From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: DAVE HAYES MAY BE RIGHT!
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:25:21 GMT

jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) 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. 
>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?

*poing*

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?

>>>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. 
>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.

*poing*

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

>>That's your "viewpoint that I don't support" flag. Get it right. 
>I calls 'em as I sees 'em, and I see nothing but bullshit.

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

>Many folks have managed to participate in the system without intensive
>handholding. 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 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. 

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

>Even if you choose to reject my offer of assistance
>without even giving me a chance, 

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.

>>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.

Then why are you assuming that they choose not to?

>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. 

>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?

*poing*

How can you show 24 lines of body AND at least 4 header lines in one 
screenful if the default number oflines is 24?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

A great deal of thought is only a substitute for the thoughts which the 
individual would really find useful at the time.
Newsgroups: news.groups,alt.native