From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:29:08 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec12.003034.7323@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Because he didn't read them does NOT MEAN that he (or she) does NOT HAVE
>a right to be consulted and/or heard on the future of his or her newsgroup. 

*poing*
If he doesn't read the articles asking for his input or his vote, how, then,
are we to consult him? He (and everyone else) were asked for input - for
discussion, four times at least, and for a vote, three times at least - and he
didn't provide any. What more could have been done to consult someone who
appears not to want to be consulted?

>>To argue this, you must argue that the articles themselves were unclear. Yet
>>another lame argument, and one plainly unsupported by the facts.
>The articles were unclear. We've been through this before. 

*poing*
Yes, we've been through it before, with you making lame arguments unsupported
by little things such as facts. All someone would have had to do to figure out
what was going on was to read the articles.

>>I've _been_ tuned for the past two months! You're approaching Microsoft's
>>delivery schedule. Put up or shut up.
>I don't have to do either. 

You're right. Allow me to amend that: put up, shut up, or resign yourself to
being thought of universally as a net.asshole who's all mouth and no action.

>That's your "viewpoint that I don't support" flag. Get it right. 

*poing*
I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and I see nothing but bullshit.

>>The information is there, and can
>>be understood with a minimum of effort - and there's been at least one actual
>>proposed article posted to clarify things even more.
>Minimum to YOU. Average to others. Intense to some. 

So where's your proposal to make things crystal clear even to those of such
limited intelligence as to barely be able to turn on their computer? Or are
you just mouthing off?

Many folks have managed to participate in the system without intensive
handholding. Is it your contention that professional keyboardists are simply
too damned dumb?

>I don't know that your help is appropriate. You seem to have such a narrow
>view of things that you may hinder our efforts to get things to rank novices.

I'd probably surprise you. I deal with rank novices as part of my paying job,
and do pretty well at it. Even if you choose to reject my offer of assistance
without even giving me a chance, there are folks out there whose assistance
you'd get that you'd find more to your liking - but you haven't asked yet, and
so you struggle on in ignorance - or are merely mouthing off, I can't tell
which.

>>Many people manage to be informed despite the factors you mention, 
>*poing*
>That doesn't mean that ALL people manage to be informed, or even a "significant
>percentage" manage to be. Now it's YOUR turn to provide some numbers. 

There's no way to know how many folks are informed but choose not to
participate. We cannot guess how many folks out there exercise their right to
abstain. We do know that large numbers of people do participate.

>>evidence that loud, long discussion to the point of getting people to complain
>>loudly about the discussion itself doesn't increase participation past the
>>thousand voters or so point. 
>Well, when you talk AT them instead of TO them, that kind of thing happens.

OK, so how do we talk TO them? Be specific. Or are you just mouthing off?

>>Yeah, right. Even though the proposal itself came with almost insultingly
>>simple instructions on just exactly how to vote.
>Insulting to your miiighty intellect perhaps. Most people probably saw the
>first 22 lines and said "Oh, this doesn't affect me". 

*poing*
Waitaminute. You argued earlier that most folks didn't read the article. Now
you're arguing that most folks read the first screen or so (and I do not
accept that 22 lines is the most common, or even representative, number of
first-screen lines shown - the default configuration of rn, at least, shows
the headers, then the next 24 lines, which would have easily shown the r.m.s
rename proposal). Which is it?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: news.groups