rcurl
|
|
response 130 of 143:
| 
Apr 29 01:26 UTC 1996 |
Well, let's see. I find the phase "good for you" somewhat patronizing. I
do not ask to be either praised or condemned for joining this cf. Then,
coop is more than a conference for discussing "Grex's current state of
affairs". It is also for discussing Grex's future state of affairs. Also,
"state of affairs" is a stilted phrase, and more than either current or
future "state of affairs" is discussed here. Next, I know I have a login
ID, and do not have to be told that. I don't think that that makes me
*important*, but it does let me participate here if I want to. I am also
not sure what it means that my response "counts". For one thing, I may
enter more than one response. Then also, I'm not sure about for whom or
for what it "counts" - some people don't think much of my responses, so it
doesn't count for much with them. Now, then, *what* is all it takes, to do
what? It then tells me to type "help introduction" to find out what it
takes, but help introduction doesn't tell me what it takes. Following
that, I'm told that my *logical* dicussions determine how Grex looks and
operates, but that is not true, since my *illogical* decisions do to. In
particular, I don't like to be told that how I vote must meet someone's
else's criterion of what they think is logical or illogical. A "tide of
opinion" is an interesting phase - tides due ebb and flow - though it is
another cliche. Anyway, the board, staff and users use more than the ebb
and flow of opinion to decide how to "handle Grex's everyday business".
They may use some of the information, too. I also wonder how they handle
longer range business if the ebb and flow is only good for "everyday
business". Anyway, they also use prices of components, past experience,
etc. The final sentence is incomprehensible. How does one go about
disregarding one's own "status" while regarding one's own "logic,
experience, and consideration". And, what business of your's is it if I'm
ready or not?
Otherwise, it's OK.
|
tsty
|
|
response 136 of 143:
|
May 17 12:57 UTC 1996 |
Thiss runs a few lines, but i did promise:
> Rane Curl (rcurl)
> Well, let's see. I find the phase "good for you" somewhat patronizing.
We understand that. rcurl, personally it seems, considers a compliment to
be an attempt to patronize rather than to be a sincere statement. The
statement is sincere nonetheless. No name/login is singled out, rather,
the generality applies to all/each if one should wish it to. Since coop
is not a specifically personalized vanity conference the generality carries.
> I
> do not ask to be either praised or condemned for joining this cf.
Haughty, vain perhaps, defensive in tone, but personalized - the
generality carries.
> Then,
> coop is more than a conference for discussing "Grex's current state of
> affairs". It is also for discussing Grex's future state of affairs.
The split between current and future is a function of the moment. The
future becomes the current in due time with the current becoming the past
in due time. An earlier version of the login contained "current and future"
so as to reflect greater precision at the expense of screen real estate.
Nephi and I will consider the re-introduction of the greater precision
since this criticism is valid. Currently, the generality carries; the future
may be different. It usually is.
> Also,
> "state of affairs" is a stilted phrase, and more than either current or
> future "state of affairs" is discussed here.
The second independent clause is redundant and has already been considered
valid. The first clause is also a figure of speech, not an unknown or ill-
considered method of description. Perhaps substitution of "flux" for "affairs"
would be more interesting albeit considered sexist and/or racist if
misinterpreted by those who should know better. If taken simply as "dynamically
changing," "flux" would work. We prefer that the better accepted general
figure of speech appear; the generality carries. Wouldn't want Grex to garner
the reputation of "having the flux" would we?
> Next, I know I have a login
> ID, and do not have to be told that.
Completely missed the point here. This subtley reinforces that as far as
the *system* is concerned, the loginid is immutable compared to any other
form of identification. Since there is unique identification and it is
more mission-critical than a name, reinforcing the concept of loginid as
an identifier in generally much more important. The generality, specificity
and subtlety carry.
> I don't think that that makes me
> *important*,
Another subtle reinforcement of the concept and importance of the connection
between the human being and the loginid - it does make you important due
to severe connection contained therein ... and important in cyberspace
as an identifiable member. We had considered this almost patronizing but
now we see that it's not, good. For the record though, there are no "**"
in the login screen, quotes would have sufficed above.
> but it does let me participate here if I want to.
