[AUUG-Talk]: Personal Contributions - AUUG's Value Add

[David Newall]

Dave Horsfall wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, David Newall wrote:
>   
>>> Well, that's an odd definition of "self-reliant", relying upon 
>>> unsubstantiated sources etc.
>>>
>>> For my part, I use peer-reviewed sources such as books and mailing 
>>> lists, with the web stuff coming a distant third.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I can see that you place great value on an academic process. Your phrase 
>> "unsubstantiated source" (to which I take objection) reveals this as 
>> much as "peer-reviewed".
>>     
>
> Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether I do (especially 
> since I've never worked in academia), what exactly is your objection to 
> said process?
>   
I'm detecting way too much hostility here, which I neither understand 
nor deserve.  Why do you insinuate that I object to the academic process?

>> I don't think mailing lists are particularly peer-reviewed;
>>     
>
> Everything you post is potentially reviewed by your peers, and after a 
> while one forms an opinion as to the value of another's posts.  QED.
This really is a nonsense definition for "peer-reviewed".  Feel free to 
retract it.

>> and in their absence the sense one is left with, "I use peer-reviewed 
>> sources such as books", reinforces the impression.
>>     
>  
> I have already disposed of the premise, hence the conclusion does not 
> necessarily follow.  Notwithstanding that, I note again your irrational 
> fear of rigorous process.
>   
You're putting more words into my mouth, words which don't belong 
there.  I hold no fear of rigorous process, neither rational or 
otherwise.  Journals are peer-reviewed; they gain credibility from 
that.  Mailing lists are not.  Certain lists or posters might have been 
historically valuable to you, but the point of a reviewed source, I 
think, is that it has credibility in lieu of of your own, personal 
experience.

Sorry, far from disposing of the impression that you hold great faith in 
the academic process, your constant sniping, such as "fear of rigorous 
process", underscores it.  Why are you being so hostile?

>> You listed two of the same three sources as me, books and web (but in 
>> opposite order), differing only in that you ask others where I 
>> experiment.  This, perhaps, will help you understand my exception to 
>> "unsubstantiated source."
>>     
>
> Nice try at drawing red herrings, but I'll be polite and assume that you 
> merely misread what I wrote in the second paragraph from the top.  *You* 
> listed "web, lists, books"
I never said lists, that was your second choice.  My second choice was 
experimentation; I discover answers for myself.  This is my 
self-reliance, which you felt was poorly defined.

>                             whilst I reversed them; I find it difficult to 
> accept that consulting my personal technical library (or works', for that 
> matter; you know, those things called "books") is akin to "asking others".
>   
It's not the books, it's the mailing list which is asking of others.  (I 
presume you meant, "post a question to", rather than "read the archives 
of", a mailing list.  The latter would fit within the broad gamut of "web".)

> That aside, when I am in need of accurate technical information *now* and 
> it's not in my library (or man pages etc),
Man pages!  That easily deserves to be first on my list.  (Man pages; 
web; hack; books.)  Books once were first on my list, but then the web 
became quicker and more convenient.  I do still use them, though.

>                                             then I will consult my 
> available peers (oh dear, there's that word again, which you seem to find 
> so offensive)
"Offensive" is the wrong word; the right one is "mystifying"; and it 
applies to why you are taking me to task and what your point is.  Did I 
upset you recently?

>               rather than risk screwing things up any further
Man, oh man, how can I respond to this without sounding smug? :-)