Date : Fri, 24 Nov 2006 11:03:57 +0100
From : s-whs@... (W.Scholten)
Subject: Leeches!
L.S.
Note that I don't mind the leeching, nor does it have a negative
connotation for me. It's just a fact that few people contribute. A few
people do most of the effort on the ML and websites. These people
obviously want others to use what they make available. However, if
non-contributors start complaining about topics (e.g. scan storage
formats) or about updates on websites taking long while indicating they
think it should be no problem to do regular updates, I find that
extremely uncool.
Two other responses are interesting because instead of reading my
criticism about not-reading / non-knowing-yet-acting-as-if-you-do, and
taking it to heart, Greg Cook does the former and Colley does both
(*again*).
There is some information in this post besides rebutting the pedantic
criticism from them (e.g. the fact that both Cook and Colley are the
ones who need to look up 'can' in the dictionary where they can find out
what other meanings 'can' has), but if you're not interested in that,
just skip to the last screenful or so where I discuss Colley's lie about
what I'm supposed to have said, which you may find amusing.
Please note: I don't care how many machines support SD, it's the
disgusting attitude of people like Colley I object to. He has slighted
expert opinion on the basis of massive number of 4 machines, and
suggests everyone who has tried reading/writing SD on a PC and failed,
is himself to blame. He continues with more made up facts in his last
post. Colley's postings should really come with a barf bag.
[ Greg Cook ]
> As if the ML were there to entertain you!
>
There we go again, nitpicking on something that's perfectly clear:
I did not say so. The other guy was essentially saying 'if these boring
posts don't stop, I may unsubscribe' thereby trying to force people to
stop posting on the subject of storage formats. These were on topic
therefore he had no right to do so. He also did not contribute anything
on the ML or elsewhere so his complaint was uncool to say the least. I'm
saying 'If these offtopic/stupid posts don't stop, I may unsubscribe'.
Quite appropriate.
Did I explain it enough now? If not, tough.
> And it's an example of
> 'those
> who contribute the least, complain the most'),
> This is not a complaint?
>
Again you're trying to find something to argue about which is
irrelevant. I'll answer it therefore this way: Does it matter if it is
or isn't?
>
>> Complete and utter [...]. Read the mailing list archives. Read the
>>
>> docs with FDC. I would not say "Most PCs haven broken SD support"
>>
>
> Neither did Adam.
>
I did not NOT SAY HE DID! READ VERY CAREFULLY WHAT I WRITE! I'm taking
this from what other people sometimes say. Pretty obvious, otherwise I
would have quoted his original text above what I wrote with that line in
it. Read it literally: 'I would not say "Most PCs haven broken SD
support"'. I.e. this, which some people do write, I would not say,
because I don't have enough evidence. I would use 'probably'.
Yes, I could have put an empty line after the comment on what Colley
says, but it seems clear enough esp. as I carefully quote previous
posts if I respond to some section therein. It's also pretty clear from
the style of the sentences that this was not a direct reply to what
Colley said, but part of the background information on why what he says
is nonsense.
>> but
>>
>> the facts from people trying e.g. FDC and anadisk (so direct hardware
>>
>> access, no BIOS or whatever intermediate layer) gathered over many
>> years
>> on loads of different machines from various eras but esp. up to the
>> pentium 2 era (I've seen very few reports after that), are, that SD
>> did
>> not work.
>>
>
> In other words, there are thousands of MFM only PCs out there, a
> significant proportion. This is not disputed.
>
> On the other hand, Adam was able to obtain four FM capable PCs without
> especially trying (four out of four). This is one person's testimony
> on a backdrop of anecdotal evidence. The dearth of reports, if most
> are negative, may mean increasing success as well as loss of interest.
>
> To reconcile these two examples, let's say the actual proportion lies
> between 10 and 90 per cent. To get a more accurate answer, write a
> bigger cheque.
>
Agreed. That's the sort of statement I would use. I would not use
'doesn't work' (note I forgot 'usually' in one place in my previous
post, so there I wrote "are, that SD did not work" which should have
been "are, that SD usually did not work"),
> People are statistically more likely to write when it doesn't work.