True - and without a loginid (or a stolen or borrowed loginid) you would
be summarily un-important as well as unable to excercise the liberty of
free choice of participation or non-participation.
> I am also
> not sure what it means that my response "counts".
In its simple form, responses begin with "0" and proceed to higher
numbers, the extreme of which may be known only to the original programmer.
This integer-based continuum is also named "counting."
In its more complex form, and with the presumption that others will read
what you type, your accumulated intellect, experience and education is
thereby made available to the greater whole. If that *doesn't* count then
I don't know what would. Both the simple and the complex carry.
> For one thing, I may
> enter more than one response. Then also, I'm not sure about for whom or
> for what it "counts" - some people don't think much of my responses, so it
> doesn't count for much with them.
Accurate, but a self-diminishment that is not held here.
> Now, then, *what* is all it takes, to do
> what?
Gee, "because you respond," as the ignored remainder of the sentence states;
what else? Perhaps this is disingenuous or intended to be humorous by
feigning an inability to carry a thought from a preceeding sentence to a
succeeding sentence while ignoring half a sentence in the process. The
humor carries.
> It then tells me to type "help introduction" to find out what it
> takes, but help introduction doesn't tell me what it takes.
Oops ... that's incorrect. The actual login screen says "[F]or a good
start, type ..." I've always admired the content of the results of "help
introduction" and would refer you to it specifically as it could
aid you, or others, either as starters or old-timers, with conferencing
in general. The content, assistance and generality hold.
> Following
> that, I'm told that my *logical* dicussions determine how Grex looks and
> operates, but that is not true, since my *illogical* decisions do to.
More's the pity, perhaps. However illogical your decisions might be they
are not your logical discussions nor are discussions necessarily decisions.
Perhaps you could use your above statement for a platform plank running
for the Grex Board. Staff, however (not elected), is summarily fearful
of illogical decisions - even good ones or non-damaging ones.
> In
> particular, I don't like to be told that how I vote must meet someone's
> else's criterion of what they think is logical or illogical.
Well of course not - and neither is that contained in the login screen
which is the (theoretical) substance of your response.
> A "tide of
> opinion" is an interesting phase - tides due ebb and flow - though it is
> another cliche.
Yeh, well, that's correct. With sufficient history you might discern that
both opinions and considerations "ebb and flow" [that 'flux' thing again]
as Grex captains a course of independence, perhaps prominance, in the
uncharted waters [that 'tide' thing again] of the future holding fairly
stedfast to tolerance, gallactic boredom, free expression, non-tyranny
and other essential system values which, in fact, were the impetus for
the formation of Grex after the oppression from the first public access
Unix system drove the Founders in this direction. It is not our opinion
however, as fws of coop, that Grex's Founders were Puritans in any
particular way (not looking to establish freedom but rather looking
to establish their own tyranny).
> Anyway, the board, staff and users use more than the ebb
> and flow of opinion to decide how to "handle Grex's everyday business".
And they do not do so in a vacuum. The ebb and flow is supposed to assist
those decisions.
> They may use some of the information, too. I also wonder how they handle
> longer range business if the ebb and flow is only good for "everyday
> business". Anyway, they also use prices of components, past experience,
> etc.
Duly noted, twice above, the addition of "future" will be made, thank you.
> The final sentence is incomprehensible.
Ahhhh, the perfect example for retaining the content of the login screen
if your thumb moves too slowly some calm afternoon.
Re-read it, "it gets easier" (tm Grex).
> How does one go about
> disregarding one's own "status" while regarding one's own "logic,
> experience, and consideration".
With a little bit of self-esteem and self-confidence that your thoughts,
perhaps in rough form, will be valuable in some respect - as they are
here and now - that's how. Whether root or newbie, member or guest,
assembly language programmer or GUI user, drifter or resident, Grex
(for the most part) welcomes conference responses for the consideration
of content - what you say, not "who" you are. Certainly, "who" you
happen to be has significance in the ebb and flow, or tide of events,
whatever, but Grex, in theory, has no Inner Circle dictating results.
> And, what business of your's is it if I'm
> ready or not?
Ummm, none - nor has anyone been so silly as to try to reply to a
rhetorical question having recognized the gramatical construction.
>
> Otherwise, it's OK.
>
Cool, thankxx.
|
