ML> Hi Ian--

Hey, dude! [:)


ML> IM>Just out of curiosity, do any of yous guys actually verify your
ML> >"facts" before you post? I mean, I know that the only prerequisite
ML> >qualification to post on FidoNet is a modem and an opinion (or
ML> >sometimes just an attitude), but this kind of back-handed reply
ML> >isn't exactly a glowing recommendation for Freedom Of Speech.
ML>
ML> Just to satisfy your curiosity: I always attempt to "verify" my
ML> "facts" before I post.  What I sometimes forget is that some
ML> operational "facts" (as verified by experiment) are hardware (or
ML> operating system version) dependent, and what works (or doesn't
ML> work) on the machines I have (or had) may not perform in the same
ML> manner on your machines.

I can understand that. I see a great many machines, on a weekly basis, 
of varying vintages and capabilities. What I sometimes forget is that 
some people tend to judge the situation of others based upon their own 
very limited experiences.


ML> (I think it might be well if you also tried to remember this
ML> "fact.")

Oh you do? I see.

Take a look at my quote above. "...this kind of backhanded reply...". 
You realize that I was refering to your message to George (was it?) that 
(paraphrased) "Ian is going to get a big surprise when his DOS doesn't 
work in 2080..."

Now just hold on for a moment here. It was you and I who were engaged in 
discussion so why did you not post that to me? I've been on FidoNet for 
many years and I know exactly what this is all about. You don't like 
what I have to say so you go running to a buddy, make a comment about 
how inaccurate I am, hoping that your buddy will come back with a reply 
which appears to "support" your position, and that will politically 
strengthen your position in this thread and in this conference. 
Essentially, "winning" a "discussion" by weight of numbers rather than 
based on the truth -- the facts.

Ersatz, a "backhanded reply". 

I'm not here to carve out a niche for myself or to disturb the pecking 
order. If you had an issue with what I said _to you!_ regarding DOS and 
2080 then you sould have replied to me directly, not indirectly.

I don't mind you presenting an agressive discussion if you want (and if 
civil), but if you don't want to reply to me directly, please don't 
reply at all. I don't appreciate backhanded remarks such as that and I 
doubt that many others would either.

I think it might do well if you also tried to remember this "fact".


ML> Verifying historical "facts" is a little more difficult.

Sorry; you lost me here.


ML> However, I share George's problem of lack of space.  It is a
ML> truism that the reference text I haven't looked at for ten years and
ML> so threw out last month, is needed today :-).

[:))) Isn't that always the case! [;) I've got a major space problem 
here as well.


ML> But verifying the past from recollection is very difficult,
ML> especially for me since I started programming automatic digital
ML> computing engines in 1948,

Uh... we're not going to start into this "I was flying starships when 
your grandfather was in diapers" stuff, are we? I had enough of that 
last year.


ML> (Those engines weren't even called
ML> "computers" in 1948; they were called "calculators."  I do have
ML> several references verifying that "fact"

1) Yes, I remember.

2) No, I don't want you to "verify" this. I don't need your attitude.


ML> But, unfortunately, many of us old-timers suffer from an overgrown
ML> sense of the facetious.

Yes, I know. I got a belly full of it last year in the [Tech] 
conference.


ML>  It appears that you, and many other youngsters,

::cough:: Excuse me, son?

So tell me, kid -- how old am I? [:) If you want to start making 
jouvenile references to age, I feel I should warn you that I know a 
great many. [;)


ML> Eventually, we has-beens will all die off, thereby leaving the world
ML> to those of you who have only a digital sense of humor :-).

Smiley or no, I'm becoming kind of offended by this turn of the 
discussion. I fail to see what relevance either of our ages have here. 
Unless, of course, you're attempting to postulate an excuse for your 
poor attitude, in which case it may be relevant.


ML> I agree with you that several of the frequenters of this echo are
ML> not overly conscientious about verifying their "facts" before
ML> posting, which is too bad.

It's not just this conference, or FidoNet in general. There are a great 
many people in our society who are very unsatisfied and unfulfilled. 
They crave respect as much as you and I. They speak up even when they 
don't really know the answer because they fear that their silence will 
make them appear unknowledgable. When you sit down and think about it, 
it's very sad, really.


ML> But it is not hard to recognize those amongst us who aren't very
ML> fussy about what they post, and to ignore them. IMO, it serves no
ML> useful purpose to make sophomoric remarks about their efforts.

I disagree here. You wouldn't put up with an incompetant teacher 
teaching your children, but you put up with an incompetant poster 
posting incorrect "facts" to the conference? You want these people 
spewing B.S. around Fido? The result will be trashed hard-drives, the 
purchase of equipment that won't work on your computer, perhaps even an 
incorrect home electrical installation. No, I don't agree. The sooner we 
let these people know that they're full of crap and put them in their 
place the sooner they'll either get a girlfriend or run off to the 
Internet where they're easier to spot!

Actually, I suppose that I should say, "in principle I don't agree." My 
aforementioned experience in [Tech] last year has shown me that you 
can't beat the FidoNet Old Boys Club. I give up. FidoNetters can B.S. 
each other all day and night -- just don't ask me to accept what's said 
as rote.

(After re-reading the above, you may misunderstand me as saying that it 
was you who was the incompetant poster. That wasn't my intention but I 
don't really have the time to attempt to re-word.)


ML> IM>And isn't going to make you any friends. 'Know what I mean?
ML>
ML> See tagline :-).
[...]
ML> --Murray  ___ * MR/2 2.25 #120 * With friends like this,
ML> who needs enemies

[:) Well, that's your perogative, Murray. Perhaps you think, at your 
age, that you have "earned" a right to be ornery, or that making new 
friends is a waste of time. My mother died at 54. My opinion is that you 
never know when it's gonna hit and that you should make the most of what 
you've got right now. You've got time on this planet to make more 
friends, but your time is too precious to put up with the B.S.'ers and 
those who only want to steal your time from you. [;)

Looking forward to a long and mutually productive relationship, Murray. 
[:) Take care and TTYL.

---
 þþ Warning!  The tech support people are even dumber than you!                
        

--- AdeptXBBS v1.11y (FREEWare/2)
251/25