>
I know. *I wrote that a while back here when Jules complained about
reports of bad experiences on ebay* (april 2006)
But interestingly this does not really apply to most reports of
failure/success in the case of FDC. People contacted me trying to get it
working (because FDC is hard to use) and reported it failed in the end
despite my 'help'. If I had had a proper high level compiler for DOS/WIN
that I could easily mix assembler with, I could have made it easier to
use, but that was never my priority and I didn't want to pay for one as
I never programmed on DOS/Windoze anyway. (Oh yes, to the pedants:
attach "except for bbcim/FDC)". So, if FDC had been more user friendly,
my stats on works/doesn't work would be worth less...
>
> And what would be a statistically significant number of machines? What
> would be a statistically valid number of experimenters? As email
> response is an unreliable measure, can you be sure enough different
> people have tested enough different machines and reported fairly?
>
See above.
> More to the point, is it really worth a flame war over what proportion
> of machines supported FM out-of-the-box in any given year? (How much)
> is it worth paying for a study?
I really don't give a damn how many machines work. It's also *not* what
I'm complaining about as should be clear to you from the rest of that
posting: No, it's the attitude displayed by Colley who writes nonsense
and blames people trying to read/write SD for being the ones at fault
without have any decent knowledge on the matter.
As for the 'study', that's why I said 'I would not say "Most PCs haven
broken SD support' because that's too strong. How many are significant
is a good question but 4 is nowhere near the number I and others tried
(at least hundreds in total, spread over anything from about the 286 era
to now).
>> This doesn't mean "it's a myth" is correct (look up the meaning of
>> the
>> word myth). If you think most *current* PCs work with SD, provide
>> evidence that your assertion is true, FROM TESTS WITH MORE THAN A
>> HANDFUL OF MACHINES/CHIPSETS, and then you can say "is not true (any
>> more)".
>>
>
> We can say that already, thank you very much :-) Look up the meaning
> of 'can'.
>
>
How *dr?le*. You probably know what I mean and this is yet another
example of a stupid and unfunny (in case you do know the other meanings
of 'can') comment. Of course, I could have said 'you can write "is not
true (any more) without writing a probably false statement"'. But what I
wrote is correct. You, Greg, should look up the meaning of 'can'. If
you're going to be pedantic about language, you better be damn sure your
command of it is extremely good. Lets look up 'can' in the dictionary.
I've got an old Penguin English dictionary here and it says:
can : be able to, allow oneself to, be allowed to.
Long ago in school, I learned all those meanings of 'can', and I
obviously mean the third one: "be allowed to" (as written/unwritten
rules (depending on where one speaks) in society are that one is not
allowed to lie or make up pseudo-facts. Exceptions? Yes, games for
example where this can part of the game or war where it's tactics, but
not on this ML).
Do I need to explain why it's obvious? Anyone "is able to" write
anything, so anyone 'can' write anything they want in that sense of can.
So, it would be pretty much useless to use 'can' that way. The second
meaning also doesn't apply.
>
> Instead of moaning about ignorance, be the light in the darkness and
> share your knowledge! If you want to be scientific about it,
> publishing the results (and method) will facilitate the peer review
> process (if there's going to be one 9_9)
>
>
I don't moan about ignorance. I'm disgusted with the attitude of people
talking as if they know the facts when they don't. Colley with his
comments says that people just do it all wrong, although he has no
evidence of this. All based on a massive 4 machines he got SD working
on. The experts tried many more machines and/or got more reports and/or
know of actual hardware defects causing many computers not to have
working SD etc. Anyone generalizing from 4 machines, and slighting
expert opinion based on that, even telling everyone who didn't got SD
working that they did something wrong, is insane.
If someone says it differently, such as 'strange, I got SD working with
4 machines. I don't understand where this theory comes from that most
PCs don't handle SD', then I have no problem with this. The experts can
then give some more information and even start discussing whether the
theory is still valid for current + old PCs (which are often still around).
>>> Well I've not found a PC that doesn't work, I'm sure a few exist
>>>
>> but I
>>
>>> suspect they're greatly outnumbered by the working ones, this all
>>> sounds like a PEBKAC problem to me...
>>>
>> I had to look PEBKAC up. Aha, the user gets the blame (and what a
>> surprise, YAUA(*)). So you Adam Colley, who doesn't know anything
>> about the amount of machines this was tested on in the past/recently,
>> by whom and with what failure rate,
>>
>
> You hold that against him, yet you're not going to enlighten him.
