re: [gutvol-d] on the issue of hand-crafted versus computer-generated .html versions
aaron said:
You are assuming that all of the typographic information from the html files will be thrown out. I dare say you are mistaken.
no. i'm "assuming" that the "old" .html file will be moved to the "old" folder, which is where i found it.
And in true Bowerbird fashion, you never considered for a moment that she might have a point.
how do you know what i "never considered for a moment"? how can you say such a thing? and _of_course_ what i said was "discouraging". when you tell someone they are wasting their time, it's obvious, isn't it?, that that will be "discouraging". the whole point of _telling_ them is to _discourage_ them. the question is whether or not it actually _is_ a waste of time. if -- in reality -- it _is_ a waste of time, then you are being a _good_friend_ to the person by informing them of that reality. and i explained, giving good reasons, why it was a waste of time. it was the same explanation that i just gave here, which is that idiosyncratic files can't be leveraged, so they'll later be discarded. and that is exactly what happened to the .html file for #16663. it's been placed aside, replaced by a computer-generated version. so any time spent hand-generating that .html file was _wasted_... juliet had to "rebuke" me because she had no counterargument. i was right. she knew it, and had no response but to defame me. i let her know, backchannel, never to scapegoat me again like that. now, if you must, consider me the "bad guy" for trying to tell people that they were wasting their time by hand-generating .html versions. but i was telling them _the_truth_; the facts have already proven that. to my mind, the person (and the overall system) who would have me "be quiet, because i am discouraging volunteers" is the real "bad guy". it seems -- to me anyway -- to be immoral to waste people's time with an inefficient system when they are _volunteering_ that time. if you are paying them, fine, but if they are volunteering, i believe that you have some kind of moral obligation to use their time well. -bowerbird
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
juliet had to "rebuke" me because she had no counterargument. i was right. she knew it, and had no response but to defame me. i let her know, backchannel, never to scapegoat me again like that.
You, sir, have just crossed the line. Marcello and I are fine targets. We put ourselves and our work out there. We snip back as hard and as often as we please. Juliet, however, is the most even tempered, nice, moderate, polite, and wonderful person I've ever met on the Internet. DP is a wonderful place precisely because she ALWAYS looks at both sides of the argument, NEVER comes down on anyone harshly and is always willing to give people a second chance. You have no idea how many people Juliet talked with privately to give you a chance to be heard the first time your showed up on DP. And she never told you that you were wrong or that your couldn't have your say. She only stopped you from disparaging the efforts of hard-working volunteers at DP. All you did at DP was tell us we were "doing it wrong." That we were stupid in how we did things and that anyone should be able to see that your advice was the one true way. Yet, not only did you never step up to help fix those things that were wrong, you never even fully outlined ways that you thought they *should* work. bowerbird, you are a slimeball and an evil, frustrated little man. And the fact that you DARE to turn your filthly mouth against Juliet only comfirms that better than ANYTHING I could say. Josh
Joshua's right and you know it. I don't know Juliet very well but she has been nothing short of caring and nice about my work on DP - she's pointed out little errors I might overlook, and gently chided me in the right direction on how to fix them. I'm also PP'ing a couple of her books, which she was very generous enought to loan to me for work on. You, sir, are a troglodyte whose opinions aren't given much heed to many here. Maybe if you would learn to close your little mouth and give thought to what others say here you'd be in more of a position to have others listen to your opinions. There's a living, breathing person behind each of our email addresses and not everyone is going to agree with what you have to say. Jared Joshua Hutchinson wrote on 29/09/2005, 7:20 PM:
Bowerbird@aol.com wrote:
juliet had to "rebuke" me because she had no counterargument. i was right. she knew it, and had no response but to defame me. i let her know, backchannel, never to scapegoat me again like that.
You, sir, have just crossed the line.
Marcello and I are fine targets. We put ourselves and our work out there. We snip back as hard and as often as we please.
Juliet, however, is the most even tempered, nice, moderate, polite, and wonderful person I've ever met on the Internet. DP is a wonderful place precisely because she ALWAYS looks at both sides of the argument, NEVER comes down on anyone harshly and is always willing to give people a second chance.
