Downtime

My hosting provider was the target of a DDoS attack this morning, so that’s the reason for the bit of down time some of you may have experienced here or on a few other sites this morning.

The contracts final is over. I feel alright about it. Seems like there weren’t enough issues to make up a full exam, so hopefully I didn’t miss something huge.

As to the last post. God almighty, I swear. One of the consequences of being human is that other human’s tend to assume they know what you’re doing and why. Sometimes this is the case, most of the time it is not. One of the consequences to being me is that people assume you’re always being sarcastic. Which is, I guess, true. Of course, the corollary to the last two statements is that people tend to assume they know what your sarcasm means. Heh.

Just to be ultra-clear: I don’t know (nor do I think I know) who Grant’s post was about. Doug says that it’s Pinkston. This seems slightly more ridiculous than if it were me. You might note in the last post I specifically exempted an attempt at humor from my analysis… because that’s what I presumed it was¹. Not that it actually was funny but it was an attempt, you know? Can’t win ‘em all.

Anyway, the point here is that my last post was not some sort of “retribution” for Grant “slamming” me². Had it been, I wouldn’t have stated things in such disclaimed terms. I have no problem actually assigning labels to people openly, by name, and without trying to hide behind plausible deniability. I’ve done it before³, and there’s nothing new or different about Mr. Haynes that would cause me to refrain from it in this case (as evidenced by footnote 2 of that post).

¹ - Although if the post was about Pinkston and not a joke, the assumptions would apply, I think.

² - One would hope that should Grant post some sort of “attack” post in the future, he will have better material… otherwise there’s really no sport in it, you know? It just wouldn’t be any fun.

³ - References available upon request.