> Nice.
>
>
I have mentioned some 'evidence' in the previous section. I'm not going
into more detail. It would take me too much time to look it all up and
for what reason? For someone to start whining again about something
beside the point again, as you're doing? No thanks, I've wasted too much
time already on this. Not just that, Colley's posts already made it
clear that he's someone who talks out of his ass and doesn't give a damn
about facts or evidence.
>> decide that the user trying it
>> is/was the problem?
>>
>
> His criticism is valid or invalid on its own merits,
He didn't have a valid criticism. That's what I said and explained.
> regardless of
> whether you look up or down on him.
I never criticize people's knowledge or intelligence except if they
behave in a certain manner (claiming to know it all when they don't know
anything for example). Even then I always reply with useful information.
His other posts up to the two I responded to seemed ok. But those two I
quoted are really unacceptable for the reasons mentioned.
> I'm sure this Cerfontaine thinks
> you've nothing to say, since you're not a company director yourself.
>
I'm no president of the USA either, yet I know more, am much smarter and
have more to say than either of them. This Cerfo guy is only appointed a
'special professor' because the Rector of the university is a friend of
his. He only got the job at Schiphol because he's a manipulator which
boards of companies like as they can get results with e.g. government.
More on this on my webpages. And FYI, those webpages of mine do have an
influence and are known in those circles. I've 'advertised' them to
those same people I criticize and others such as in government. Just in
case you may think I'm flying under the radar.
> Even if user error is seldom involved in FM failure, you sir have taken
> entirely the wrong attitude. It really didn't deserve a swearword, or
> even the suggestion of one.
>
Wrong. If you don't see this, you don't know enough about human nature
and how they respond to arguments and the way things are written up.
Sometimes people need a kick in the ass and/or nuts. Take my post on
netiquette for example. I give references and explanations, what do I
get back, inane crap about not-top posting being something "I wanted",
and a display of ignorance about RFCs. I should have been much cruder
from the start. Gareth Babb's style of writing (shorter, harsher) is in
fact the better way to handle these situations. And of course, this post
of mine too is again too long...
>> Oh yes, read the
>> archives for a message from me about disk reading where I mentioned
>> 300/360 rpm switchable drives. PEBKAC indeed.
>>
>
> Are you saying that's proof that DFS-on-PC problems aren't your fault?
> If anyone can get it to work, you can? That you "know all there is to
> know" on the subject? ...Is this flame about someone else having all
> the luck with FM? ;-D
>
No, it means that there's more to disk reading. A given PC + 80 track
drive may not work with a 360 rpm drive or a drive is set to 360 rpm.
That same PC may work with a drive at 300 rpm (e.g. my ppro-200 does) .
This shows again that blaming the user without knowing more facts is
unacceptable.
[ adam colley ]
>> Complete and utter bullshit. Read the mailing list archives. Read the
>>
>
> Nope. Swearing at me doesn't make it so.
>
>
Your statements *are* bullshit. I've explained but apparently you're not
smart enough to understand and also unwilling to read up on the matter.
Nor are you able to back up your claims with statistically significant
numbers. Why don't you read up before you write more nonsense, but no....
>> docs with FDC. I would not say "Most PCs haven broken SD support" but
>> the facts from people trying e.g. FDC and anadisk (so direct hardware
>> access, no BIOS or whatever intermediate layer) gathered over many years
>>
>
> I don't recall mentioning those applications, I mentioned Omniflop.
>
You said it was a myth. I said it wasn't because
1. Myth is the wrong word (and I'm being pedantic here because of the
utter stupidity of generalizing from 4 machines)
2. Using the meaning you think myth has, it's still false and I gave
examples. Not just of software that didn't work but also of hardware
physically incapable of SD. See the docs with FDC/FDCdemo. You again
display your inability to reason by mentioning omniflop which is
irrelevant to the fact that it's not a myth. It's also largely
irrelevant to whether or not SD is actually supported in hardware but
the software used is at fault, unless there's evidence to the contrary
(provide me with numbers of SD working with Omniflop where it doesn't on
FDC/anadisk, spread over at least pentium era to current 3GHz type
machines). As I said, your data is statistically insignificant. For more
information read some books on what a theory is (look under the subject
'philosophy of science'). We're talking about a theory because of
incomplete information on hardware designs, possibly buggy
implementations, and because reports are a subset of all
machines/machine types etc.). The accepted theory is that SD is
extremely problematic on a large proportion of PCs. To overthrown that
theory *you* are the one who has to provide evidence that this is *no
longer* true. The experts don't have to prove they are right.
