[ale] How to test your public internet connection for open ports

[Ron Frazier]

Michael T.,

I don't think we need to continue to escalate an argument in public.  
You're reading a lot into my messages that doesn't exist.  I have never 
intentionally insulted anyone in this group, and if I unintentionally 
insulted someone, I'm sorry.  I do not have a holier than thou attitude, 
and don't feel that way at all.  The compliment I paid you was 
legitimate and sincere, even though we disagree on some things.  Now, 
you're using the F word.  I really don't know why.  Whatever I did to 
make you so mad, I'm sorry.

I intend to continue the thread long enough to complete some discussions 
I'm in with other people and answer questions they've asked me and 
discuss some test results from my router.  Other than that, I'm going to 
let it drop.

I have one more question for you.  You may choose to answer it, or not.  
It's up to you.

Do you, or don't you, agree with the first 8 pieces of advice I said I'd 
give to friends and family in the prior post from 4:51 PM regarding the 
use of consumer routers, with the EXCEPTION of number 7, which was about 
UPNP, which is situation dependent?  If you choose to answer, and you 
don't agree with my points, I'd like to know exactly how you'd advise 
the consumer to set his router in each case and why it's different from 
the options I described.

That's all I need to know.  And, regardless of your reply, I won't reply 
again, if that's what you want.

Sincerely,

Ron

On 02/11/2011 06:09 PM, Michael Trausch wrote:
>
> Please feel free to point out anything that I said that you feel is a 
> personal attack. Feel free to point out anything that I have said that 
> is factually incorrect, and point out why in an objective manner. 
> Otherwise, I don't care to hear/read it.
>
> If "you are wrong" is an attack, well, then there are a lot of people 
> worthy of "attack".  You are making statements that range anywhere 
> from just misinformed to completely off the fucking wall, and standing 
> by their (perceived, by youself anyway) correctness without bothering 
> to read up on anything that has been discussed here.  You are 
> spreading misinformation, simply put. Now, I might not be able to call 
> out Gibson for it, because he is not here for it to matter nor be 
> relevant. And frankly, pursuing such a thing is really not worth my time.
>
> I can't speak for everyone, but I have the opinion that this group 
> exists for us to help and learn from each other. That cannot happen in 
> an environment where misinformation is allowed to go uncorrected. I 
> and others here are absoutely willing to explain things (sometimes 
> repeatedly if necessary!) to those who are willing to be receptive.  
> Otherwise, we're all just wasting our time. I don't know about others, 
> but I sure do hate wasting my time.
>
> You acknowledge others' expertise, but only as a backhanded 
> compliment. Your sentences are constructed such as to be insulting and 
> "holier than thou" in some cases, particularly in some of your 
> responses to my mails (such as your continued claims WRT NAT in 
> responses to my messages). You are careful to heavily qualify things 
> so as to make the implication that it is okay to blatently disregard 
> helpful standards of communication on your own little island. 
> Repeatedly you state that your "advanced" knowledge is sufficient for 
> you to help others.
>
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Your posts and the 
> misinformation in them is a prime example of why. Your lack of desire 
> to reference the standards AND YET CONTINUE THE THREAD is why you are 
> looking more and more like an Internet troll. You'll note that I did 
> not say that you *are* an Internet troll. But your posts on this 
> thread sure do seem that way. You persist with your claims instead of 
> doing the rational thing, which would be to study the referenced 
> materials (and doing some independent research using the standards 
> themselves) before continuing. I fail to understand why.
>
> Moreover, I am not sure why whether or not I know you has a bloody 
> thing to do with any of this. If the implication there is that I would 
> need to know you better in order to better understand where you are 
> coming from, I don't see how that'd be helpful at all. 
> Information---lots of it---has been provided to you, without so much 
> as a single advertiser putting one red cent in any of our pockets to 
> post on this list. You have been repeatedly referred to the RFCs where 
> there is absolutely correct information in order to clarify your 
> misconceptions. Still, you insist that you are correct when in fact 
> you would appear not to really have a clue.
>
> Furthermore, absolutely none of this thread has been about opinions. I 
> find it excessively common that people hide behind the vague notions 
> of "just my opinion" and "interpretation". Discussing philsophy or 
> religion is one thing. Discussing computer networking & security, 
> especially in the context of best practices and standards, is another 
> thing entirely. Its not like we are talking about anything new, 
> bleeding-edge, or experimental here.
>
> --
> Sent from my phone... a G2 running CM7 nightlies!
>
>

-- 

(PS - If you email me and don't get a quick response, you might want to
call on the phone.  I get about 300 emails per day from alternate energy
mailing lists and such.  I don't always see new messages very quickly.)

Ron Frazier

770-205-9422 (O)   Leave a message.
linuxdude AT c3energy.com