NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #26/NN_1992_26.iso/spool/comp/sys/amiga/datacomm/7470

Text File | 1992-11-06 | 4.0 KB | 83 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!ncrlnk!torynews!jgrimm
From: [e-mail] (Jeffrey Grimmett 9999)
Subject: Re: BAUD != BPS
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Pretty silly, if you ask me...
Organization: NCR (Torrey Pines Development Center)
Disclaimer: This posting does not necessarily reflect the opinions of NCR.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 92 16:52:46 GMT
Lines: 70

Took ya long enough...

Quoth [e-mail] (Joel Edward Swan):

]> >Bully for the both of you, but if you're quite finished elevating your own
]> >status at the expense of others, I'd like to point out that if you're that
]>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Say what?  Elevating status?  Expense of
]>                                  others?  That makes no sense.

OK, let me use simple words, maybe you'll get it.  This thread started from
out of the blue, with some kid (using bad grammar, I might add, but so what)
came out with his "isn't it really stupid to use baud instead of bps" message.
Actually, I should have popped something similar to the above at that point
but figured the world was above such childish self-indulgence as that.  Silly
me.  OF COURSE folks are going to want to jump on the bandwagon!  I'll
clarify this in a few secs...

]> Before you look too far down that long nose of yours, look at what you are
]> reading.  My statement was that I was sick of seeing this in manufacturer's
]> manuals NOT "casual conversation."  Furthermore, I am not hung up on the
]> difference in terms.  It is those that WILL NOT use the correct ones that
]> are "hung up."  They simply can't seem to get themselves to use the right
]> word.

OK, partial appology in that I didn't catch the "docs" part of it, but I still
mainatin the main part of my argument on this in the spirit in which it was
started...

]> ><congratulations... you hit my pet peeve right on the button>
]>
]> Hey, it's YOUR pet peeve, not mine.  You said it :-)

Allow me to expand that a bit.  Terminology wars are not my pet peeve.  Failure
to communicate a point BECAUSE of terminology wars IS.

]> >NCR -- Torrey Pines Development Center | [e-mail]

]> Okay Jock?  What, Jock is not your name?  Big deal, I can use any word I
]> want according to your mentality, right?  After all, it's only casual
]> conversation.

You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay....

]> How long could NCR stay in business if technical terms were allowed to mean
]> anything you want?  Probably not very long - especially when things would
]> begin to blow up as they were plugged in. ;-)

(a)  This is where I resume the thread left off above.
(b)  Ever hear of the "standard disclaimer?"
(c)  You just proved my point, in a way.  Imagine if you will the effect on
     this conversation if everyone on the net jumped down your throat for
     failing to remember that "opinions expressed are mine and not those of
     my employer?"

It would be petty and beneath the majority of folks I know OUTSIDE of the nets.
IN the nets, of course, this sort of oneupsmanship is par for the course and
I wouldn't be suprised if you DID receive a few nastygrams over the issue.

Now, to IGNORE that digression, let me just say that your own comments in
paragraph 2 apply to the situation.

I freely admit it.  I'm a snob.  I detest people who will try to exploit
something irrelevant in an attempt to weasel out of a debate they are losing.
--
@@@@@@@@@@*********************************************************************
Jeff Grimmett [SuperBitMap BBS]        * fido!1:202/1401.0 [619-460-7290]
NCR -- Torrey Pines Development Center * [e-mail]
 With all the trust we put in the wisdom of economists, has anyone noticed:
::::::::::::::::::::::  There ARE no rich economists!?!?  :::::::::::::::::::::
*******************************************************************************