From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Date: 14 Dec 1992 16:05:48 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec14.132521.8290@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>If you are presuming to speak for them, you had better make the best attempt
>that you can to reach them. Anything less and you are stripping them of
>their "rights". Three or four times with an obscure subject line is NOT
>your best, is it?

You're forgetting the messages posted with an explicit Subject: line...

I assume you have a better idea. Please state it. I might even go along with
it, if it's workable.

>>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.
>But they had to know TO read the articles to PREVENT what they didn't know
>was going to occur. 

*poing*
They made a *choice* not to read the article. Informed or no, we *cannot*
force him to read the article. If they choose to not read and respond to an
article with the subject "They want to rename rec.music.synth", what can we do
for them?

>Ya know...steer manure can grow lots of things with the right seeds planted
>in them.

So it can. Those things may be bluebonnets or they may be cockleburrs.

>>Is it your contention that professional keyboardists are simply
>>too damned dumb?

Your next paragraph shows that you didn't read the above sentence...let's try
it again:

>>Is it your contention that professional keyboardists are simply
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>too damned dumb?

>Boy are you misinformed. To be a pro keyboardist these days you have to
>be computer literate AND music literate to the Nth degree with both. SOME
>of them who work more than I do have to filter out lots of non essential 
>(to them) BS. I'll just bet if we redid the vote somehow that a LOT more
>people would vote NO now that they know. 

I was asking, not accusing.
I am not arguing that pro keyboardists are too damned dumb...but that is where
your argument leads. I know very well that all I'd do if I was on stage with
Yes in front of a bank of keyboards would be to look silly. (It'd be
interesting to see what they'd do when confronted with a hung MVS system...but
I digress.)
I have no doubt that more folks would vote NO if the vote were to be
invalidated and repeated, if only because you've incited the masses...the only
problem is that you waited a month too long to start stirring the pot.

>You mean they pay you to condescend users? Pity...

I _don't_ condescend to users. I do have a low tolerance for blithering idiocy
in folks who should know better. There's a difference, but, like the
difference between hiding information and making it available to folks who
don't read it, you probably won't see it.

>I gave you a chance. You cannot seem to even consider my point of view.
>A minimum criterion for usefulness is to be able to duplicate what my 
>point of view is without agreeing with it. That shows understanding and 
>respect enough to be able to work with things and not against. 

I've considered your point of view, and have blown more holes in it than a
shotgunned Swiss cheese. You choose not to accept that; that's your
prerogative, but don't accuse me of not having considered it.

>>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. 
>Then why are you assuming that they choose not to? 

There is no way to tell otherwise when dealing with a process that requires
voluntary participation. To say otherwise is to accuse those who do not vote
of stupidity or worse.

>>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 
>I am hypothesizing as an example.  

*poing*
Sure you're not just crawfishing?

>>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? 
>How can you show 24 lines of body AND at least 4 header lines in one 
>screenful if the default number of lines is 24? 

OK, let me be a little clearer: it shows the user the header lines, waits for
a keypress, then shows the next 24 lines.

Now, 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
Xref: sparky news.groups:24650 alt.folklore.computers:18092 alt.config:8032 alt.folklore.urban:31583