to which you refer, which I sent on 2nd September, 2000, I
quoted
from your earlier post

> But I, personally, am having doubts about continuing to work on this
> project. I'm not seeing how I can offer any serious suggestions to IBM,
> when we ourselves don't use a 400 in _this_ project.

I responded

"I think your concerns are not realistic.

We pay nothing for this wonderful Midrange list. David Gibbs provides this
as a service to the AS/400 community out of the kindness of his heart."

I also said

"I don't want to start a debate on this subject in Advocacy. If anyone
wants
to raise it further, please do so on the main Midrange list - PLEASE NOT
HERE."

I was trying to get us to focus on the topic on hand without diversions - an
difficult task - but as I had said in an earlier post, I was not the rule
setter
and could not refuse the topic - just discourage it in that particular list.

In your response on 5th September, you wrote

"Since I am withdrawing from the committee (I'm sending a separate post on
this) I don't guess it matters a whole lot one way or the other. My bailing
out of the group has nothing to do with this particular topic."

Your statement today which I quote at the beginning of this post seems
somewhat
at odds with this much earlier statement.

Best wishes

Rob
________________________________________________________