On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), dapunka
<dapunka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 7 Dec, 23:02, Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > On 2007-12-07, Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> I've just gotten off the phone. I received a "warning" for "getting that kind
>> >>> of traffic" (not sure if it's an insult of a compliment). I wish I'd called
>> >>> yesterday to sort this out.
>>
>> >> Interesting - you get a warning for being popular? Amazing...
>>
>> > Someone want to explain to Mark how bandwidth works?
>>
>> And "popular" while they're at it.
>
>Um, if so many people are accessing Roy's site that it's causing
>bandwidth problems, doesn't that qualify as "popular"?
>
>It's obviously screwing with you big time that Roy's evil site is
>getting so many hits. But surely you don't /have/ to be such a dick
>about it?
Read the thread.
The point isn't the traffic, it's Mark Kent's idiotic definition of
bandwidth.
|
|
