Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uwmcsd1!ig!agate!ucbvax!TWG.COM!mrose
From: mrose@TWG.COM (Marshall Rose)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Does TCP/IP "comform" to ISO/OSI?
Message-ID: <4782.589685879@twg.com>
Date: 8 Sep 88 01:37:59 GMT
References: <12428690586.25.PADLIPSKY@A.ISI.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 43

Mike --

I am willing to give up my humorous metaphors and remarks regarding
nuking you, if you are willing to talk in plain simple english in each
and every message you send in the future.  Frankly, I get a headache
trying to read your messages!  Needless to say, this does not make me
particularly receptive to your arguments, which may, for all I know,
might be quite reasonable and sane.  Unfortunately on the average I
refer to a dictionary 3 times in the course of an hour when reading just
ONE of your messages.

The problem, as far as I can tell, is that you arguing against opponents
who do not read this list.  As surprising as it may seem, I am a
moderate, and am viewed as somewhat heretical by the OSI community by
even suggesting that the lessons learned in the Internet might be applicable.
My favorite line which came up in a conversation back in April at an OSI
tutorial:

	"The Internet was an interesting experiment, but X.25 is the
	 only real networking solution".

Yes, I thought it was funny too.  Even more funny considering the person
who gave the tutorial deeply believed this.  I was tempted to refer
everyone to your book, particularly later on when the speaker said one
didn't need something like TCP over a LAN, but alas, I could not
remember the full title of your tome (too many big words, you know), so
I did not speak up.

Now, at this point I guess I should respond, point by point to your
message.  But frankly, who cares?  I don't understand half the arguments
you make, due to your use of excessively obscure english.  I guess I can
not just see your "larger picture".  This isn't a personal attack, but I
hope you take it personally(!) and clean-up your writing style so more of
us can understand what you are trying to say.

With regards to who's atomized who:  I have received (privately) one
message congratulating me on stomping you with my last message.
Although this is not conclusive proof, it is good for my ego.

Your turn (and please try to avoid using words which aren't found in my
Webster's abridged dictionary, thanks).

/mtr