From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: democratic platform
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 00:33:28 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.174357.4432@microsoft.com> alane@microsoft.com (Alan Ezekiel) writes:
>Andy Freeman has managed to write one of the most content-free pieces
>of deceptive trash I have seen since I read the last HCI 43:1 statistic.

The fact that Ezekiel doesn't like my response to his demand does not
make it content-free or deceptive.  In fact, it is neither.  It provided
a response (even if it isn't the sort of response that he wanted) and
explained it succinctly.

>>    Several people, including myself, told him
>>how to get a copy of the survey results under discussion; he blew us
>>off.
>>
>>I don't know about other people, but I usually ignore demands for
>>information that has been provided multiple times.
>
>Perhaps Andy hoped that I had forgotten what he wrote last month.
>Fortunately, I have not.  Here is the post to which he is referring, in
>which he supposedly "told me how to get a copy of the survey results":

Since I posted more than one article on the subject, Ezekiel's
"memory" isn't very useful.  Other people also posted the ordering
information.  It was even published in a major gun publication.

I am willing to accept the blame for Ezekiel's failures if that would
make him feel better.

>So you see, Andy told me last month that he had posted that information
>"some time ago".  Did he really expect me to go searching back through
>thousands of t.p.g. articles looking for an old posting of his?  Without
>even knowing the subject line, the approximate date, or any other
>references which would enable me to find the article?

Searching by author cuts that number down significantly.  Then one can
scan subject lines.  However, you have to actually be interested to
pull that off, and an interested person would have paid attention from
the beginning, instead of running off and looking up an irrelevant
source.  Ezekiel did what he was interested in doing, but there are
disadvantages to his choice.

>This month, he is *still* saying he posted it earlier...

Yup, it's still true.

>and now he's flaming me for refusing to look at evidence which he
>HASN'T EVEN GIVEN TO ME!

I have given it, repeatedly.  I'm not going to do it again, even as
I point out that Ezekiel's wrong.  He had several chances, and
couldn't be bothered.  That has consequences.

>I would ask for an apology, but we all know Andy won't admit fault
>even if he's wrong.

I apologize for not going along with Ezekiel's demands.  I apologize
for pointing out that I've provided the requested information.  I'm
sorry he didn't care enough to pay attention when the conversation was
active.  I'm sorry that he decided to puff himself up and spent time
researching the wrong survey.  I'm sorry that I'm not going to take
the time to bring him up to speed on things that have been covered
before.  I'm sorry that I'm going to point these things out when he
tries to bluff his way around this issue.

>And of course, there is the sideshow issue of names:
>
>>>Andy, you are welcome to call me Alan.  Or "Mr. Ezekiel", if you
>>>truly must.  But I would appreciate not being called "Ezekiel" --
>>>it's rude.
>
>>My use of last names is neither inappropriate nor hostile.
>
>I didn't say it was either inappropriate or hostile.  But I do find
>it rude.

So?  That's his problem; it isn't inherently rude and isn't intended
as such.

>Since calling me "Ezekiel" brings you no benefit, and only
>serves to annoy me, why do you persist in doing it?

Because it actually does provide several benefits.  (No, annoying
Ezekiel isn't a benefit, but at this point it isn't much of a cost
either.)  Think about why we use names and what the different forms
"mean".

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu