<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Al,<br>
<br>
It's funny how many people have expressed appreciation for my
putting things in perspective - and did not see my post as a
personal attack on anyone at all. Some people, I guess, are just a
bit thin skinned - of whom at least one is well known for his habit
of intellectually browbeating anyone who happens to disagree with
him... And some of the cloying sanctimony that I have seen here in
response to my post absolutely makes me retch (not you, Al, you are
pretty straightforward) - and I get an awful lot of that here in
Berkeley from the organic-and-Birkenstock crowd and should be immune
to it by now... <br>
<br>
Israel Stein <br>
<br>
<br>
On 11:59 AM, Al Guecia/Allied PianoCraft wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:%3CBLU0-SMTP210C05372DD912AF944F23FDDC80@phx.gbl%3E"
type="cite">Israel, I think you should address the problems and
concerns here and stop making personal attacks!
<div><br>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;
white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
font-size: medium;">
<div>Al -</div>
<div>High Point, NC</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 10, 2011, at 1:14 AM, Israel Stein wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 11:59 AM, Ron Nossaman wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 3/9/2011 8:36 PM, Israel Stein
wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">And yes there are issues there -
but I see<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">that Ron Nossaman has gotten out
of his "this is crap" mode and started<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">asking constructive questions
about how it could possibly be made to<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">work.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">Charming, as always.<br>
</blockquote>
Pot calling the kettle black, sir...<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">In the old format, I've learned
valuable things from people I might not otherwise read
at all from their long record of having nothing much
interesting or lucid to say. The value of information is
not contingent on it's source, but on it's validity, and
unlikely people know interesting things on occasion that
I'm grateful to learn. The threading, discussion
grouping, and other social filtering trends are real
horizon limiters in my opinion, as very busy people
limit their exposure to ideas to what they are concerned
with at this hour. Next week will naturally be different
as the crisis hot line turns. Some folks are actually
interested in and able to learn, change, and adapt to
what's important to them without being forced into a new
and improved format that has to be kicked out of the way
to get to the process. I offered some modified
possibilities, which I haven't heard back on,
incidentally, that would allow the "fogies" all the raw
data and interactivity necessary to maintain their
current and changing state of knowledge, and still let
the new age pursue their passions. The thing is really
not that far off from being usable for everyone with
some changes, if that's an allowable concept. Awaiting
enlightenment on that one, but I suspect I already know
the answer.<br>
</blockquote>
We will find out - won't we? I am glad that you offered
your suggestions - and I noted that in the original post.
I am not happy that an atmosphere of mockery and derision
was created before those suggestions were offered.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I know the old system has burned
out the folks that made it work, but it still strikes me
as curious that the users weren't polled before the
money was spent and major changes were made. If our
preferences don't count, why bother to maintain
discussion lists at all?<br>
</blockquote>
Don't know - i wasn't part of the process. But instead of
immediately jumping on people - perhaps it might be useful
to first find out what factors were used in the decision?
And how do you know that some users were not polled? As
much as a small core of users like to believe that this
list is theirs - there is a huge body of subscribers who
might not agree with you, and also quite a sizable body of
former subscribers who have been driven off this list by
the format and the attitudes of some of the "major
contributors".<br>
<br>
Israel Stein<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>