[KLUG Members] Re: Bryan J. Smith

[Bryan J. Smith]

--=-oPgpag3GExZSDTk2uEBM
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 22:13, p. buxton wrote:
> PROBLEM:
> I unsubscribed on the 31st of December.

You wouldn't be the first to do so because of me.  And you won't be the
last.  I leave it up to the individual LUG membership to decide "if I'm
worth it as a whole."  I respect all decisions on such matters.

> This week, Wednesday or Thursday, I decided to catch up on KLUG traffic
> and so hit the list archives. After catching up, I have to say this:
> Bryan J. Smith uses a modicum of talent

Interestingly put.  I'm sure I have a modicum of talent in many areas. =20
In the areas of web, application and other design methodologies,
including my total inexperience with object oriented concepts, I'm
probably one of the least knowledgeable people here.  There are probably
many others.

I'd like to think I have a lot of knowledge regarding the politics of
how NT and modern Windows applications were both developed and marketed,
largely because I knew many people involved.  And the mainstay of my
career has been in systems-level development, basic semiconductor design
and IT support for network file servers.

> and a membership in IEEE

Don't even make that one.  At _no_time_ have I _ever_ used my IEEE
membership to profess any great "representation" of myself as a
professional, etc...  My use of an IEEE address is so I have a
"permanent" Email address (since 1994) and _nothing_ more.

I don't think it's a "big deal" to be an IEEE member.  I am one for two,
rather simple reasons:
  1.  I believe in the organization
  2.  They have the best insurance options

That's it.  Again, *I* don't think it's a "big deal" to be an IEEE
member.  So don't you go off thinking I do.

> to harass others and show off at the expense of the list as a whole.

And you wouldn't be the first one to suggest this either.

> ARGUMENTS:
> My current objections:
> 1. I have seen him use the term '*MEGA-IGNORANT*' [sic] in what he calls
>    a 'technical" discussion:'
> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2003-January/006291.html

I use the term "ignorant" on occasion, even when talking about myself.=20
It's not an "insult" but rather a statement regarding a statement, _not_
direct at a person, just the statement they made.

> Statements are not ignorant, they are true or false or semantically
> null.

No, ignorance is quite common in many areas.  I, for one, have caught
myself making ignorant statements in many areas, until someone else
brought their experience to bear on an argument.

> *Authors* can be biased, stupid, wise, pathological liars,
> ad nauseum. This is not a mere mistake on Bryan's part: he's called
> people ignorant before and he is here doing it again with indirection:
> labeling a sentence with a word that can only apply to its author.

Ahhh, so we now have your definition which is fact.  So be it.

>    > And that's what this whole thread was about!  It was about your
>    > _ignorant_ ass-u-mptions of AMD that were _not_ true.  Buy Intel if

If you didn't catch that, that is followed by "ass-u-m..." -- as in "ass
out of you and me."

> Of course, Bryan is misleading us when he calls this a technical
> discussion. It is a Holy War:
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/holy-wars.html
> The war in question is, 'Which is better: totally standards-driven
> formats or vendor-supported formats?' Now, if I buy my truck fleet with
> Cummins(TM) engines, I am pretty dependent on Cummins for service.
> Though it is possible at a later date to rip out the engines and replace
> them, that option remains expensive and impractical. Nevertheless,
> businesses make decisions like these all the time and continue to
> thrive. In this context, if someone's boss decides to continue to rely
> on MS, well, that is his or her decision. Abusing someone on our list
> for their boss's decision is foolish and ineffective unless the true
> purpose of these remarks is self-aggrandizement by abusing others.

First off, _you_ have made the assumption that _I'm_ talking about
"standards v. proprietary."  If you ever learn _1_ thing about me, it's
that I _always_ see at least _3_ options.  I use proprietary products
all the time!  The only time I have a problem is when a proprietary
product doesn't even work with itself!  That's that "3rd option" that
most people choose.

You see, the difference is that most businesses that make engines make
them compatible with their own products.  Microsoft expects you to buy a
new vehicle everytime it just needs a tune-up.  And to go with that new
vehicle, you need a new road to match, etc...

I'm not sitting here saying something because I want you to change.  I
just don't want people to lie to themselves.  I don't want to see them
lie to themselves anymore than *I* did years ago.  Take it for what it
is worth.  I find it extremely amazing how much people will rationalize
something, to the point of technical incorrectness.

Understand, I myself was one of those OS/2 users who said, "oh, well
Microsoft is telling consumers that NT is taking over so we just have to
use it."  So I was support NT before most of you guys ever heard of
Windows 95.  I've seen the routine they do, over and over.  And when
their abuse of their consumers, like myself, comes at a loss of
corporate productivity, one finally realizes you cannot sustain your
business on such practices.

That's all I was pointing out.  The whole discussion in that original
thread wasn't me v. someone else, it was me v. what someone else
_thought_ I was saying.  Just like you have done yet again above!

Don't assume.  _Read_ my statements and _understand_ what *I* am
saying.  You obviously didn't.

> Standards against vendors: immediate features versus long-term support.
> If you decide between ATA and SCSI, you balance the risk of outlay v.
> future performance. There are no 'right' answers to these questions but
> that fact does not stop Bryan. He's simply full of misstatements that
> render his intuition suspect:
>    > Trying to guess Linux marketshare is trying to guess long-term
>    > virus infections.
> It's called epidemiology. Look it up.

Excuse me, that should read "the rate" of long-term virus infections.=20
Yet another grammatical error caused by my failure to properly
proofread.  A major flaw, I agree.

> 2. He declared Professor Donald Knuth "infamous" and typoed his name to
>    boot.

I typo all the time dude.  Big deal.  I majored in engineering for a
reason.  My composition instructors _always_ hated me.  ;-p

So now you're killing your argument by being even more argumentative.

> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2003-January/006366.html
>    > For those not familiar with TeX (pron. "tek"), it was developed by
>    > the infamous Donald Kunth.
> He doesn't say why the gentle Knuth is supposedly infamous, so I may
> only assume it is for one of his two most famous works, _The Art of
> Computer Programming_ or TeX. Since he doesn't mention _TAoCP_ and
> doesn't claim that Knuth molested him as a child, I assume he's upset
> over TeX:
>    > Unlike SGML/DSSSL or XML/XSL which have strict content/style
>    > separation, TeX is content and style markup in one.=3D20 Backslashes
>    > (\) are the control characters for tags, which is rather messy in
>    > today's world of markup.  It also has a never-ending spagetti
>    > sprawl of "macros" for just about every need, most infamous is
>    > LaTeX (pron.  "la-tek").  It's a "breathing" document language with
>    > no boundaries (or control for that matter).

Okay, now you're reading into stuff.  Bad move dude.

I _prefer_ TeX myself, and I'm _not_ against integrating both context
and style in a single language.  I just meant versus more modern
development and syntax like XML is going to be more friendly to parsers
-- at least the ones I have written myself.

> TeX, famously, was invented by Knuth for his book on algorithms.  He
> found that no good, general typesetting language was available, so he
> wrote one. Physical typesetting is, needless to say, a VERY different
> beast than data management/transforms, and Tex, from the late '70's, is
> indeed very different from, say, SGML, which was not standardized until
> 1983.  Never try to compare the two: it is like comparing apples and
> mountains. TeX is no more 'wrong' than was ITS.

Well, first off, _excuse_me_ for not giving a complete history.  And
people complain I'm too wordy, now you want more?  Ha!  ;-

Secondly, I wasn't trying to compare the two directly.  I was trying to
show how they are different from the typical standpoint of modern
"open-close tag-based" markup most people are familiar with.  I also was
trying to emphasis how the age of TeX has produced a massive amount of
extension, for which it is very difficult to write a WYSIWYG (or
WYSIWYM) GUI that is able to do even 2% of the entire sprawl of code
(like LyX).

> Again, Bryan is using a Holy War (and poor Prof. Knuth) to flap his flag
> over us all.

I think Knuth has introduced a lot of great innovations, and I have
personally benefited from TeX by far.  Nothing more, nothing less.  The
"infamous" was more out of admiration for his contributions.

[ I know 0 about his personal life ]

> 3. Straw men.
> #2 above shows the use of TeX as a straw man.
> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2003-January/006290.html
>    > but we do need better applications on Linux so we can share the
>    > data better with Windows. I'm thinking here of StarOffice/Microsoft
>    > Office. StarOffice is nice but there are still those weird docs
>    > that don't work.
> Bryan turned this user's off-hand, vague complaint into:
> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2003-January/006357.html
>    > Just remember what the original thread was regarding.  It was
>    > regarding the need for an Open Source office suite to read all MS
>    > Office formats as good as Microsoft.  He expected instant reverse
>    > engineering with the latest formats, not recognizing the sheer
>    > effort required to do so.
> Better becomes perfect, some unspecified day becomes instant. This
> skates the edge of libel.

