From: rusty@masc.rice.edu ( Robert Kelley)
Subject: Re: Hover achieved... with my Glider!  FINAL FLAME
Followup-To: rec.models.rc
Summary: You'll see.
Keywords: extinguisher, Ctl-D, End-of-File
Organization: Dept. of Math. Sciences, Rice University
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:32:31 GMT

Re. My flame on  "Hover" article:

First, Mike, my apologies.  If you vetted your letter before you sent it out
and discovered nothing wrong, then indeed the problem was an exceptional
condition or a flaw in my mailer (or the like).  However, I have discovered
that a number of posters of incomplete maturity appear to delight in calling
attention to their messages by their format rather than their contents.
I am sure many of us remember the rash of who-has-the-longest .sig file
contests.  I even posted one myself, in the hopes of making a perhaps
too-subtle hint.  Other tactics which I've encountered (often) are:
quoting entire articles of preferably not less than 100 lines long only to
add someone's -er- humorous one-liner at the bottom, and whole files
far too wide for a standard 80-column terminal.  There has been at least
one gentle and tactful posting --not mine :) -- on the subject, reminding
readers that, as I said, not everyone has X-windows, which appeared to
have a beneficial effect for at least three or four months, but which
regrettably appears to be wearing off.

I am sorry to say I'm concerned that the intentionally-too-wide trick may be
a new and rising one.  I have noticed its use by a number of posters
regarding whom I was already developing doubts.

(A word of warning here.  SOME mailers, mine included, display what appear
to be truncated lines but which are not.  Saving and editing the file will
not infrequently give you a perfectly readable rendition.)

Incidentally, I use a Sun, which gives few problems of this nature.
However, especially w.r.t. mail I do most of my work late at night from
a dial-up line on an 80-column glass TTY at 1200 baud.   I'm sure I'm not
the only one.

Second, to Robert Weinberg.  Thank you for your excellent suggestion about
writing the postmaster; I should have thought of that myself, though I will
hope I am never put to the trouble of having to use it.

Third, to the various posters, including the two above, who took a calm
and reasoned approach to the controversy and even made additional
contributions, often in good humor: Warm Thanks.  And Mike, if I had
not thought your article worth reading I would hardly have spent thirty
minutes in the middle of the night trying to read it. Ahem.

Finally, at this time it is, I believe, traditional to make some reference
to the numerous moralists and would-be hate mailers (don't you just hate
mailers?)  who have been kind enough to share their mindset, both in posting
and in personal mail, with the perpetrator, i.e., me.  I respectfully decline.

However, if you should see fit to forget the use of the carriage return
(as I believe one of you did) in your own postings, I can assure you that
the distinction will leave me deeply gratified.

And for what it's worth, in my own defense, I should like to say that
I have been a reader of the net for some years, and this is only the second
time I can recollect (they say the memory *is* the first to go) flaming
anybody.  The other occasion involved what I regarded and still regard
as an unwarranted and even unconscionable invasion of privacy, directed
against someone not on the net, and therefore unable to defend themself,
and FWIW, subsequent developments appear to have borne me out.

To a generally good net, and especially those wo actually took the trouble
to *read* this-- thank you for your patience.  Regards.

						Robert S. Kelley, Ph.D.
						Mathematical Sciences
						Rice University

						rusty@rice.edu


Newsgroups: rec.models.rc