Re: The New AppleScript Users Digest
Re: The New AppleScript Users Digest
- Subject: Re: The New AppleScript Users Digest
- From: Nigel Garvey <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2000 21:53:11 +0000
I've just downloaded two more digests after getting home from work and am
dismayed to see that this thread has degenerated into personal abuse:
>
He's sure he's right about everything, and "scr*w you if you don't like
>
it."
and power games:
>
Oh, here are a couple of other hints for getting things done with me.
Chuq Von Rospach wrote on Sun, 29 Oct 2000 20:56:52 -0800, in response to
as digest:
>
I suggest you don't assume that just because you demand something
>
that I'll do it. I'm happy to listen, but when people insist that
>
because they want something it should be forced on everyone, I tend
>
to be cautious. I did try to explain to this person why I didn't do
>
what he wanted, but he was primarily interested in getting what he
>
wnated, and I was worried about what was best for the list and my
>
server. Ohwell.
If "this person" refers to me here, as it seems, I should point out that
"this person"'s original post was to point out, helpfully and correctly,
that 1) The digest numbering system had reverted to Volume 1 Number 1 -
to which the response was just:
>
yes.
... with no further word of explanation, thanks, or apology - and 2)
There were now several unnecessary details added to the headers of the
posts in the digest, the resulting visual clutter making the digest
harder to navigate and the initiation of responses to posts harder to
script. (These problems were - as I explained in my later message -
exacerbated by the random order of the header lines themselves.) The
response to this was that "most people" considered it a feature and that
it was impossible to please everybody.
It was the attribution of an opinion to "most people" (I was, as far as I
knew, the only person ever to have mentioned the subject) and the
apparent arrogance of the overall response that prompted my second,
semi-humorous post. I was *not* primarily interested in getting what I
wnated, nor do I condone the attack on Chuq himself.
So far, despite all the posts, no-one on the list has actually disagreed
with anything I've said about the new digest and I've received a limited
amount of agreement privately. I'm still doubtful about the duplicated
numbering system and about whether the opinion of "most people" is
actually known, but Chuq has said he'll see what he can do to get the
headings displayed in a consistent order and I'm content to let it rest
at that.
NG