Subject: Re: APT
Craig A. Johnson (caj@tdrs.com)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 08:08:21 -0400
Message-Id: <199809091203.IAA18991@loas.clark.net> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1998 08:08:21 -0400 To: roundtable@cni.org From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj@tdrs.com> Subject: Re: APT In-Reply-To: <35F77E24.3A13@pacbell.net> References: <35F5D9E2.761A@apt.org>
On September 1, 1998, I wrote, in part:
>
> Where are the APT spokespeople, when it comes to answering the
> tough questions? Exhortations to action which leave a whole
> series of previously posed questions dangling do little to rally
> support.
Don Vial <dvial@pacbell.net> replied yesterday:
>
> I wish I had the time to answer everyone's views
> about APT, but I am afraid that it is going to be
> necessary to refer people who have an interest in
> APT, whether positive or negative, to read what we
> are actually saying in our policy documents, rather
> than depending on others to interpret them.
[...]
> Then, if you want to snipe at us, that is your
> privelege. At least you will have a more informed
> base for doing so.
Thanks, Don. I have to say, though, that it was not really my
intention to "snipe" at you or Henry Geller, whom I have the greatest
respect for. Rather, I joined John Schwartz and others in asking for
clarifications and answers to previously-posed questions on this list
in light of the Maureen Lewis's plea for support on APT's Sec. 706
petition. Generally, when one asks for support on a list such as
this, answering people's questions is generally standard practice.
Thanks for the pointers, and I certainly will read the documents you
mention.
Best,
Craig
Craig A. Johnson
<caj@tdrs.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a16 : Tue Mar 23 1999 - 03:33:41 EST