🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <5al28b$dfq$1@otis.netspace.net.au> -
wanderer@netspace.net.au4 Jan 1997 07:52:43 GMT writes:
> 
> I wrote a nasty letter to that illiterate "writer" as soon as I read
> that appauling article.. 512k.. Hmmm ... Did you also note that the
> WarpCenter cannot be moved from the top? Yeah right, considering that is
> how I have mine! (ie on the bottom).. Oh yeah, and the article also
> stated that it could multitask on par with Windows95.. <-- funny or
> what!
> 
> Annoyed by ignorant writers... (I also told him to use the OS before
> writing about it)

Unfortunately, "nasty letter[s]" and calling writers "illiterate" and
"ignorant" will do little or no good for the OS/2 "cause" and will
likely to it harm.  Consider:  This author of the published article
with factual errors about OS/2 probably knew next to nothing about
OS/2 when he was assigned the task of writing a review of it, but he
HAD TO do the review, so he did the best he could in what was no doubt
an insufficient amount of time.  (Given that this is the way the world
typically works; I'm not trying to claim special knowledge of this
article or this Australian magazine.)  Now, you can gripe about how
the magazine SHOULD HAVE allotted more time, or SHOULD HAVE found
somebody with more knowledge to do the review, or whatever, and such
criticisms have their place -- but this is also the real world, and no
magazine can afford to pay a staff writer (assuming that's what he
was) to futz around with an OS, read the newsgroups, etc., for a
couple of weeks to get up to speed on it before even beginning the
review.  So the guy fumbled around and got some facts wrong.  This is
obviously bad, but....

What happens when this person gets "nasty letter[s]" from OS/2
advocates?  If he's a sleazeball who was out to do a hatchet job on
OS/2, or who just doesn't care, not much.  He'll remain negative or
apathetic, and nothing will change if/when he writes a new review,
except maybe he'll be more negative or refer to OS/2 users in
derogatory ways.  If he's an honest guy who just was given inadequate
time, he'll feel he's being attacked without merit, or at least
attacked above and beyond what's called for given his mistakes.  This
won't endear him to OS/2 or to OS/2 users, and he's likely to refuse
further OS/2 assignments (leaving it to even less experienced hands)
or go at it with a newly-acquired negative bias.

Please, people; successful advocacy does not come from attacking those
who don't "toe the line."  It's fine to correct the factual errors in
published articles, posted messages, etc.; but in order to not come
across as a raving lunatic yourself, you've got to do it politely, and
give the author of the incorrect information the benefit of the doubt.
 In fact, I've seen many claims that the sort of rabid attack-advocacy
I'm bemoaning here was one of the factors leading to the downfall of
the Amiga; the press simply decided that rather than deal with a flood
of letters attacking them for incompetent boobies whenever they got
(what they considered) a minor point wrong, they'd stop covering the
platform.  The same thing could easily happen, and indeed may be
happening, with OS/2.  Please try to be civil in these discussions;
it'll work better.

[Followups redirected exclusively to comp.os.os2.advocacy, where this
most properly belongs.]

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Rod Smith                                 Author of:               |
| rodsmith@indiana.edu                      "Should I Buy OS/2" FAQ  |
| http://ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu/~rodsmith   "OS/2 Soundcard Summary" |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+