From: altar@beaufort.sfu.ca (Ted Wayn Altar)
Subject: Re: Conclusions about Ted Altar
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:40:54 GMT

Ted Altar writes:

>> In fact, I am here solely
>>due to Abhay's encouragement and good advice to not let the few
>>destructive remarks that sometimes occur to deter one from 
>>participating in a more constructive manner.  This is only
>>to explain Abhay's over-generous and misplaced generalization,
>>not to justify it.


Abhay Bulsari replies:

>Why  do you  call  it a misplaced generalisation  ? Because  you don't
>agree ? It is easy to call  me over-generous and such bullshit without
>giving any reasons. If you  can,  explain why you  can't be called the
>single  most  important  poster on  r.f.v. 

Gee, I don't want to have a fight with my best supporter!  :-)

Abhay, to be fair, "important" here is in the eyes of the 
beholder as determined by what might be people's interests, b
backgrounds, and current concerns.  I am very honored that you 
would think so highly of me and I would hope that you, at least,
would continue to find my postings to be interesting, 
informative, and maybe even "important".  But you yourself
also mentioned Ferris Wheeler.  And we should not forget
about the many others, some of whom have been regular 
and reliable posters of solid advice, informed
opinion or just plain generous with their recipes,
and they have been doing this far longer than the
mere last 3 weeks of my uncharacteristic pace of
furious posting.   

I guess I used the word "over-generous" because I certainly 
don't feel like the "single most important poster", and I am
certainly not comfortable with taking away due recognition
from the many others here.  

By "misplaced generalization" I'm afraid that I
wasn't being precise.  What I meant was simply that
instead of saying that "everybody" enjoys my postings,
it would have been better to simply say that at least "some"
and maybe "many" apppreciate my participation, as they
do with the participation of others, like yourself.

I guess you only meant "everybody" to refer to those who had 
responded on their own to George Clark's presumptious assertion
that some of my postings were completely inappropriate to this 
conference and that I should jolly well post them elsewhere.
Ok, but those who volunteered their kind support for my postings
do not comprise "everybody" who reads and participates
on r.f.v., which is what your statement might have seemed
to have suggested.  I read it otherwise, but some didn't.

Anyway, let's not waste any more time on this.  I think
your fundamental concern is shared by most others and I agree
with your good advice that we continue to participate constructively
and simply enjoy each other's good dialogue and exchanges of 
good information, notwithstanding those few who on occasion 
lapse into rudeness, flame-baiting or petty quibbling.

I am on side with your intent to NOT allow the mean-spirited
remarks of the few chase away the more authentic and constructive
participants thereby affecting the atmosphere and tenor of the
conference for everybody as a whole.  If they want a 
rec.flame.rudness then they jolly well can create their own 
conference for that purpose.   :-)
.
                             ted