On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:46:52 +0200, Matthew Raymond
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
So, what, we're supposed to order and read a book from Amazon.com in
order to know what you're talking about?
You could always go to a library. I believe the reference was offered as
something useful, should you be inclined to take the time.
Sorry if I was impolite. It was not my intention, but in any case I will
make a bigger effort to be tactful.
1) Not everyone lives near a public library with a wide selection of
computer science books.
Quite. Some people also have the luxury of a public library system that
will if necessary ship books loaned from other libraries (librarians
worked pretty hard to make systems like this work. t is a shame if people
no longer realise what they have...).
2) Not everyone has the time and the gasoline (which is expensive these
days) to go to the library every time someone references a book on a
mailing list.
Naturally. The same as your point that not everyone can buy the book and
read it.
3) Response to the email in question is delayed while the reader is
hunting for a book.
Of course, if the discussion is based on the book to the extent that it is
necessary to read it in order to take further part. (There are cases where
that is justifiable, of course. Discussing the details of a piece of
research without having read it is a bit pointless...)
James Graham was more tactful about this, and I suppose I could have
myself been a little more tactful to the person who posted the
Amazon.com link, but I want it to be clear that it's not acceptable for
someone to have to be well read to participate in this mailing list. As
such, your comment may be seen by some as elitist.
"something useful, should you be inclined to take the time" was meant to
imply that it is not essential, but those who want to become ridiculously
well-read™ might find it interesting. My impression was that reading this
book was not core to understanding the statement, just that it laid out
what is presumably a similar argument in more detail.
Reductio ad absurdum (what you did, taking my argument to its logical
extreme to show that it is of limited value) cuts both ways. There is no
requirement that people know anything at all about the Web to participate
on this list, although it would be a waste of almost everyone's time.
It strikes me as pretty obvious that being well read will increase the
value of your contribution, and probably what you gain from this list as
well. That does not mean you should read every book somone names, but nor
should you expect people to restrict their statements to things that do
not rely on any research that is only published in a form that requires
payment (although good manners is, as James suggested, to at least
summarise such information here for those who don't have a limitless
book-buying budget and the spare time to sit and read every stray scrap
that passes by).
I am quite content to be accused of saying that people who know more can
better contribute. I do not at all subscribe to the idea that you must be
ridiculously well-read™ to participate, nor do you have to be so to have
very valuable contributions to make. (Some people will criticise me
whatever I say. Others will always agree and praise it. For the most part,
neither of these groups are very interesting).
Cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile, Opera Software: Standards Group
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Try Opera 9 now! http://opera.com