> I tried out a number of PCs with FDC/Anadisk from a 486, to a pentium
>> pro, k6-233, k6-350, pentium-166 and found that 80 track didn't work,
>> except with a switchable speed drive on the ppro/p-166. 40 track worked
>> on the ppro (-> rotation speed) and perhaps also the p166 but none of
>> the others. Robert Schmidt tried out far more IIRC and he and I got lots
>> of email over the years of reports from people for whom it didn't work,
>> and sometimes it did from people for whom it did work.
>>
>
> Not evidence.
You don't understand the concept of evidence. If most machines don't
work with omniflop then according to this reasoning it's all a 'myth' as
one might be able to make a better program than omniflop that will read
SD. Provide me with details on a reasonable selection of machines (many
more than 4) with success/failure using omniflop and ditto using FDC and
anadisk and I may consider that to be a big issue (i.e. that SD is
supported in hardware but anadisk/FDC are faulty). It wasn't on the
machines I tried for example.
You might like to think some more about what constitutes evidence in
these cases. Jules' slightly sarcastic reply was spot on, in this respect.
To clarify this even more consider this: by insisting on Omniflop the
way you do (ignoring any evidence from other programs), you essentially
say all PCs support SD because there just might be a better program than
Omniflop that can handle it on any machine. This is because the same
reasoning can be applied to omniflop too. Nice! This way one is never
able to say most PCs don't support SD. Hello unfalsifiable theory!
You should be ashamed of yourself, slighting the opinions and knowledge
of people who know a lot more than you, and accusing everyone who can't
get SD to work on a PC of doing something wrong.
> How many machines have you tried Omniflop on? that was
> the package I was referring to, not other software with broken timing
> and FDC access that is flaky at best.
>
> None?
>
Bzzt! Wrong. You like assuming what people do don't you? That's of
course also why you accuse the users of being at fault. How childish.
> Thought so.
I would advise you to stop thinking, you're not very good at it.
I was probably one of the first few people to try it out when Jason
contacted me via Chris Richardson a little more than 4 years ago.
Unfortunately I didn't have much time to give him feed back on the
results at the time. But, I did try out that pre-release version and
later versions too (on recent machines as well IIRC). Success/failure
rates? Guess.
See also the 300rpm/360rpm example. You don't read what I write and
don't investigate just keep writing silly stuff. Uncool.
>> So, that 'most PCs don't support SD' might be false now but I've not
>> seen enough evidence to be sure (and your couple of machines are
>> statistically insignificant), it looks as if this wasn't so in the past.
>>
>
> 4 != a couple.
>
Why do you think I say 'handful' and even 'a couple'? I could have
written '4' each time saving me some typing. This is of course to
emphasize (in a subtle way, but that's apparantly wasted on you) the
fact how utterly ridiculous it is to generalize from 4 machines whereas
the experts have tried and had reports of orders of magnitude more.
Whether it's 2, 3 or 4 machines doesn't matter. So, your display of
pedantry doesn't say anything about me, but instead about you...
> Is your position so weak you have to edit and misrepresent my words?
>
Pathetic. I don't misrepresent. Try looking it up in the dictionary.
>> This doesn't mean "it's a myth" is correct (look up the meaning of the
>> word myth). If you think most *current* PCs work with SD, provide
>>
>
> I will when you look up the meaning of "Misrepresentation"
>
I don't need to, but you obviously do. Not surprising:
>> HANDFUL OF MACHINES/CHIPSETS, and then you can say "is not true (any
>> more)". For the integrated chipsets of todays, probably only a
>>
>
> Actually I can say whatever I wish (as apparently you can yourself)
>
Yes, but without lying/making up facts, that's another matter. And
that's obviously what I meant. I noticed your post was sent about 8.5
hours after Greg's. So you probably read his reply and copied his
criticism. Engaging in such ganging up reminds me of the nutters in
gnu.misc.discuss and again in the airtravel industry. Your last few
posts, as posts from those people, have a very high troll level
(accusing people of things you don't know anything about etc.) just as
posts from such people.
