Re: Problem with hdparam

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Hardly my fault. I'm doing what I can. The point is, there's a way
that Mr. Harter, or you, or anyone other regular doesn't need to
read these bothersome messages.

<sigh> Yes, that's true - there is.

Nice of you to acknowlege it, at least.

Yet instead I get a rude and insulting reply from
him. A pointless one.

I've answered this already.

I continue to disagree that it was not insulting.

That sentence no verb.

That's pretty weak, going after an obvious typo.

So much for levity.

I guess I'm not in a particularly jolly mood. It did spur me to
proofread a bit better.

I think "bandwidth wasting public
nuisance" was way beyond non-tactful. He could have opened the
discussion with, "Do you really think these are a productive use of
your time or the group?" Then we could have had a discussion like
real people. Instead, he was an ass about it.

You'll have a much better chance at gaining the moral high ground if
you stop calling people "asses". If you perceive that other people's
behaviour is unacceptable, is that a reason to indulge in the same
behaviour? (And no, I make no claims to perfection in this regard!)

Perhaps. Perhaps he was standing in for someone else that I actually
irritated with. I will retract that. I still feel that his behavior was
rude, insulting, and unwarranted under the circumstances. Had he
behaved in what I feel to be a more appropriate manner, I would have
been happy to discuss the matter with him, as I have in the past.

I also think you owe me an apology for implying that I would killfile
you or anyone else merely for disagreeing with me on this matter. I
won't hold my breath on that.


I don't completely agree with his position on net-copping

Yes, it's that favorite position, "It's ok when I netcop, but not
when you do."

That's not what I meant. Whilst it does make sense to remind people
about posting in the way most convenient for those from whom they
seek help (and thus far I lean more towards your position than his),
it does get a bit tedious when that's all you ever seem to do.

If you'd use the mechanism that I put in place, it wouldn't BE tedious.
This is a specious argument. Not only that, my number of these posts is
actually quite small.

Further, it's not my goal to please the Great Richard Heathfield with
entertaining posts. It's to put forth what I feel to be the best
contribution I can make at any particular time. If that means providing
an answer no one else has, then I'll do it. If it means providing a
short, polite, and informative message about top-posting, then that is
what I will do.

The point is, you still seem to think that he was at least partially
justified in netcopping me, about netcopping. If you don't think he
was, then why defend him?

, but he does have a point, and he was expressing that point.

Really, what point is that?

Read it again if you've forgotten.

The only thing I got from him is that he thinks I'm a waste of
bandwidth and a nuisance. So, you think he has a point?

I think he
was uncharitable to say that you are a bandwidth-wasting public
nuisance. But had he said (what I suspect he actually meant) that a
large proportion of your articles are a bandwidth-wasting public
nuisance, I'd have agreed.

I don't accept the premise.

<sigh> Yes, I know that. I've snipped your defence of that position
not because I'm trying to conceal or ignore it, but because I'm not
trying to persuade you or defeat your arguments. I'm only trying to
argue that plonking Richard Harter was a mistake on your part.

Has he apologized for his rude remark? That's the only thing that can
make me change my mind.

Clueful people are not all that plentiful around here, after all.

I think it unlikely he has unique knowledge. Regardless, I don't excuse
rude behavior merely because the person might be useful to me in the
future.


As far as these specific messages, I probably average about one a
week.

Would you like me to count them for you?

If you'd like. According to Google (not the most reliable source) I see
about six from the start of March. If your numbers differ, then I'll
accept that they are probably more correct. I don't doubt there are
some periods where I've posted more.

Now, the bit about percentages. What IS the proper Richard
Heathfield approved level of other posts before I can post a TPA?

Don't you think that's needlessly confrontational? I simply suggested
that you give some thought to this. If you want a fight, go fight
someone else.

Why is it your place to say anything about it at all? You seem to have
some number in mind. At least Mr. Harter seems to believe that they
shouldn't be posted at all. That is a position I can respect and
discuss. This nonsense of, "well, that's about all you post" is so
vague as to be meaningless. Hence I challenge you to come with a number
that would satisfy you.

<snip>

Now, let's go back to what really chaps me. YOU are one of the
biggest wasters of bandwidth here. Let's talk percentages. What
percentage of your posts are pointless arguments with Jacob Navia?
And what do those translate into for total bytes posted each day?

Let's find out, shall we? I'll try to summarise my last hundred posts
by dividing them into three groups: "waste of bandwidth" stuff (such
as this discussion, and also including techie stuff if it is not
specifically C-related), techie stuff (ONLY C-related), and replies
of any kind at all to Jacob Navia. I don't have ready access to the
byte sizes of articles, but I do have access to line counts, so I'll
use those instead.

I chose 100 because it was large enough to be a decent sample without
being so large as to be troublesome to collate. Working back from
today (not including this article, obviously), it takes us back about
six days, to 6 April.

Posts Lines Lines/Post % of all lines
Non-C articles 21 556 26.5- 11.77+
Technical responses 74 3903 52.7+ 82.69+
Jacob Navia 5 261 52.2 5.53-

82% (or even 74%, depending on how you look at it) doesn't seem so
bad to me.

So - you asked me to come up with the figures, and I've obliged. Now
it's your turn.

Sample error, I'd say, considering there's only five responses to
Navia. If you picked a sample range with one those argumentative
threads, the numbers would look at lot different. Now, if you've been
making an effort of late to avoid answering him (rather than Jacob just
not posting much) then I commend your efforts.

The point is, you've got your thing you like to "waste" bandwidth on. I
have mine. The difference is, my messages are short and relatively
infrequent. The fact that they might be a fairly high percentage of my
admittedly low output is irrelevant.


We've probably entertained the trolls enough by now (who does Twink
root for, he doesn't like either of us?). If you have further thoughts,
I'll read them with interest. Otherwise, I feel I've said all I have to
say.




Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A note on computing thugs and coding bums
    ... say that he is going after Richard Heathfield alone. ... constantly labelling everyone as being mindlesss followers, all newsgroup ... personal attacks, purposedly going against the character's own ... you've read one or two posts on the surface and taken things ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Fashion Stainless Steel Cutting Rings Jewelry Cheap Wholesale
    ... As for bandwidth, there are many ways to waste it: advertising, posts about ... I just find it unfortunate that the commerce guys have to stick their noses ... You can just scan down your list of message headers, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Tom Kunich
    ... > stalking for all the bandwidth destroyed. ... > wasn't just stupid crap like he posts now. ... I have a question, Tom. ... Signal or noise, Tom? ...
    (rec.bicycles.racing)
  • Re: Do you think this will work?
    ... I missed the original post but ethernet, wired or wireless, can only ... aggregate bandwidth of the nodes isn't it. ... Send responses to the relevant news group rather than to me, ... Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.system)
  • Re: Space travel by humans is not possible now
    ... Trim them to conserve bandwidth. ... smaller posts were always preferred. ... suggest you had SEVERE technical problems. ... READING isn't 'bandwidth', you silly git. ...
    (sci.space.policy)