[TAG] help

[Benjamin A. Okopnik]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:07:11PM -0800, Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting Benjamin A. Okopnik (ben at linuxgazette.net):
> 
> > Out of the most active members of this list - i.e., those who post 90%+
> > of the content here in a given month, which is something like ten or a
> > dozen people - those who spoke up, i.e., those to whom it mattered
> > enough, all except you reacted negatively.
> 
> I note the shifting standard (first "majority", now several of the most
> active posters) without particular objection, but personally think
> that's a pretty dumb smokescreen, when the buck does and should stop
> with you.

"Shifting standard" is a highly loaded - and needless to say, baseless -
construction of my trying to elucidate what I meant. If you expect my
diction to be perfectly clear the first time and every time - and
_especially_ if you expect me not to use a somewhat different statement
of what I meant when I see that you've mistaken my meaning - then your
expectations are unreasonable.

I appreciate the fact that you can often state things clearly and
concisely; I would probably be much less aware of it if I was capable of
doing the same, particularly consistently. I don't know about you, Rick,
but I work pretty hard to be as clear as I can, and I sometimes fail
miserably at the job. For perfection, try the shop next door: I can't
guarantee it, and have never offered it. Just my best effort.

> > The objections that were brought up are valid, and can't just
> > be swept under the rug.
> 
> Well, as you know, I think they're uniformly bogus, knee-jerk, and
> lacking in any sense of proportion. 
> 
> If you're tired of hearing my opinion, and don't want to keep on
> seeing my personal estimate of commentators' logical abilities decline, 
> you should consider ceasing to quote at me increasingly farfetched
> arguments that I then feel compelled to shoot down.

[sigh] You keep seeing it as far-fetched arguments; I've been trying my
best to clarify what I've said, since you don't seem to get it. Fine and
cool; I'll go with what solves the problem, which is for me to stop
trying to explain it. So, last email from me on the subject.

> > feel free to explain how you see this "new and
> > different LG" operating in any way that does not make us all
> > redundant.  
> 
> Huh?  I see nothing "new and different".

Public archives would be new and different - by definition. TAG, instead
of being the (noise-filtered) channel of information would be different
- since it would be nothing more than commentary on an existing resource
(would you prefer to read, say, the Wall Street Journal, or someone's
commentary on it?) The people here know that whatever goes out will be
prefiltered by a friend, so the occasional embarassing slip of the
fingers - whether a mistake in fact or tact - is likely to not see the
light of day; the absence of that bit of comfort would be new.

How is it that you "see nothing"?

> The magazine would be entirely
> unchanged; ditto the readership.

That, of course, is a statement that would be much better for even a
shred of proof.

> The value the magazine would offer, 
> does offer, and has always offered is that of, well, being a magazine.  

And this circular statement's value is, well, the value of a circular
statement.

One of the values that we offer the Linux community is precisely the
thing that having a public list would eliminate: a source of Linux
information that's had its noise level reduced. Copy that source, and
add the noise back in, and you've diluted the usefulness of that source
by half - or more, because there's more *volume* to the non-filtered
source.

I see your argument for making the list public as having a fair amount
of validity and importance; I believe I've said so previously. I also
see the other people's arguments as important, for reasons I and they
have stated. I don't see a huge difference between the weight of the two
arguments, but I do see that the numbers are on the side that favors
leaving things as they are. If there was any overwhelming rationale that
would have convinced me to open the archives, I haven't heard it.

> > I'm honestly boggled by this, despite your statement that it should be
> > "self-evident".
> 
> I'm honestly boggled by your bizarre conviction that an accessible,
> searchable mailing list archive would make an entire robust, well
> established magazine, let alone a carefully crafted column within it,
> become "redundant".  This seems, at minimum, to reflect an extremely low
> opinion on your part of what the magazine furnishes.  You might want to 
> think on't some more.

I've considered it carefully - considered it again, since I value your
advice - and see no evidence of anything like the "low opinion" that you
postulate. In fact, not wanting to dilute the value of people's work
here reflects my high opinion of them. For whatever reason, we seem to
be speaking two different versions of English today... but, as I've
said, my last email on the subject.


* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *