RE: Relevancy - Was: If you can handle...

I believe the most accurate measure of the signal/noise ratio of a post is
the number of words used divided by the number of concepts explored.

I also believe that delusion is most clearly identified when a person does
the exact same thing that they criticize someone else of doing.  I enjoy
most of your posts, Dave, but IMV this post calculates to 100% delusion.

You missed the following points in my previous replies:
1) I replied to the OSS thread in this list, because the author(s) of the
post(s) I was replying to wrote here.  It was the author(s) of the post(s)
which I replied to, who did not take my suggestion to move the thread.
2) I made 2 replies to jte's (Mr. John Earl's) suggestion to make content
more relevant to the list
3) I have been singled out for criticism for doing what most everybody, on
this list, has done from time to time
4) The 2 replies to Mr. John Earl were completely different
5) I have followed Mr. John Earl's posts for a year and a half, and accept
his views as wisdom
6) I have attempted to make my replies briefer, in response to Mr. John
Earl's suggestion

To be verbose about point #2, above, the point of my follow-up was to thank
Mr. John Earl for his post, which I had meant to do in the first one.  I
also wanted to point out that I don't spread views which are obviously
false, being raised by a Professor of Journalism.  I may have erred, in
relying on published news reports, because I occasionally assume that they
publish responsibly.  I know this is not always the case, however (again, to
be intentionally redundant, being raised by a Professor of Journalism).

When I analyze the reply below, however, according to number of words used
per number of new concepts explored...  I get a divide by zero error.  I
also note that this reply, below, also came in on the wrong list.

I accept the general point as valid, however.  I've attempted, without
complete success, to write brief replies to specific questions.  I've
already noted, however, that broad concepts are not easily explored using
"sound-bites".  I think I erred only in using this list as a forum for which
it is not ideally suited for.  I notice plenty of people make the same
mistake, and post what are essential op-ed pieces.  I won't make that same
mistake in the future.

I appreciate the reply, Dave, because normally I don't get any.  But IMV,
the post added little to the discussion, as outlined above.  I don't,
however, point any finger of blame.  I've been redundant, in expressing the
concept that an error in communication is the mutual responsibility of both
the author of the words, and the reader of those words.

BTW, the reason I post redundant information is because that is a common
method a teacher uses:  repeat the same concept in slightly different words.
>From my POV, this concept that, if you don't like what I'm writing you
should just skip my posts, has apparently been lost on many.  The author and
size of my posts are both easily identifiable.

The problem isn't cause by those readers who skip my posts.  But people who
see SOME value to what I write, so continue to read them, don't find
SUFFICIENT VALUE in some of my posts.  I think there is a level of
perfection desired which is mathematically impossible.

Consider this:

When I write a post, the target audience is made up of:

1) the author of the original post
2) anybody with an interest in the thread
3) individuals other that the author of the post I'm replying to
4) anyone who has an interest in the fundamental concepts expressed in the
post (if any)
5) IBMers on this list
6) execs at IBM

(You all remember "Ban Dale"...;-)  He astutely noted, off-list a few months
back, recognition of points #5 and #6.  Bob C. has noted this repeatedly on
the IGNITe list, also.  But these 2 points, which are probably obvious to
some, appear to be lost on many.  The execs have research assistants who
comb these lists, along with the media, etc.  Anybody who writes here is
/*potentially*/ communicating to both IBMers who are subscribed to this
list, as well as execs at IBM.)

Maybe this isn't the proper forum for me to try to communicate with IBM, but
you all are also doing same.  Everyone knows there are some really good
people at IBM who spend time lurking, and (IMV far too) occasionally
responding, on these lists.  I'm not at liberty to be specific, but I've
seen /strong evidence/ that these lists have a direct and positive impact on
IBM.  I wish the folks that know this, just as well as I do, could post
examples of same.  This is not always possible, as some is confidential.
But maybe they will, if the correspondence is not confidential, in the
future sometime...

Regardless, given the target audience, I don't think my posts are all that
bad.  That's clearly a judgment call...  But I think I have an unusally
objective view of the value of my posts...

It's a moot point, because I have too many irons in the fire to spend the
time writing.  As a matter of fact, I didn't really have the time to "waste"
(depending on POV) writing this "crap", when I should be packing for a
mini-vacation.  I'm glad my Wife has more patience than some of y'all...

"Been REAL...!" but as some old cartoons end with...: "That's All
Folks...!", at least for a good while...  Thank youse...:-)

jt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> [mailto:midrange-l-admin@midrange.com]On Behalf Of David.X.Kahn@gsk.com
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2001 5:29 AM
> To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> Subject: RE: Relevancy - Was: If you can handle...
>
>
> jt wrote:
>
> > And as I said, point well taken...
>
> jt, your 3 comments (so far but counting) in this thread illustrate that
> the point has not been taken. Also you continue to quote at excessive
> length including even the midrange footers. Also in the OSS thread you
> yourself suggested it be taken to nontech but you continue to post here.
> Might I suggest moving it over to midrange-stream-of-consciousness?
>
> Dave...
>
> =======================================================
> The opinions expressed in this communication are my own and do not
> necessarily reflect those of my employer.