Goodsounds;359268 Wrote: > Just like the thread last week you tried to bluff your way through, > without much knowledge of the subject.
As a participant in that thread, I have to say that my honest disagreements with egd were not due to any lack of knowledge of the subject on his part. In fact, while the rest of us were spouting off about the probability of various theoretical causes, he was the only one sitting there with cold, hard data. He ascribed his data to an OS, and I attributed it to a NAS. But we never called each other names. Take the hint. Goodsounds;359268 Wrote: > My suggestion is simple - answers should be tailored to the level of the > person asking the question. Your suggestion was no such thing. You were suggesting that, lacking data to the contrary, we should assume the questioner always has the very lowest possible level of technical knowledge and not bother them with answers that required slightly more than the bare minimum computer proficiency. egd's position was that answers should be tailored to the level of the questioner, but lacking sufficient information about the questioner, we should assume no reasonable questioner would be offended by having some of the proffered solutions to their problem be too technically complicated. Goodsounds;359268 Wrote: > We have a lot of lower level worker bees here. We also have me. -- CatBus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CatBus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=7461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=54842 _______________________________________________ unix mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/unix
