Dear Mr. Richard Clark,

What can I say?

This is the fourth time,
I have to call on my inadequate English
to justify a misunderstanding.
And this time
it is related to the Buckmaster site
mentioned by you
and that's all.

As for the rest three quarters of your message,
I don't feel that I am in position
to make any comment
since they are looking to me
as advises to successful advertisers.

But, there is one point
which, remarkably enough,
is referenced by you in both of your letters
and about the bottom line of them.
It has to do with the matter
of "maths" publication.
Noticeably,
you show about this matter
a strong predilection to web site publication
and a rejection of any inclusion into newsgroup messages.
Although for the moment
is seems that the right is on your side,
at the same time,
a recall to the need for direct communication
surpasses any other argument.
After all this is the deepest reason
for newsgroups existence, I believe.
Anyway.

Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely yours,

pez
SV7BAX

"Richard Clark" wrote in message ...
| On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:13:44 +0300, "pez" wrote:
|
| Dear Mr. Richard Clark,
|
| Thank you for the encouragement and your kind words.
| but I am not so sure that we deserve them (*).
|
| Hello,
|
| Your manners are superlative, and far better than my own manners
| (according to others, and that's fine as this is a characteristic of
| my aggressive style).
|
| Yes, you have absolute right about the initials, etc.
| But this became the motivation
| to discover, with a great deal of surprise I admit,
| that someone has given a bunch
| of inaccurate details to this site.
| We do not have something to hide
|
| You offer your call sign, that is far more unique than any signature
| that may be applied (like Dr. Slick). We have (as I am sure your part
| of the world does also) a history of pseudonyms or nom-de-plume for
| writers who wish to obscure their identity. I take care to write
| everything such that I can accept responsibility - or take
| responsibility. Many here do so too. Others do not, but in this day
| and age, anonymity is not guaranteed (again, taking the example of our
| same Dr. Slick) nor is it an affront if the writer commits to dialog
| and not simply slander or attack. Such occurrences of attack are rare
| here, and generally ignored.
|
| therefore we certainly do not belong to those
| with an extremely sensitive interest
| on private data.
| But I have to wonder:
| is there any responsibility
| by the site owner
| to guard the amateurs' personal data
| from anybody's will?
|
| Well, if by "site owner" you mean this newsgroup, then there is no
| "owner." There are nearly 40000 newsgroups that simply exist by
| nature of a combination of news-servers that are interconnected and
| sharing a protocol called NNTP. This protocol has been around since
| the beginning of the Internet (long before the WWW). It is like the
| public square where people meet to talk and listen and as in that
| square, if you are recognized, others will call you by name and
| perhaps comment about your ancestors. Such is privacy.
|
| Just as anything may be written here for free, anything written here
| has no intrinsic value. Value comes through association to the writer
| and that writer's continuity of thought and logic.
|
| You are already establishing a very good continuity and achieving a
| good association - to those who care!
|
| Finally,
| I do share your point of view for the length of a message
| and I try to keep them as short as possible
| but anyhow,
| take a look please
| on their rejection (*)
| in the related thread
| of our lengthy, indeed, derivations...
|
| do;^)
|
| Sincerely yours,
|
| pez
| SV7BAX
|
| Rejection is the forge of ideas. It does not condemn your work, it
| merely marks the critic by the nature of their criticism. If that
| criticism is weak, so is the critic. If that criticism is strong (not
| abuse, not refusal), then your argument is weak. Being technically
| and mathematically correct is not necessarily strength in an argument.
| You may be quite accurate, but the message is obscured by the bulk of
| presentation.
|
| A Canadian social scientist, Marshall McCluhan, demonstrated that
| identical material presented through different media become different
| messages. For instance, if you were to present you material to a
| class, they would accept it and work through it for understanding. If
| you were to present it to that same group of students in the public
| square, some might scoff, others might wander off with indifference.
| If you were to present it on TV, you probably wouldn't even make it to
| the first commercial. If you presented it on radio, you might have a
| highly interested audience. Same material, different venues,
| different responses.
|
| The same goes here. The nature of newsgroups is with dialog and
| hopefully you exchange correspondence with those who will allow you to
| develop your idea and stick with you to the end. If you attempt to
| make one presentation that answers all questions in one place, it
| violates a social contract that excludes them - except for them to
| accept or reject your work. They are not here to submit. This means
| you have to allow a style that is dialog in nature that allows their
| questions along the way to the end, where you do not find yourself
| wandering down the wrong path. (Think of the Socratic or Platonic
| methods of argument.) Unfortunately there are those who will
| manipulate discussion to the wrong path, or confusion. Dialog over
| time will reveal these individuals. This is why "lurking" is advised
| to newcomers so that they recognize personality with the signatures.
|
| One last point. Nothing is done once here. Nothing is solved.
| Nothing is fixed. The message will need repeating if only because new
| participants have not read the first message. The message may need
| repeating because you did not convince your critics, but they have had
| more time to ponder. This means that you sometimes have to vary your
| style and presentation so that repeating is not ignored. If you
| absolutely need the lengthy, mathematical treatment, then publish it
| at a web site and make a reference to it in your discussion. Offering
| the complete mathematical treatment each time you write here
| automatically limits you and reduces your audience. The craft of
| writing is knowing what to throw away. I generally discard 3/4ths of
| what I write before I hit the send button (some may groan not enough
| was thrown away here ;-)
|
| 73's
| Richard Clark, KB7QHC