Re: Relevancy - Was: If you can handle... -- MIDRANGE-L

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]

"jt"

whoever you are
Son  grandpa  semi-retiree,  brevity of this note is typical of your posts
  it has
 6600 words
 7800 spaces
  116 paragraphs
  163 lines

 You suggest IBM legal as this list has done, advised you not to write them.
Yet you are going to do this as you say they listen better compared to the
lists.  Good luck with Legal- crazed attorneys have the most interesting
reactions

Enjoy   your acclaimed good  fortune, retirement, go fishing hiking or the
stylish things of the day in Columbus, OH

In a message dated 11/18/2001 11:50:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, jt@ee.net
writes:


> Subj: RE: Relevancy - Was: If you can handle...
> Date: 11/18/2001 11:50:19 AM Eastern Standard Time
> From:    jt@ee.net (jt)
> Sender:    midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com">midrange-l@midrange.com</A>
> To:    midrange-l@midrange.com
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
> To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
> visit: http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l
> or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@midrange.com
> Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
> at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
>
>
>
> ----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
> Return-Path: <midrange-l-admin@midrange.com>
> Received: from  rly-ye05.mail.aol.com (rly-ye05.mail.aol.com
> [172.18.151.202]) by air-ye02.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id
> MAILINYE27-1118115019; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:50:19 -0500
> Received: from  linux.midrange.com ([207.224.38.113]) by
> rly-ye05.mail.aol.com (v82.22) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYE53-1118114948;
> Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:49:48 -0500
> Received: from linux.midrange.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>     by linux.midrange.com (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id fAIGnRI04147;
>     Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:49:27 -0600
> Received: from ee.net (ee.net [206.222.1.5])
>     by linux.midrange.com (8.11.6/linuxconf) with ESMTP id fAIGmBI03076
>     for <midrange-l@midrange.com>; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 10:48:11 -0600
> Received: from ocs006 (33105.cmh.dialup.thenap.net [209.190.33.105])
>     by ee.net (8.11.6/8.11.1) with SMTP id fAIGkrj06221
>     for <midrange-l@midrange.com>; Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:46:53 -0500
> From: "jt" <jt@ee.net>
> To: <midrange-l@midrange.com>
> Subject: RE: Relevancy - Was: If you can handle...
> Message-ID: <NEBBJKBIKLEJIKAMEJCGOEMHDLAA.jt@ee.net>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
> Importance: Normal
> In-Reply-To: <OFB2545861.1F209DE3-ON80256B06.0038E3F6@sb.com>
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
> content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
> content-type: text/plain;
> charset=iso-8859-1
> Sender: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> Errors-To: midrange-l-admin@midrange.com
> X-BeenThere: midrange-l@midrange.com
> X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.7
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: midrange-l@midrange.com
> List-Help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
> List-Post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l>,
>     <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
> List-Id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/midrange-l>,
>     <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> List-Archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/>
> Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 11:51:09 -0500
>
>
>



A. Ports