(Excerpts from a message dated 12-05-99, Ian Moote to Murray Lesser,
   original topic: Basic Pds Y2k Ok):

Hi Ian--

IM>Just out of curiosity, do any of yous guys actually verify your
  >"facts" before you post? I mean, I know that the only prerequisite
  >qualification to post on FidoNet is a modem and an opinion (or
  >sometimes just an attitude), but this kind of back-handed reply
  >isn't exactly a glowing recommendation for Freedom Of Speech.

    Just to satisfy your curiosity: I always attempt to "verify" my
"facts" before I post.  What I sometimes forget is that some operational
"facts" (as verified by experiment) are hardware (or operating system
version) dependent, and what works (or doesn't work) on the machines I
have (or had) may not perform in the same manner on your machines.  (I
think it might be well if you also tried to remember this "fact.")

    Verifying historical "facts" is a little more difficult.  I have
quite a library of computer-related texts, and try to cite such
references for those of you who wish to look further into the matter.
However, I share George's problem of lack of space.  It is a truism that
the reference text I haven't looked at for ten years and so threw out
last month, is needed today :-).

    But verifying the past from recollection is very difficult,
especially for me since I started programming automatic digital
computing engines in 1948, and my recollections have tended to get
fuzzier as the years whiz by.  (Those engines weren't even called
"computers" in 1948; they were called "calculators."  I do have several
references verifying that "fact" [computer history is one of my
hobbies]).  I try to indicate such personal recollections with "IIRC."

    But, unfortunately, many of us old-timers suffer from an overgrown
sense of the facetious.  It appears that you, and many other youngsters,
are unable to tell the difference between fact and obvious (to us)
fancy, unless the fancy is well labeled with ":-)" (or equivalent)
markers.  Sorry about that, but I don't know if anything can be done
about it in the near future.  Eventually, we has-beens will all die off,
thereby leaving the world to those of you who have only a digital sense
of humor :-).

    I agree with you that several of the frequenters of this echo are
not overly conscientious about verifying their "facts" before posting,
which is too bad.  But it is not hard to recognize those amongst us who
aren't very fussy about what they post, and to ignore them.  IMO, it
serves no useful purpose to make sophomoric remarks about their efforts.

IM>And isn't going to make you any friends. 'Know what I mean?

    See tagline :-).

    Regards,

        --Murray

___
 * MR/2 2.25 #120 * With friends like this, who needs enemies

--- Maximus/2 2.02