Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:43:44 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      PACS-L or Attack-L?

2 Messages, 100 Lines
From: Steve Cisler <sac@apple.com>
Subject: RE: PACS-L or ATTACK-L?
I find the tenor of the discussions just about right
on this mailing list. I think one of the benefits of
asynchronous conferences and email lists is that people
will speak up and say more than they would in a big
meeting hall.  Just note how few questions are asked
at many ALA functions; the larger the crowd the less
people feel they can bring up issues they would in a
room of 20 to 30 attendees.

I also believe that the people on this mailing list
really do listen pretty well, or I should say read
fairly carefully before they comment.  Certainly other
lists are distorted by the number of angry people who
participate, and since I participate in a few of those
that may be one reason that PACS-L seems relatively
tranquil.

There are some communities both online and offline where
verbal duals are considered integral to the discourse and
are welcomed. This is not one of them, nor does it have
to be, but I think we should tolerate a wider spectrum
of behavior than some posters have indicated is acceptable.

Steve Cisler
Apple Library
*-----
From:      "Walt Crawford" <BR.WCC@RLG>
Subject:   Follow-up: Civility, also Gateway 2000
I think two follow-up comments to my "PACS-L or ATTACK-L" posting need
to be made, after which I'll let it be, for now:

1. The volume of private responses I've received to that message says
   to me that incivility on PACS-L is *substantially* diminishing the
   worth of the list for professional education and exchange. At least
   half of those responding have either stopped being active partici-
   pants entirely, or are much more circumspect than they should be,
   simply because they don't need the hassle. If it seems that a couple
   dozen people provide most PACS-L messages, this may be one reason.
   I'll assert that scores (more likely hundreds) of folks just won't
   bother at this point.

   We (PACS-L subscribers) are missing a fair amount of worthwhile
   commentary because we (already-burned or nervous) are no longer
   willing to be candid and forthcoming. I know that I now probably
   avoid at least three out of four situations where I might have
   something (debatably worthwile) to say about a PACS-L thread.

   Saddest of the private responses was one from a person at a library
   automation company who felt (he or she) would be lambasted
   if (he or she) even suggested that fairness and humanity are in order.
   Heard much on PACS-L from lib. auto vendor folks recently? Wonder why?

2. Specifically regarding Gateway 2000, and speaking as one of three
   presumably "mixed" responses (my wife buys nothing else for her
   small college library, and I would cheerfully spend my own money,
   but there *have* been problems getting through to tech support: then
   again, ever try calling IBM for PC tech support?), I should add this
   footnote to the rumor about "going out of business"--although I'm
   afraid I can't quote an unnamed source. My source is PC Week
   Business section for March 30, 1992 (Page 142), which may not be
   as worthy as a nameless rumor, of course.

   The headline is "Gateway 2000 Sets Sights On $1 Billion Sales
   Mark." The story notes that their sales *continue* to increase,
   even as (some) other direct marketers such as Zeos are seeing drops.
   Northgate--a similarly-named company that *has* seen substantial
   drops in income, for various reasons--did post a loss for fourth
   quarter '91. Then comes the interesting part: Gateway, which is
   privately held and has no obligation to do so, released its pretax
   earnings (and total sales) for 1991 and 1990.

   1990: $275.5 million sales, $25.2 million pre-tax earnings.
   1991: $626.8 million sales, $59.7 million pre-tax earnings.

   And they are quite vocally aware of the tech-support problem;
   when you see a 128% sales increase (and 137% earnings increase)
   in one year, the problem getting through makes more sense.

   Oh, and by the way, Gateway 2000 just introduced the most incredible
   modem deal in the industry ($195 for a 14.4Kbps modem/9.6Kbps fax,
   with full V.32bis/V.42bis support)--and they're introducing their
   first notebook computers later this year.

   OK: *any* company can go out of business, almost any time. But
   would anyone like to compare $59.7 million to the *aggregate*
   pre-tax earnings of all the library automation companies or divisions
   *combined*? (Let's even include "not-for-profit" outfits, to make
   it more interesting: I bet you still can't come up with anything
   close to $59.7 million in 1991 earnings.)

Enough. I'll go back to lurking. It's a lot harder to defend something
than it is to tear it down (no, I won't get into presidential politics
at the moment), and I obviously have no financial interest in Gateway.
I don't even own one of their computers. Wish I did.
-walt crawford- (br.wcc@rlg.bitnet; Internet: br.wcc@rlg.stanford.edu)
(Need it be said that these are personal opinions?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU