Re: Dr. Turley-PLEASE READ

[HSUEH WALTER C <hsuehw@ecf.toronto.edu>]

On 3 Jul 1996, Nathan Mates wrote:
>    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.

I kind of wondered about that myself.  However, I've visited his web
site, read the postings concerning him and Seven Hills, and have read
your postings.  I find it hard to believe that Mr. Turley is the 
person you claim he is.  How has he been able to work together with
Karl Bunker, Seven Hills, and others to obtain source code, etc.?
Surely if he is as bad as you claim he is, who'd cooperate with him?


>    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. 

Ok.


>    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. 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?


> 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.


>    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.

Ok.  Again, this hasn't been my experience.


>    Excuse me, where do you see this "holier-than-thou" approach in
> dealings with newbies here? The only ones I attack are the clueless

Sure.  You want proof, here it is:

Your flame of the person who said AppleWorks was "primitive".  Surely
you remember calling him a "spoiled kid"?  


>    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.

You know, you're pretty good at putting words in other people's mouths
and then using that as the bases of your arguments.  Where did I
say I'd rather have a "touchy-feely group"?  Let's see your hard 
cold facts.


>    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.

I think there are more problems to c.s.a2 than just him.  Where is this
hatred coming from?  Mr. Turley vs. Joe Kohn, Mr. Turley vs. you and
the people at winternet, Jawaid vs. ???, Endless Mike vs. Mr. Turley vs.
you, etc?


>    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.

Sure.  the "touchy-feely" thing again.  You are forcing me to take sides,
but I won't.  I have only posted my observations.  


Best Regards,

Walter Hsueh