From: michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald)
Subject: Net resources [was Fermat's flunkeys]
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date: 12 Apr 92 11:44:13 GMT

cjdcosta@eos.ncsu.edu (CHRISTOPHER J DCOSTA) writes:

>michaelg@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Michael Greenwald) writes:

>>However, if you believe that an individual shouldn't share the burden
>>of other people's troubles (welfare, national health insurance, etc.)
>>.... [deleted]...
>>I'm just pointing out that (a) not everyone believes that you should
>>use the net as a resource (except as a last resort), and that (b) it
>>might be logically inconsistent to both "ask the net" and to believe
>>that things like welfare are immoral.

>That's just it. You imply that my request was a lazy way out of my 
>personal problems. And by comparing it to welfare, I believe you went 
>way too far. 

"Personal problems"?  No, just saving yourself some time.  And I
didn't mean the welfare comparison to be derogatory (I actually
believe in welfare, natl health insurance, etc., as I said in my post,
although not in freeloading).

I didn't mean to imply that you were lazy or freeloading; just that
you might not be considering the total cost of "asking the net".

I then went on to consider a position from which it >would< be
reasonable (logically consistent) to broadcast a request to the net;
but noted that it wasn't necessarily consonant with an anti-welfare
attitude.  I then added that even then, one should use the net as a
last resort, to minimize the cost to society (net.readers in this
case). 

And, note, (as I'll no doubt repeat in this post), that I didn't
become frustrated until the >second< post, >after< references had
already been posted.

>I'm *not* trying to freeload here. A little digression may explain..

[busy schedule, no time for FLT, ... deleted]

>To summarise, therefore, my objective in making the posting was:

...

>This is a cooperative process, where everybody learns a thing or two,
>and is very different from "broadcasting a request", which I believe
>is what you implied it was. 

Well, actually, I didn't just imply it: I said it.  Sorry.  

But as I tried to make clear, I had no objection to the original post.
I simply responded to that with a reference to Hardy & Wright.  I was
frustrated by the >second< post, which implied that you hadn't checked
the references (not just mine) submitted, yet repeated the fact that
you were unsure about the n=3 case - and by your wording (something to
the effect of "only one person claimed..." ) implied that there hadn't
been reliable responses.

Perhaps the three posts with references that I saw hadn't made it to
your host by then.

>While I dislike prolonged and continued defenses, the reason for  
>rebuttals as these is because I'm opposed in principle to the idea
>that one may only use the net as a medium for dispensing "facts".
>You don't post articles to show the world how much you know. You 
>post articles to probe, to question, to debate, to learn. One cannot 
>debate or question a fact.

I have no argument with this; I'm just advocating a stronger
self-imposed filter when the fact is easy to verify.  Admittedly, when
a fact isn't known, you might just as easily not know how to verify
it.  But that's not always the case.

Anyhow, I have no problems with debating, questioning, learning: I
just like to know the quality of my tools, the reliability of my
references.  Computer networks are a potentially vast source of
information; I'd like to believe that we can keep the quality of the
information up, along with the quality of the conversation.  

Perhaps this is a quixotic aim.  I don't >like< to tilt at windmills,
though.

>Hope this reply serves to clear the air somewhat. 

I think it does.  Thanks.




Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa