Re: Dr. Turley-PLEASE READ

[nathan@winternet.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <Pine.SGI.3.91.960701125959.4992A-100000@skule.ecf>,
>(back to the subject thread).  In all honesty, I don't know whom to 
>believe anymore.  Mr. Turley has been enthusiastic and courteous in
>every single post and personal email I've read.

   You didn't mention the important criteria which I and others have
attempted to point out all the time: whether what he's posting is the
truth or not. You can be an enthusiastic and courteous liar, as pretty
much any politican will prove.

   Further, most to all of our replies to Dr. Tom are just that:
replies.  He posts something that's inaccurate or just plain wrong,
and we correct him. He insists on what he's said, even when it's
blatantly obviously bullsh*t (witness his defending of "3D
psychoacoustic audio remixes"), and we hammer at him. 


>  On the other hand, there are a select bunch of high-profile IIGS
>personalities (Mr.  Mates & friends) who all obviously have some long
>standing animosity towards Mr. Turley.

   It's not just Dr. Tom. It's anyone who continues to tell lies even
after being notified of their being very inaccurate. [Witness
Mr. Aadlebert Goertz and his confusion about what an unenhanced //e
will print on boot, as well as excessively large .sigs] Problem is,
most people learn after 2-3 corrections. In the nearly 4 years of
being on comp.sys.apple2, Dr. Tom has never learned.

   As programmers, we start to value the truth very highly. When we
turn to our bosses (be them ourselves or the ones signing the
paycheck) and say "it works," our program better darn well be able to
back up that claim. [And if they find a bug, we should be able to
fix that, and fast.] Lies will make a program _bomb_ in reviews
and with the public, and we'll be out of a job.

   Further, in the longstanding personal dealings with Dr. Tom, we've
found that as soon as you dare to tell him that he's smoking it, he
holes up and refuses to take corrections. He is not reasonable when
pushed, and does not come across as one capable of admitting that he
was wrong very easily at all.


>So, whom should I believe?  At this point, Mr. Turley has more 
>credibility than certain others, who seem more interested in slander,
>flaming, reputation-bashing, and giving apple2 newbies the
>"holier-than-thou" cold shoulder when they ask questions.

   Excuse me, where do you see this "holier-than-thou" approach in
dealings with newbies here? The only ones I attack are the clueless
mac folks (and it's a one-time message to them unless they refuse to
learn), and I'm only sending off emails pointing them to c.s.mac.*
now. For most questions, I answer with a WWW pointer to a prepared
page answering their question, answer to the best of my knowledge, or
shut up.

   As noted above, flames of Dr. Tom are based on hard cold facts,
usually demonstrating that his posts are the opposite. If you'd rather
have a touchy-feely group where you'd allow people to lie to each
other as long as no feelings were hurt, go ahead, but you can count me
and many others out.

   If people don't lie, we don't flame. Very simple. The solution is
not to try and push around the flamers, but correct the liars. There's
a very specific one who's the cause of most to all of the problems
here, and his name is Charles Turley. Ask him to clean up his act.

   Developers are your friend if you want new stuff for the GS, not
necessarily people who lie through a smile. Yes, we may bare our teeth
at offense far more than you'd like, but that's how many of us deal
with programming problems-- being touchy-feely is NOT going to get you
anywhere with a bug.

Nathan Mates

--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~nathan/      <*>
# And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the
# Kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in
# parables" Mark 4:11, NRSV