Re: NEW PAPER RELATED TO GPS AND EARTH ROTATION PUBLISHED

On Mon, 9 May 2005 09:41:53 +0200, nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>Chuck Taylor <chuck.taylor@spamtrap> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 May 2005 10:55:52 +0200, nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Well no, Sam.
>> >I truly appreciate your attemps,
>> >and I do feel that there is a place in a public forum
>> >for announcements of general utility.
>>
>>
>> Ah, there's your problem.
>>
>> A pointer to the newsgroup charter would be an announcement of general
>> utility.
>>
>> The paper at issue here was not a "general announcement". It is
>> material of specific relevance to those who are interested in the
>> science and engineering that underlie GPS and similar systems.
>
>Yes, that's what I said. Such announcements may be appropriate,
>if some care goes into making them.
>Or are you deliberately misreading?
>'General' of course refers to the readership of this forum, in general.
>
>> >However, I also think that whoever does so
>> >should respect his audience,
>> >and take some trouble selecting, editing, and explaining
>> >why the posting maybe of use.
>>
>>
>> It is the reader's responsibility to assess his own levels of interest
>> and expertise and decide for himself what information posted here is
>> relevant to his needs and within his understanding. Authors are not
>> obligated to make sure every reader has the prerequisite knowledge to
>> understand the content or relevance of each and every post.
>
>Author's of announcements of this kind shouldn't just dragandrop.
>They should bother to evaluate what they are announcing,
>and indicate briefly for the benefit of their readers
>in a few lines what it is about,
>and why the announcement may be particularly interesting.
>You wouldn't want the summaries of all papers in geophysics
>which happen to have the letters GPS in them posted here,
>would you?
>
>> With your first reply in this thread, you clearly identified yourself
>> as *not* part of the intended audience of the paper in question. The
>> appropriate response would have been to ignore it, just as untold
>> numbers of other readers are doing right now, or *ask* why it's
>> relevant rather than argue about it. Sam is *really good* at
>> answering questions.
>
>You apparently failed to notice that my first comment
>is a meaningful reflection and comment
>upon the content of the paper in question.
>(which may be of use to others who haven't looked at the paper yet)
>
>That some of the noisybodies here will start shouting
>at any occasion that presents itself isn't my responsibility.
>
>Best,
>
>Jan
>

More passive-aggressive BS.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: IPCC rules Forest Gate shooting accidental
    ... That statement appears to have no relevance to the preceding post. ... However, since you raise the point, Ms Dick's assurance on this matter ... Does no-one ever take responsibility for anything in this police ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: Lebanon
    ... Failure to use soc.religion.quaker as such a forum, ... readership of soc.religion.quaker a disservice. ... announcements worthy of being read by the international community, ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)