Re: Advice for sci.electronics.design

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 18:02:16 +0000, Guy Macon
<_see.web.page_@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>
>
>John Fields wrote:
>
>>You're not interested in
>
>>what you're interested in is
>
>You have incorrectly assessed my internal mental state.

---
Perhaps, but I think it's interesting (and telling) that instead of
stating _why_ my assessment was incorrect, you chose to edit my post
by snipping the salient bits, then merely disagreeing with what you
found so distasteful you had to eliminate it. If this is how you act
in an unmoderated group where you wield no power, I think your stint
as a moderator is going to win you no friends.
---

>>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.
>
>You are correct, and I expect that there will be a lack of details
>about products under development. I briefly considered offering an
>option that would allow posts to go through a user-defined chain of
>mixmaster anonymizers, but I concluded that keeping the product
>details secret is more important than keeping the name of the
>developer secret. I don't know whether this will be a fatal flaw.
>
>>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.
>
>I won't allow the vultures to post, and those who think they have
>something which is going to make them rich (but lack the skills to
>develop it) will have to be told the truth. They might not like it
>but it's the right thing to do.

---
The "truth" as you see it?

What might that be?
---

>>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.
>
>Which, of course, I will handle with a FAQ.
>
>>That leaves just about zero discussion
>
>Perhaps. Time will tell.
>
>>except for the wimps who can't take it on sed and want
>>Big Brother to do their filtering for them.
>
>Such people do exist. You obviously are not one of them, of course,
>so I would expect you to continue using s.e.d as you always have, knowing
>that it is unmoderated and that no proposal to moderate it will be
>allowed to be voted upon.
>
>>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.
>
>Indeed they are, and I wouldn't change that even if I could.

---
Sure you would. You already said you had a whiz-bang way to stop
off-topic posters dead in their tracks, which indicates to me that if
you could, you'd change the nature of sed. Otherwise, why offer it up
as a "solution"? for a problem which you wouldn't change, if you
could?
---

>I have a question for you; should I whitelist you so that your
>posts go straight to misc.business.product-dev without moderation?

---
Do what you like, it makes no difference to me.

I have no interest in participating in any discussion where what I
post is subject to the whims and vagaries of a self-appointed
moderator or a moderator of any type.
---

>The answer to that depends on whether you are inclined to follow
>the moderation policy when posting to m.b.p-d. even though you
>strongly disagree with it and very much prefer unmoderated groups.

---
It seems incredible to me that you think that complying with a
"moderation policy" is something that is important to me. It isn't.
As a matter of fact, I find it repugnant and will have nothing to do
with any moderated newsgroup.
---

>Your comments above about vultures and sheep were quite insightful,
>and I would have approved them in a heartbeat in a [POLICY] post
>to m.b.p-d.

---
*** what you'd approve and what you wouldn't, and if you're serious
about increasing the signal-to-noise ratio on usenet, stop trolling
this NG with your off-topic crap.

--
John Fields
Professional Circuit Designer
.

Quantcast