🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <hjv.726761347@groucho.phil.ruu.nl> hjv@phil.ruu.nl (Hendrik Jan Veenstra) writes:
>Once there was a time when reading c.s.a.st was fun and interesting 

There was a time when owning an Atari was fun and interesting; the two
are correlated.

>I'm afraid the biggest cause of the
>current S/N ratio is the continuous stream of pro/con Atari threads -- with
>a functional contents of approx 0.00, always repeating the same religious
>arguments, etc, etc.

Functional contents of 0?  On the contrary, there's been enough 
good information in these threads that by reading them alone (and
taking them to heart, and acting upon them), Atari could make a
good start at turning things around.  Not only that, but LET THIS
BE A LESSON TO YOU when you buy another machine.  Quite educational
all around, I think.

Besides, if you don't like reading stuff from any of us (on either side
of the issue), just kill our messages.  Are you proposing we should
censor ourselves so YOUR personal newgroup experience will be better?

>In the meantime I think I (and most other c.s.a.st readers) know all about
>Atari's inadequacies.  There's little use in repeating the same stuff over
>and over again.  Please, tell me something new.

Something new:  You're wrong if you think every reader of this group
knows how "inadequate" Atari is now.  While there are deluded people
left I feel an obligation to counter the cheerleading.  I've been a
part of this community for 7 years, and I've put an incredible amount
of energy into it -- emotional and otherwise.  Why should I let people
revise history?  Why should I let people say things like "Double Click
DESERVED to fail," when I know that's not true?  Why should I let
people say, "The Falon doesn't need expansion slots," or "The Falcon
runs better OS's than the PC?"

>And another obvious remark: if people really hate Atari that much, why do
>they make themselves (and others) tired with writing articles in this
>group?  

Partly because I don't want people to be conned into wasting money on a
company that doesn't give a good goddam about its users.  (Yes, despite
the fact that Eric Smith posts notes about MiNT/MTOS every once in 
a while.)

Atari is now a small cadre of fatcats that are making a quick buck off
their remaining supporters' ignorance.  It's reprehensible, and I see
no reason to let it go unchallenged (like 99% of the former Atari
developers, who just up and left without setting the record straight
with "the masses").  I care, OK?  So shoot me.

How can you possibly say

>Yes, indeed, I'm not interested whatsoever in what anyone thinks about Atari.

and then

>That's why I'd like to see some threads moved, aborted, killed, stopped.
  
in the same breath?  The reason people like me don't post lots of
technical info here anymore is because there's nothing to talk about!
Any of us who had any desire whatsoever of making money in the ST
market have either long left, or have long since realized the ST market
is dead.  You expect me to add stuff to the picture formats list, or
write more sample playing utilities now?    No one gives a damn
anymore, because the market is *dead*.

>And please, don't yell that much.  There's nothing wrong with my eyes
>or ears.

If you want to set the tone of the group, why not post some "good 
technical info" yourself?  I didn't come up with stuff like that out
of thin air, you know.  It takes work to write a 5 page article
on playing samples (or whatever).  Be our guest.

>>BTW, if you want a new group, read news.announce.newgroups and learn
>>about the hideously annoying (and flame-prone) process you have to go
>>through before you can create it.
>
>I know all about it -- that's why I'm not running a RFD or CFV (sp?)...

Well I did, for comp.sys.atari.st.tech.  That's my useful techinical
contribution for the decade.

Dave Baggett
--
dmb@ai.mit.edu           MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory                  
ADVENTIONS: interactive fiction (text adventures) for the 90's!
dmb@ai.mit.edu *** Compu$erve: 76440,2671 *** GEnie: ADVENTIONS