You have no idea how many people Juliet talked with privately to give you a chance to be heard the first time your showed up on DP. And she never told you that you were wrong or that your couldn't have your say. She only stopped you from disparaging the efforts of hard-working volunteers at DP.
All you did at DP was tell us we were "doing it wrong." That we were stupid in how we did things and that anyone should be able to see that your advice was the one true way. Yet, not only did you never step up to help fix those things that were wrong, you never even fully outlined ways that you thought they *should* work.
bowerbird, you are a slimeball and an evil, frustrated little man. And the fact that you DARE to turn your filthly mouth against Juliet only comfirms that better than ANYTHING I could say.
Josh _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/listinfo.cgi/gutvol-d
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 At 05:55 PM 9/29/2005, you wrote:
aaron said:
You are assuming that all of the typographic information from the html files will be thrown out. I dare say you are mistaken.
no. i'm "assuming" that the "old" .html file will be moved to the "old" folder, which is where i found it.
If I make a contribution to PG, and someone else comes along and improves it, then I certainly haven't wasted my time, even if my original is moved to the old folder.
And in true Bowerbird fashion, you never considered for a moment that she might have a point.
how do you know what i "never considered for a moment"? how can you say such a thing?
And again, in true Bowerbird fashion, you don't quite get it. This might help: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hyperbole
and _of_course_ what i said was "discouraging".
when you tell someone they are wasting their time, it's obvious, isn't it?, that that will be "discouraging".
the whole point of _telling_ them is to _discourage_ them.
the question is whether or not it actually _is_ a waste of time. if -- in reality -- it _is_ a waste of time, then you are being a _good_friend_ to the person by informing them of that reality.
and i explained, giving good reasons, why it was a waste of time. it was the same explanation that i just gave here, which is that idiosyncratic files can't be leveraged, so they'll later be discarded.
So, you're suggesting that all of the typographical information found in the html file is also found in the text file? Or, if it's not all there, it doesn't matter, because what isn't in the text file can't be extracted from the HTML file? I'm certainly not the most qualified person here, but it should be a whole lot easier to go from HTML to TEI than it would be to go from text to TEI.
and that is exactly what happened to the .html file for #16663. it's been placed aside, replaced by a computer-generated version.
so any time spent hand-generating that .html file was _wasted_...
How you can reach such a conclusion is a mystery. Since you obviously didn't realize that the same person created both the TEI and HTML version, you almost certainly have no clew as to what their motives were. You also have no way to judge the usefulness of that original html file to the creator or others. In short, you don't know what you're talking about.
juliet had to "rebuke" me because she had no counterargument. i was right. she knew it, and had no response but to defame me. i let her know, backchannel, never to scapegoat me again like that.
I'll bet it made you feel pretty proud of your self, and I'll bet it made her laugh. It's always about you. You're always the victim. Everyone is out to get you. Perhaps people don't respond because they realize it is a waste of their time.
now, if you must, consider me the "bad guy" for trying to tell people that they were wasting their time by hand-generating .html versions. but i was telling them _the_truth_; the facts have already proven that.
Such a Nobel soul. Always willing to sacrifice other peoples opinion of you for the common good.
to my mind, the person (and the overall system) who would have me "be quiet, because i am discouraging volunteers" is the real "bad guy".
To your mind, it seems that everyone is the bad guy, except for those masses of supporters whose inner most desires are known only by you and who also never seem to appear.
it seems -- to me anyway -- to be immoral to waste people's time with an inefficient system when they are _volunteering_ that time. if you are paying them, fine, but if they are volunteering, i believe that you have some kind of moral obligation to use their time well.
And the volunteers who are doing the work are what? Are they idiots? Do they not realize that their time is being wasted? Exactly how many messages did you get from people thanking you for saving them from wasting their time creating those useless html versions? Aaron Cannon - -- E-mail: cannona@fireantproductions.com Skype: cannona MSN Messenger: cannona@hotmail.com (Do not send E-mail to the hotmail address.) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - GPGrelay v0.959 Comment: Key available from all major key servers. iD8DBQFDPLnMI7J99hVZuJcRAj1TAKD1YD3zqGPT83E5SPYVvPcjKeOyyACfZjKY Y3BGY46oLkTYrOs9zJwo4fg= =x6YF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (4)
-
Aaron Cannon -
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Jared Buck -
Joshua Hutchinson