Well I recant it all then.

But before I do, let's talk _hard_facts_.  I don't know how much better
you can get than 99.7% of attributes in 3 years.  From a reverse
engineering standpoint, to do better _would_ be near "perfect" and near
"instant."

> What did the original poster really want? Microsoft filters? An XML
> world? The chance to complain about his annoying boss? We may never know
> from reading Bryan's reply. Gore Vidal once wrote "A good writer pulls
> the material to himself." Well, in this respect Bryan is a good writer,
> but half the questions he doesn't merely soapbox are twisted into
> support for his favorite wang-bangers[1] or attacks on them, whereupon
> they are vigorously, endlessly, POINTLESSLY defended against -- NOTHING!

I am such a singularity.

> No one else cares so much but that's not the point.

I'm sure I take far too much seriously.  I've been trying to "mellow
out" with age, but I'm still young and stupid.  Combined with
stubbornness and arrogance, this is a dangerous combination at times.

> Bryan's idols must be attacked so Bryan may save them in a
> technological Munchhausen by proxy.
> Any actual information he may have is lost in his noise.

Hey, I don't claim to be clear, decisive and I'm definitely not
charismatic.  In fact, I often interject too much flair into things,
which can turn many people off to the subject.

> [1] XML, M$, Serial ATA, the marvels of whatever it is that Bryan has
> decided is 'dreamy.'

Your wit is actually providing me with entertainment.  What you are
trying to accomplish is beyond me.

> 4. I looked this guy up on the Net.

Since I've been using the IEEE alias since 1994, I'm sure you'll find
all sorts of stuff.

I've been banned from LUGs before.

> I will not, here, detail the mail messages I found today from other LUG
> lists. You want to see 'em, you look 'em up.  Suffice it to say that in
> my opinion neither his arguments nor his personality have changed a bit
> and my considered opinion is that he will NEVER cease from the
> following:
> a. He offends and apologizes, offends and apologizes, offends and
> apologizes: he's been doing it since 2000 at least.

First off, I've stopped apologizing.  It's pointless and my history
cannot be undone.  Furthermore, I don't go play games and acting
innocent -- I know I am _not_ innocent.

Now in the case of LEAP, one person was out to ruin my life by taking
advantage of that.  Not just electronically, but professionally.  Once I
realized the games he was playing, I realized my folly rather quickly
with regard to him.  You'll find 95% of the "issues" were with that one
person.

And once LEAP's leadership realized my willingness to apologize was
being used to play me, that ended the other's charade rather quickly.=20
You are _free_ to inquire with LEAPsters on that _exact_ history.  It's
rather sad that someone so sick would do that to a person for over 2
years.

[ NOTE:  He is no longer allowed to hold a position of officership in
LEAP. ]

> He claims he makes up for wrongs easily: I have no doubt he does for
> two reasons: he never  stops insulting people in every other mail and
> his apologies mean nothing. There is no contrition, no Calvinist
> regeneration. His apologies are left-handed, insulting,
> self-aggrandizing and -justifying....  Worthless.

Again, do not try to apply what happens on KLUG or LEAP to what happened
on LEAP with *1* person.  I am not innocent, but if you _knew_ what
happened off-list for over 2 years in LEAP, you'd be rather pissed like
I was at this _one_ person.

> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2002-December/005566.html
> Like the child who addends justifications to its apology, Bryan is not
> contrite. He is deflecting blame and wearing down our defenses for the
> NEXT time he breaks the rules. He says, outright, that he will never
> change, just repeat the cycle. This is willful, not weakness.

It's an admission that I have many faults.

> b. He develops 'enemies.' Listmasters especially.

Yes.  And that "listmaster" was the same one who was _banned_ from ever
being one again!  Dude, there's a _lot_ of crap you haven't seen!

> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2002-December/005557.html
>    > A major problem is when someone uses a "loophole" in a bylaw to
>    > remove his "critics."  One such move was to call anything I said as
>    > "slander," even though it was proven as true, and remove me from
>    > the list without a leadership vote (again, due to a small
>    > "loophole" in the bylaws).

Yes.  I laid out _in_detail_ what someone did to me off-list, and that
very same person (also the listmaster and President) had me banned.

He whole cruel intent for years on end was to ask me questions in person
at a meeting, then turn around and present the answers as his own
on-list.  And if I even commented, he would complain and say I'm telling
him what to do, and that it was his project, etc...

You have to _know_ this person to _know_ what he does to people!=20
Someone in the LEAP leadership caught him in a two-faced lie over and
over and over again with regards to me, and he went on and on and one
like he didn't hear it!

