On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> I hope many more people take
> note of your gutsy lead and follow it.
> I'm sure that your mail will have put you high up on the list of
> 'promising fresh blood' :-) Please don't take my original commnents as
> being directed at you personally - your mail clearly shows that you are
> one of the people it *does't* apply to. I have detected traces of 'I'll
> submit an RFC, and then you will *have* to listen to me' in some
> people's approach to the whole process. This is *not* good. Your
> sensible approach - run an idea up, and if it gets shot at enough,
> retire it - is a lead that hopefully others will follow. I kept looking
> at the ever-increasing number of often conflicting RFCs (as you have
> identified) with an increasing sense of foreboding, as none of them
> seemed to be subject to the effects of natural selection and becoming
> extinct.
This is the third or fourth message reflecting on the generally low
level of experience, talent, competence, and clueage of "some people",
particularly with the "myriad stupidiotic RFCs" "these people" have been
brain-dead enough to submit to the groups.
What's with all the vagueness?
As part of the clue-f*cked, no-talent, wet-behind-the-ears no-hack
demographic, I obviously don't have the necessary synapses to determine
a good RFC from last week's spam.
If you (collectively) are afraid of hurting someone's feelings, don't
be. (Although tact would be a good *first* approach.) These thinly
veiled flames aren't doing any of us any good, because those of us who
are in desperate need of minor, insignificant - nay, trivial - niceties
like, oh, say, direction or instruction, will continue to be just as
helpful as we are today!
Everyone has knowledge and experience to offer - some *a lot* more than
others, granted. The main reason I'm here is to learn. (If I get to
contribute something worthwhile, bonus!)
I'm not an actor, I just play one on TV.
--
Bryan C. Warnock
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
