Re: Dr. Turley-PLEASE READ

[pubpc05@library.ucla.edu]

nathan@parka.winternet.com (Nathan Mates) wrote:
In response to <Pine.SGI.3.91.960703121540.21533C-100000@skule.ecf>,
>HSUEH WALTER C  <hsuehw@ecf.toronto.edu>
>>Mr. Mates, I take exception to that.  You flamed someone who said
>>something inaccurate about the P8 loader in GS/OS.  You flamed someone
>>who said that AppleWorks was "primitive".  Are these "lies" worth
>>the flames?  Are they lies?
>
>   You want to see why the AW 5.0 guy got categorized as someone who 
>may not have his head on right? Here's all he said in his original
>post (go check out www.dejanews.com if you don't believe me)
>
>---
>	Bought a copy of AW 5.0 from Scantron, very disappointed.
>
>        Primitive word processor, steep learning curve, you view only
>        1/3 of your document at time; that's no good for professional
>        word processing.
>
>        What about Word Perfect? Who does it stack up, and where can I
>        buy it?
>---

Have you considered that AppleWorks really is primitive in some respects?
For those who write for a living and absolutely need advanced editing and
formatting features, AW can seem like just that. It isn't that the Apple
lacks this kind of software, just that AW isn't it. Wordperfect for the GS
has these features and this person asked for it by name, so why didn't you
point him in the right direction or tell him about alternatives like
GraphicWriter III for page layout instead? If you dig up your first post
in response to this guy, you'd find that you flamed him without offering
any suggestion or information to him at all.

>   Granted, in later posts, he posted reasonable and rational reasons.
>However, based on this first impression, the reason makes almost zero
>sense. Size of screen display is directly related to professionalism?

If you needed page layout capabilities, then yes it is relevant.

>Exactly how the "my latest PC is better than your obsolete XYZ" trolls
>come across-- a comparison based on size and newness rather than any
>facts.

He did not say that the Apple was obsolete nor that he had a better PC.
He was looking for Wordperfect GS which has features that AW does not.

>   And a Mr. Tigh Buckles who I've given spelling and grammar lessons
>to, what the heck is wrong with that? You turn in a resume like that,
>you'll just have to keep looking. He claimed to be of the age where he
>was _SUPPOSED_ to be learning that in school. He eventually learned
>about newsgroups and relevancy after several more and more flamelike
>attempts to point that out; a few more and he might fix his punctuation.

Dark Dude hit the problem with this argument. This newsgroup is world wide
and not all countries use English as a primary language. Where is Mr. Buckles
from? South Africa, right? English isn't their primary language.


>   Also, in all these "observations," everyone seems to point out the
>nasty end of my flames of a person. Problem is, there's usually a
>buildup-- I start off with a polite correction and then use stronger
>language as they refuse to get the message. A Dejanews search of my
>dealings with Mr Buckles will show that I was polite for several
>messages _before_ taking off the kid gloves. With Dr. Tom, the nice
>stage was years ago, but it was there also.

You didn't have those gloves on when you dealt with the guy looking for
WordPerfect GS.

>
>>> Mr. Aadlebert Goertz and his confusion about what an unenhanced //e
>>> will print on boot, as well as excessively large .sigs] Problem is,
>
>>Who made you patroller of c.s.a2?  Shall we also say that your .sig
>>is out of place on c.s.a2?  Not that I mind, but I won't be the 
>>judge of that.
>
>   Excuse me, will you please look at and comprehend what I said and
>you quoted above? I said absolutely NOTHING about content in .sigs,
>just those that were _excessively_large_. It's just not I but
>thousands more on usenet that'll tell you 4 lines, 80 cols is not just
>a nice idea. That's a _factual_ and content-independent way of
>judging .sigs-- you could have random characters, racist slogans,
>or addresses in there and it wouldn't matter.


You seem to be selective in your criticism, picking on kids and the
uninformed. I just scrolled past the sig of Don Xavier something or other.
It was some 8 lines long with a large star trek insignia. Is it because
he is a programmer that you don't flame him too?

If you are pointing out facts, then apply them to everyone. Don't just
borrow netiquette to bully kids around!


>We skip directly to the stronger
>language due to exhaustion in dealing with someone who will not
>listen, and that's the only form of language that's had an effect on
>him.
>
>   By the way, almost nobody's _EVER_ posted facts saying that Dr.
>Tom was right in these flamewars. Since the reputable flamers start
>with facts and only get "No" back, that should say something about
>both sides to anyone who's taken debate or formal logic. If the
>other side cannot conclusively dispute the facts, that should tell
>you something about who's right and who's in it just to be obstinate.


Here is another usenet policy: take it to email.

Especially over trivial stuff like his email acronym. The guy has posted
some bs in the past, but that email address is his now.

For the record, Joe Kohn does not act like this. Only when Turley flamed
him first did he respond. He *helped* the AppleWorks user looking for
WordPerfect right away. He doesn't act like a bully. Flaming is wrong.