I've been bragging for years that I knew Jennifer back when she was a student at Dickinson College. I think it was autumn of 1995 and I had just discovered The Internettm. I'd heard you could see naked pictures and stuff so, clever fellow that I am, I did a search on Lycos for "breasts" (OK, and other stuff). I stumbled across a site by Jennifer Kaye Ringley which included (amongst a plethora of fascinating items) a "Tour of Jennifer's Body". This included closeups of almost every body part: hair, back, hands, feet, BREASTS(!), arms, neck, butt, etc etc. Jennifer wrote informative, entertaining blurbs for each of the body parts. I was struck by her humor and strong sense of herself. I just HAD to email her and we ended up exchanging email for a couple of months. I turned her on to Jackson Browne and she turned me on to Poe's (Edgar Allen, that is) Annabel Lee.
The point is this woman is anything but some money-grubbing whatever. She is a clever early-adopter who figured out a way to let her hobby pay for itself and then some.
It's well and good for Katz to tell us about all the wonderful glowing email he gets all the time, but that attitue is *not* reflected in the comments. You can try and get around this by telling me that it's a vocal minority that posts, and the rest just lurk or keep quiet, but as in USENET, this argument doesn't hold water. If you're not going to be an active part of the community, you shouldn't be counted on either side.
The "Katz's mail says so" argument is admittedly weak but not groundless. Doesn't reading and participating through email count as participation?
It seems to me that the rabid anti-Katz faction is validating Katz's being here. If TSA unilaterally hated Katz or was even indifferent, he would not be here... guaranteed.
It seems so hard for people to grasp that the SURE-fire way to be rid of someone is to ignore them. It's been said too many times already, but... If Katz is so boring, so pompous, so insipid, so simplistic, why bother reading let alone ranting against how awful he is? It just doesn't add up.
btw, I don't believe the "Katz's email says so" argument just because he says so; in fact I take it with a grain of salt. But it does ring true with my experience in discussion forums and life in general.
It's safe to say Katz knows more about how 'we' feel about him than 'we' know because he sees the email he gets, 'we' don't. Q*Bert DID claim to speak for the Slashdot audience in general.
Clearly, the Slashdot audience finds your articles insultingly simplistic.
Katz was calling him on it. Like it or not, Katz is in a better position to take the pulse of the READERS (as opposed to readers/contributors) than Q*Bert or most any other of the vast majority of The Slashdot Audience. (Could this be another TLA? TSA - The Monolith)
But this would be at the expense of OSS!! No longer would OSS look as much of a good looking alternative to combat MS's monopoly - and I'm sure many of these companies will dump their OSS projects when they find themselves on a more equal footing with MS - it would be back to normal business practises (and no OSS.)
Either OSS is a viable alternative on its merits or it is not. If OSS's success were dependent on the success or failure of MS, we'd be screwed. The beauty of OSS is that it will succeed for those who need it, want it, love it, etc, regardless of what the rest of the world does.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.voteexchange.org/vote001.htm
The point is this woman is anything but some money-grubbing whatever. She is a clever early-adopter who figured out a way to let her hobby pay for itself and then some.
It's well and good for Katz to tell us about all the wonderful glowing email he gets all the time, but that attitue is *not* reflected in the
comments. You can try and get around this by telling me that it's a vocal minority that posts, and the rest just lurk or keep quiet, but as in USENET, this argument doesn't hold water. If you're not going to be an active part of the community, you shouldn't be counted on either side.
The "Katz's mail says so" argument is admittedly weak but not groundless. Doesn't reading and participating through email count as participation?
It seems to me that the rabid anti-Katz faction is validating Katz's being here. If TSA unilaterally hated Katz or was even indifferent, he would not be here... guaranteed.
It seems so hard for people to grasp that the SURE-fire way to be rid of someone is to ignore them. It's been said too many times already, but... If Katz is so boring, so pompous, so insipid, so simplistic, why bother reading let alone ranting against how awful he is? It just doesn't add up.
btw, I don't believe the "Katz's email says so" argument just because he says so; in fact I take it with a grain of salt. But it does ring true with my experience in discussion forums and life in general.
Obviously, Katz knows more about us than we do.
It's safe to say Katz knows more about how 'we' feel about him than 'we' know because he sees the email he gets, 'we' don't. Q*Bert DID claim to speak for the Slashdot audience in general.
Clearly, the Slashdot audience finds your articles insultingly simplistic.
Katz was calling him on it. Like it or not, Katz is in a better position to take the pulse of the READERS (as opposed to readers/contributors) than Q*Bert or most any other of the vast majority of The Slashdot Audience. (Could this be another TLA? TSA - The Monolith)
Either OSS is a viable alternative on its merits or it is not. If OSS's success were dependent on the success or failure of MS, we'd be screwed. The beauty of OSS is that it will succeed for those who need it, want it, love it, etc, regardless of what the rest of the world does.
If you're interested - read it; if you're uninterested, repulsed, frightened, whatever - filter it.