Re: 2 GB myth

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 06:00:39 +1100
Message-ID: <41a8cec8$0$20859$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

John Hurley wrote:

>>From the content and tone of your posts I would have a difficult time
>>trusting your judgement.  I do have complete trust in Howard and his
>>knowledge, and I'm not surprised he has a large number of clients. 
>>And, I am not surprised at your sarcasm, however ill-placed it may be.
>>
>>I find it sad that you cannot accept quality advice and solid
>>information over your arrogant, self-serving opinions, and that you
>>insist upon the last word whether or not that word is worth having. 
>>Accept that your advice is deficient, learn from your mistake, and
>>move on.   We will all be much better for it.
>>

>
>
> I guess my question is why so many of the people involved in this
> newsgroup take the time to exchange posts like (the many above in this
> thread) and many others.
>
> If people's motivations are to genuinely help each other I think it
> could best be approached in a positive, non-judgemental manner.

That implies there are no judgements to be made. But there are. Simple mistakes, or omissions, are one thing. Serious errors that could lead to damage of one sort or another are different. Even they can be made by anyone at any time, but it is how one responds to their being pointed out that then determines the 'judgementalism' of the ensuing replies.

Judgementalism is not, in any case, the problem. Saying "Oh! I didn't think you'd have any real clients" is not being judgemental. It's trying to get your own back on someone who pointed out a technical deficiency in a post you made. I have no idea what you might call that. 'Childish' springs to mind.

> The words that many people choose to use appear to me, many times, to
> be more designed to put people down rather than help people.
>
> Words such as arrogant, self-serving, and deficient do not appear in
> my own personal opinion to be choices that help anyone.

Disagree. They are designed to help those who use the newsgroup with insufficient knowledge of their own to be able to form reliable opinions about the quality of the advice on offer.

I *try* to criticse the post, not the poster. Usually. Unless the poster never listens or learns. But to point out a post contains silly, harmful, technically wrong matter is not 'putting someone down'. It is expressly designed to ensure people are not mislead, and hence is very much helping people.

> Why don't we try to move this group into a more open, approachable,
> and humble manner.

Because at the extremes of the bell curve, that would be foolish. There are posts, and perhaps posters, who need criticising in the strongest possible terms because their advice is potentially damaging.

I think if you look at the bulk of the posts and posters here, the group is already open and approachable. That the occasional bun-fight can be distatesteful is not in question. Are they necessary? Occasionally, yes.

> How about some serious efforts toward professional courtesy and an
> open and non-judgemental exchange of opinion.

It's a curious thing, but the word "professional" often tends to get trotted out whenever what is actually meant is "please don't criticise me so much". It is actually professional to not want people to be misled by poor advice.

> One possible way to approach these postings. Before typing anything
> into the computer, take a deep breath or two and ask yourself if what
> I am doing is helping anyone.

I think you need to be prepared to accept that in this world, there are occasions when it is necessary to call a spade a spade. That to do so is not unprofessional, nor judgemental.

Regards
HJR Received on Sat Nov 27 2004 - 13:00:39 CST