Re: Advice for sci.electronics.design

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 07:47:59 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>
>Luhan Monat wrote:
>>
>>Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>>> "THE STANDARD ADVICE:
>>>
>>> There is a way to influence what gets discussed in a newsgroup that
>>> works well, and another way that has never worked no matter how many
>>> people have tried it.
>>>
>>> What works: Post articles on the topic you wish to see discussed,
>>> and participate in the resulting discussion. Use killfiles and
>>> filters so that you don't see the articles that you dislike.
>>> If you don't know how to use a killfile, use good old fashioned
>>> discipline and don't read the articles that you dislike. Never,
>>> ever respond to articles that you dislike.
>>>
>>> What doesn't work: Respond to articles that you dislike, complain
>>> about articles that you dislike, complain about posters that you
>>> dislike, complain about how terrible everyone else is for not posting
>>> what you want them to post. Talk about how to respond to articles
>>> that you dislike. Make the articles that you dislike the center of
>>> attention, the main topic of discussion, and a personal crusade."
>>>
>>> -Guy Macon
>>>
>>> The above, of course, fully applies to my own posts - including this one.
>>>
>>
>>I can see some logic in this persons advice. I am quite curious about
>>what such advice other 'campers' here have on the subject. Is there, in
>>fact, some consensus on how best to post questions, and respond to such
>>posts, etc.
>>
>>After all, science has found order in even chaos theory.
>
>There is indeed a consensus of the technical groups as a whole.
>You can see it in action by reading groups such as comp.arch.embedded
>or you can learn by reading the standard FAQ on the topic at
>[ http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html ].
>
>In sci.electronics.design itself you will find a couple of groups
>of posters who dominate most topics through sheer volume of posting
>and through inappropriate aggressiveness. Some of them are simply
>flamers looking for trouble, but others are knowledgeable engineers
>who, like most engineers, have serious control issues.
>
>The reason most engineers have serious control issues is best
>understood by reading the Dilbert comic strip. Yes, things like
>that really happen, but they aren't funny when they are happening
>to you. An engineer often has the solution to a problem but is
>stopped from implementing that solution because bosses or customers
>who know far less than he does have power over him. This, along
>with the flamers looking for trouble theory, explains why we are
>seeing such a rabid reaction to there being a moderated product
>development newsgroup. They see it as just one more pointy-haired
>boss trying to control them. What they don't understand is that I
>am perfectly willing to whitelist anyone who isn't disruptive, and
>that I am also perfectly willing to give them a moderator account
>if they agree to reject disruptive posts.
>
>So, how to make everyone happy? The answer is a simple one:
>
>[1] If you wish to have a civil discussion about some aspect of
>product design without having to wade through flame wars and
>off-topic political posts, simply post to these two groups:
>[ sci.electronics.design,misc.business.product-dev ] and read
>the discussion there. You can then evaluate my performance as
>a moderator and vote with your feet if you don't like how things
>are run. (I would hope, of course, that you would make constructive
>suggestions first, and I will approve such suggestions if the subject
>line starts with the string "[POLICY]", which lets those uninterested
>in moderation policy killfile them.)
>
>[2] If you like the freedom/anarchy that allows most threads to
>degenerate into flame wars and off-topic political posts, simply
>post to this one group: [ sci.electronics.design ] and read the
>discussion there. You will see all of the posts by the folks who
>are in group [1], plus all the off-topic flames political posts
>that you and others post.
>
>By making the above choices, everyone gets what they want, and
>the reader now has two choices instead of the one available now.
>
>I invite those described in [1] above to join the discussion over
>in misc.business.product-dev and to help me to build it up into a
>place where working engineers can have a discussion about product
>development. And please feel free to make suggestions as to how
>to make it better. I want it to meet the needs of working engineers.

---
Macon, you're a fraud.

You're not interested in moderating the group in order to make it more
"productive", what you're interested in is having dominion over a
population. Whether or not you ever exercise the power, merely being
_able_ to puts your ilk in a heady state of being.

Besides, I believe, there's a fundamental flaw in your concept of a
public forum dedicated to product development in that anyone doing
product development is going to be constrained (either by an NDA or by
prudence) in what they can divulge without compromising their
marketing position. I certainly wouldn't blab about what I might be
doing (loose lips sink ships, you know) to the world if I expected to
hit the market with my new widget before anyone else could.

So what are you going to wind up with? A bunch of idiot sheep who
think they have something which is going to make them rich and a bunch
of vultures looking to fleece them.

That being the case, what you'll be left with is endless dreary
discussions about "How can I get my widget to the marketplace?" which
could be easily handled with a FAQ. That leaves just about zero
discussion except for the wimps who can't take it on sed and want
Big Brother to do their filtering for them.

As bad as you might think sed is, everyone here is free to say just
exactly what they want, including: "Go *** yourself, Macon." without
having to wait for approval from anyone before it's disseminated and
the entire planet can read it.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
.

Loading