Quite funny, that you too don't know the other common meaning of the
word 'can'.
> Ah, I wonder if it was you who said I couldn't use an 80 track Cumana
> drive in a PC by setting it to 1.2MB in the BIOS before I proceeded to
> do exactly that with zero problems (except the cutting of one track on
> the drive being required and that was to do with the drive ready
> detection, nothing to do with spin speed or density) citing spin speed
> differences.
>
>
That wasn't me, you muppet.
You don't even have the decency to check the facts in this 'accusation'!
If anything, the spin speed difference would make it more likely to
work. I did mention I tried using a 720K drive to someone (not you, I've
never had an email from you) many years ago, and that didn't work. I
didn't investigate further. I would never say that it wasn't possible.
That alone shows it was not said by me. Also, you had to modify the
hardware by cutting a track. Whoever told you that it wouldn't work was
right then. By modifying hardware you can do almost anything (read up on
adding a specialized fdc-card to read weird formats that can be
installed in PCs. No problem with Amiga disks then (without using
strange and not always reliable hacks such as the dual floppy drive
method), or SD). Did the guy who gave you advice, talk about hardware
modifications? Probably not from the way you describe what happened. So
fellow ML readers, lets transplant Colley's reasoning to another
situation and have some fun:
Colley goes to a dealer for a new car door, and asks for a Mercedes door
for his little Fiat. Dealer says "that won't fit, you muppet!". Colley
leaves the dealer, goes elsewhere, buys a Mercedes door, starts
hammering, cutting and welding until it fits his Fiat, then returns to
the first dealer saying: "You see, it *fits*. You're not the very
knowledgeable on cars, are you?"
> If it was it seems that you aren't the fountain of all knowledge after
> all, funny that.
>
Of course not, I never said I was. You're making up pseudo-facts again.
Note: I did not read over the 'if it was' and 'I wonder if it was you'.
Colley is being particularly nasty here by implying that I said
something wrong and that I act as if I know everything, yet putting it
in such a way that (he thinks) he can wriggle out of any criticism in
case he's wrong. And wrong he is. You, Colley, deserve the harshest
possible criticism: You are an asshole and a moron.
> Your entire message seems to be one big PEBKAC, contribute something
> positive or be silent.
>
Cool! Trying to have the last word! This is the final piece of the
puzzle. The picture was already clear of course, but thanks anyway for
completing it.
I was of course right in my harsh first response. By accusing the user
of doing something wrong, even though you have very little knowledge on
that subject and none at all on those people, and as confirmed by your
reply, you've shown exactly what I've seen in my air-industry
investigations: Such people are asses who make up 'facts' from flimsy
evidence. You could have learned something from reading my post and
checking the facts, yet you persist in writing crap, in not giving any
valid arguments and in displaying no ability to reason nor of having
understood anything I wrote. You then criticize me for something I did
not say, while putting it in such a way that it's not a direct lie.
Disgusting, sad, but also amusing :-)
Go on, entertain us some more. You could try listing all the spelling
errors next time, that'll be a good laugh. For others on this ML anyway.
I won't read your messages ever again.
Btw, for those interested in psychology: I discussed this case of Colley
with someone else who suggested people like him like to feel good by
displaying their 'knowledge' which is why they talk as if they know all
about a given subject. This seems likely to me considering the
troll-like style of writing. We also think that hardly ever anyone calls
their bluff. I've seen it in the airtravel-industry for example, where
people told blatant lies in articles in magazines and newspapers (both
don't do any fact checking) for years, which went unchallenged until I
started checking up on them and exposed them for the liars they are
(e.g. a well known Fly-boy 'Baksteen' who even started a propaganda club
that publishes nothing but lies, half-truths and reports with facts that
are misrepresented in a way to be advantageous to their cause). This is
also why they react the way they do when they're exposed.
I herewith consider this list dead and won't post here anymore.
Wouter
--
BBC micro | Calculators | Classic PC games: http://www.xs4all.nl/~swhs/whs/