🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Dec10.214342.25051@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
> In article <12102:Dec1020:45:5990@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>, brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
> |> In article <1990Dec10.073955.28681@athena.mit.edu> jik@athena.mit.edu (Jonathan I. Kamens) writes:
> |> > It is entirely possible that Rich has been reading the discussion in this
> |> > newsgroup, and has posted sources recently because of that discussion.
  [ ... ]
> I hadn't
> suggested it before because I don't really believe it's very likely.
  [ ... ]
>   I agree that it is likely that Rich has not read the complaints.  If he has
> read them, I agree that it is not likely that they have had a major effect on
> his rate of posting to c.s.u.

So why my accusations that you simply don't believe?

Yes, it's conceivable that complaints cause postings to appear in
comp.sources.unix. So what? If the packages are appearing, then they're
appearing. I don't care what the ``causes'' are.

>   I've been steamed about c.s.u ever since I sent him my undel2 package and
> waited six months for it to get posted.

Well, golly gee. My first submission to a professional mathematical
journal was in limbo for two years. This is called industry practice.

You say that some postings go through Rich without change (other than
repackaging). Guess what? A huge number of math papers are published
without change (other than repackaging).

>   What exactly do you consider <1990Dec3.064608.22544@athena.mit.edu>, Dan?

A rather vacuous article that draws no reliable statistical conclusions.
The nearly incomprehensible graph (Tufte strongly recommends a table for
similar situations) doesn't justify your complaints.

>   I find it amusing that you call my complaints "idiotic" and tell me that I'm
> "whining" and tell me that I'm posting "drivel," and then say, "No offense
> intended."  No offense taken, Dan, but not because you didn't intend it; I
> feel to see how your insults can be intended to do anything but insult.

I didn't call your complaints idiotic. I do consider your recent
postings here to be full of whining and drivel, and I've given you
several reasons for my opinion; I don't mean to insult you by giving an
honest evaluation. (That's what ``no offense intended'' means.)

---Dan