[MLB-WIRELESS] Tolerance & Gain

Matthew Hill matthew.hill at matthewhillonline.com
Thu Jan 16 10:39:22 EST 2003


Yo All

Total agreeance with Craig on this one.

As with my situation, It helps if someone wants something, or information
about a certain thing, to come out and say it in a manner which we can
understand.

Statements like "what do you mean i have to buy one" only tends to belieive
that the person saying it doesnt have much upstairs.

And since when have we forced someone to buy anything off the bulk "sorry, i
didn't mean it that way, it sounded like i had to buy one(i know u ment with
money) it just sounded like i had to get one to keep up a number or
something ". Its your choice whether you buy one or not...

Tolerance is a great thing, but coherant statements probably are better :D

Cheers

Matthew Hill

http://www.matthewhillonline.com - Matthew Hill Online
http://www.matthewhillonline.com/motorsport - Matthew Hill Motorsport
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Sanders" <cas at taz.net.au>
To: "Grant McHerron" <grant at taoceti.com.au>
Cc: <melbwireless at wireless.org.au>
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] Tolerance & Gain


> On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 07:18:50AM +1100, Grant McHerron wrote:
> > You know, it would seem from all the CR^P being sent around this
> > mailing list lately that some of the folks out here have forgotten
> > something rather interesting about the world of WIRELESS SYSTEMS...
> >
> > With zero tolerance to allow for differences/shifts/angles/etc, the
> > gain often drops to zero
>
> actually, it's low tolerance for misleading/false/just-plain-wrong
> information being propagated.  to those who know how mail on the
> internet works, some of the proposed "fixes" to non-problems are as
> wrong as stating that "2 + 2 = 49.273".  not just slightly wrong, not
> just off-by-one, but completely wrong.  when you see people who are
> belligerently wrong AND, worse, spreading that incorrect information
> then there is an *obligation* to correct the mistake before it spreads
> too far and infects too many minds.
>
> ignoring that obligation means that uncorrected & unchallenged
> falsehoods become "common knowledge".
>
> > Think about it before blasting people for being stupid, etc.
>
> personally, i'd be happy if people actually thought about things for a
> few minutes before making stupid utterences in public.  sometimes,
> blasting them in public for being stupid is the only thing that might
> give them pause and THINK before speaking.
>
> too many people speak without engaging their brain - they spout out the
> first thing that comes to mind, they aren't capable of backing up or
> supporting any of the claims they've made, they don't edit or review
> what they are about to post before they send it, they diagnose problems
> without any knowledge or skill, they prescribe "fixes" that do nothing
> but demonstrate their ignorance, and so on.
>
> most people on most lists (in fact, most people in real life) would
> benefit if they heeded the following advice: better to remain silent and
> perhaps be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
>
> > Think about it before loudly proclaiming you're right and others are
> > wrong.
>
> see first paragraph above.  sometimes people ARE wrong and sometimes
> this fact needs to be highlighted before too many people are misled.
>
> > Taking the time to review your response, write in a helpful manner
> > and/or attempt to gently educate others is a LOT harder than just
> > shooting off a nasty piece of work, isn't it...
>
> unfortunately, some people don't like to be educated and respond rudely
> to any attempt to explain things to them with insults like "jerkoff" and
> "arsehole".  not surprisingly, things tend to go downhill from there.
>
>
> > Sorry to vent - just rather amused by the way a bunch of supposedly
> > intelligent people yet again demonstrate their complete inability to
> > behave in a semi-social environment. Been seeing this since I started
> > on-line in the early 80's - sad to imagine that this may be the only
> > true constant in the universe :(
>
> so, it's OK to flame as long as you're being trite and as long as you're
> being hypocritical?
>
> personally, i find lame "be nice" sentiments to be far more offensive
> than any technical argument.    progress is made through the clash and
> compromise of ideas, very little progress is made by people who spend
> all their time agreeing with each other.
>
> in fact, tech arguments tend only to get "nasty" when one side is
> clearly in the wrong but refuses to admit it - then they descend to
> calling people arseholes and other ad-hominem attacks....they can't
> argue the point so they attack the person.
>
> craig
>
> --
> craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>
>
> Fabricati Diem, PVNC.
>  -- motto of the Ankh-Morpork City Watch
>
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
>


To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message



More information about the Melbwireless mailing list