Man ... you just have to _know_ the ordeal there!  This isn't the same
dude.

> c. He is the problem whereof he speaks:
> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2003-January/006348.html
>    > [ SIDE NOTE:  I think some people need to read ESR on how people
>    > destroy a support list.  It's not the perceived "problem," but the
>    > massive number of follow-up posts that talk about it. ]
> Then why respond to himself ALL THE TIME?

Arrogance and ignorance, possibly.

> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/pipermail/members/2003-January/thread.html
> [KLUG Members] 100% Technical: Sun XML, VBscript conversion and other=20
> efforts ...   Bryan J. Smith
> \___ * [KLUG Members] Re: 100% Technical: Sun XML, VBscript conversion an=
d=20
> other efforts ...   Bryan J. Smith
> \___ * [KLUG Members] Re: Sun XML, VBscript conversion and other efforts =
--=20
> ADVO addendeum ...   Bryan J. Smith
>     \___ * [KLUG Members] Re: Sun XML, VBscript conversion and other effo=
rts=20
> -- WRONG LIST   Bryan J. Smith
> \___ * [KLUG Members] Re: 100% Technical: Sun XML, VBscript conversion an=
d=20
> other efforts ...   Bryan J. Smith
> SOLUTIONS:
> Hey: if I really don't like this guy, why not just killfile him? Why
> don't we all? Because he won't go away and we won't see the damage he'll
> do to those who don't know how to work killfiles (who, despite this fear
> or ignorance, do not really deserve to suffer for it) or to the newbies
> who don't know who he is. Also, I feel honor-bound not to turn away from
> problems.

So you want me to unsubscribe.

After the "games" of one person in LEAP, I no longer do that because he
succeeded over and over and over.  But if either the majority of KLUG
doesn't want me around or the leadership that represents them, then I
will respect their views.

> I agree with Eric Raymond that the problem is that follow-ups go on and
> on; I do not propose doing so. I do not believe in ignoring problems or
> appeasing their makers. One solution is truly effective and implemented:
> abuse regulations.  Our rules for the privilege of using this list, a
> public service provided by KLUG and its supporting members, 'suggest'
> that we users be polite:
> http://www.kalamazoolinux.org/listserv/listserv.php3
>    "Praise in public; criticize in private." It's OK to correct factual
>    errors on the list as long as you are polite and just correct the
>    facts.  Don't attack the author. Be careful about uses of "you" and
>    "your" in replies, since they make the response personal.
> Buried in those suggestions is an outright command: "Don't attack the
> author." I say that means: No abuse. The penalty is implicit, but there:
> these are the rules of the service. No rules, no service.

And I leave it up to the KLUG leaders or membership, etc...  I will
respect any and all wishes.

>    We do not accept and cannot support advertising messages on this
>    mailing list. Advertising is a message intended to solicit commerce
>    for the benefit of the sender. The officers of KLUG, and operators of
>    the KLUG mailing list shall be the sole judges of what constitutes
>    advertising.
> The rules do not explicitly declare the method of removal for abuse.
> However, if we may extrapolate from the rules for advertising, this
> judgment may fairly be said to reside in the KLUG officers.

And that's very acceptable to me.  Again, I'm not here to overstay my
welcome.

> ACCUSATION:
> I say that Bryan J. Smith is an abusive poster and a recidivist and I
> hereby petition the KLUG officers to find him abusive and remove him
> from the list.
> If necessary, as a supporting member, I will so petition the officers at
> the next weekly meeting. If this issue is not taken up in a timely
> manner and a decision made, I will resign my supporting membership as I
> have better things to do with $25 than subsidize speech that 1337
> IRC'ers would qualify as low and amateurish.
> Thank you.

Your opinions are noted and I concur with your right to say such.

--=20
Bryan J. Smith, E.I. (BSECE)       Contact Info:  http://thebs.org
[ http://thebs.org/files/resume/BryanJonSmith_certifications.pdf ]
------------------------------------------------------------------
* A lecture on software piracy from Bill Gates is like a lecture *
* on adultry from the owner of a brothel of other people's wives *


--=-oPgpag3GExZSDTk2uEBM
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+KPsfDjEszaVrzmQRAoWcAJ9K1Y+xa+98jMfPvsc9EruoANgmOQCgwABC
z/q6N5Tza2nF8uv/L1Ah8Ac=
=MLWN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-oPgpag3GExZSDTk2uEBM--