 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Imagine I'm representing a relief agency and have a physical booth in
> some community event. I'm asking for donations. If people came to me and
> asked for details on how the money will be spent (e.g. on what projects,
> how much does the agency use for salaries, etc), would it help for me to
> say "Just go to the Web site. We're backed by the State Department, etc.
> Why do you doubt us with such backing?"
But Saul is not officially "representing" WCG. Your analogy breaks right
there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> Saul Luizaga schrieb:
>
>>>> You can download it at WCG (www.worldcommunitygrid.org) or at
>>>> Berkeley University (boinc.berkeley.edu).
>>>
>>> What I have trouble with is the question, "who benefits?" - I don't
>>> see this explicitly answered at a prominent place, which to me raises
>>> the question why that is so.
>>>
>>> Who qualifies to use the WCG? Who decides who qualifies? Are the
>>> scientific results published without a fee, or will I have to pay to
>>> see the research results my computer has helped generating?
>>
>> You have trouble with everything I write, you always try to polemicize
>> everything I post.
>
> Um... could it be that /you/ are having a problem here?
>
> All I did was point out that I, personally, have unanswered questions
> regarding this thing that I'm uneasy about, which I raised here in hopes
> that you - as a person who seems so enthusiastic about the project that
> I had expected you to be well-informed - might be able to answer them,
> or give me some useful pointers.
He's not an IBM employee, to know everything about it. Maybe he *doesn't*
know the answers to your questions, he's just less paranoid than you are so
he uses it anyway.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Words are pretty meaningless for judging someone's character. You can't
> tell the quality of a person from what they (or someone else) posts about
> them on a website.
Well, I wasn't referring to this particular or any other website, I mean
in real life where you can see people say & act over time, I meant that
gives away a persons true self, you can't be a hypocrite all your life
without at least someone noticing it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> You answer
> their questions and concerns in a respectful and understanding way. You don't
> start to argue nor question their motives.
But... but... but... this is the *internet*!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:14:37 -0500, Warp wrote:
> If you want people to help, you use something called diplomacy. You
> answer
> their questions and concerns in a respectful and understanding way. You
> don't start to argue nor question their motives
Well said, Warp.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez schrieb:
> He's not an IBM employee, to know everything about it. Maybe he *doesn't*
> know the answers to your questions, he's just less paranoid than you are so
> he uses it anyway.
Then it would be easy (and also more helpful and, as Jim points out,
less deterring) to answer "I don't know anything about that, but I
personally am convinced that the project is ok" if he intends to promote
the project, or alternatively not answer at all if he doesn't bother.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/11/09 12:30, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> But Saul is not officially "representing" WCG. Your analogy breaks right
> there.
And so all he has to say is "I don't know."
Heck, I'd accept that even in the case I provided. I wouldn't mind a
relief agency representative saying that - at least he's being honest.
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 11/11/09 12:29, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I'd rather base my opinion on explicit statements by the parties
>> involved, and not on "what makes sense".
>
> And I'd rather ask questions to the parties involved, and not Saul ;)
And I'd accept Saul saying, "That's a good question. I really don't
know - probably somewhere on the site".
--
Hipatitis: Terminal coolness.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"nemesis" <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote in message
news:web.4afa3b1c1e654f9b65e4856b0@news.povray.org...
> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> > somebody wrote:
> > > I guess you could say that I am past the age of blissful idealism.
> > To think in this selfish and pessimistic way I'd say you have lost a lot
> > more than the blissful idealism.
> That's why I'm not an atheist: they are cranky, bored, bickering people
filling
> in their spiritual needs with lots of empty argumentations and complaints
in web
> forums. ;)
Wish I could pick and chose my beliefs.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Your answer would have been much better if you had written only that
> third paragraph and left the others out. Would it have been so difficult
> to do so?
It was at the time for the reasons I explained in the other posts in
this thread: emotional attachment, confusion over "paranoid behavior", etc.
> If you want people to help, you use something called diplomacy. You answer
> their questions and concerns in a respectful and understanding way. You don't
> start to argue nor question their motives.
I'll try it Warp, thanks.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
