[TriLUG] Why the message size limit? [Was: Your message to TriLUG awaits moderator approval]

[Brian Henning via TriLUG]

It was never my intent to offend anyone.  Looking back at my message, I see that opening with "blah blah blah" set a tone that wasn't what I intended, and was a mistake.  I definitely did not intend to demean Mr. Hunter's, or anyone's, very meaningful efforts and contributions to the discussion.  It was, indeed, a terribly failed attempt at humorous summary, and I apologize for causing offense.  With that said, I disagree strongly with some undertones of Cristóbal's response to me, which I would like to present.

>> As far as digest subscribers...

> This sounds like disdain again.

You are correct about the tone and I apologize for the offense.  However, there is a suggestion here that we should avoid long discussions or lengthy replies out of deference to digest consumers, and I disagree, strongly.

> While this is an option, I'll ask one more time that folks get a 
> bit more curious and maybe invest a bit of energy in wrestling 
> with harder and more broad questions

"Your ideas and/or concerns do not matter because they are not hard or broad enough."  Couching the ideas of "if you're not an expert then shut up" and "your ideas and concerns are insignificant" in softball terms like "get a bit more curious" and "maybe invest a bit of energy" doesn't make them any less repressive, and I find them deeply and personally offensive.  

With those dissents voiced, I would like to repeat that I realize the mistakes I made in my previous message, and again, I apologize, and ask for forgiveness.

Regards,
-Brian