Hi Joanne.
Timothy Rue
On 15-Feb-98 00:50:21 jdow <jd...@BIX.com> wrote:
>It is a very naive "producer" who has not heard of the Osborne Syndrom. It is
>a very naive "producer" who has not been aware of the Windows 98 in 2102
>jokes. Damn few software vendors want or can afford either effect to take
>place. This means it is best not to talk about anything until it is ready or
>nearly ready for market. You can shoot yourself in the foot by being too open
>just as bt er by being too closed.
>It is also bad for the customers if the producers are "stampeded" by other
>producers being "open" about their plans. The result is prematurely released
>goods which are defective and need repairs and replacement etc. You can see
>ever so many examples of that if you open your eyes and look.
>So far as I know there are two vendors in the computer world who are in
>positions strong enough to exploit APPARENT openness, one is Intel and the
>other is MicroSoft. The latter uses its marketing department's muscle to
>get away with preannouncing as preemptive strikes against "upstart vendors."
>Virtually any other vendor who preannounces can expect someone like MS to
>come stomp in their petunias before they have a chance to bloom. You and the
>others demanding 'break the "hiding" paradigim (sic)' are standing facing up-
>slope into a stiff wind while trying to relieve bladder pressure. All the
>forces in the world demand what you are trying to remove. All you will get is
>dissappointment. I would really recommend wandering off into greener
>pastures.
>One very likely and productive greener pasture might be a "freeware
>registry". A person could register that "I am working on a program to do this
>and that." This MIGHT forestall duplicate effort. On the other hand that
>person might get stalled mid effort and others might not try seeing that it
>is already a work in progress.
>I can understand the consumer's desire to know what is going on. *I* desire
>it. But I can sit back and examine the realities of the situation and notice
>that it does not happen, ever, unless there are ulterior motives. (Such as
>the preemptive announcements by MS.) Then I sit back and ask "What are the
>reasons?" Then I listen to myself when I start cataloging them. For example,
>"I do not have to listen to people whining about the program not being done
>yet when I am working my ass off trying to get it bulletproof." (I have such
>a small utility I am working on for ATL that they are encouraging me to
>distribute to the net. I am *NOT* going to talk about it until it is ready,
>because I do not need the external pressures it might bring.),
>I may sound brutal here. I am just trying to be frank about it. What you want
>is not at all likely to happen unless you generate a pure communist society
>in which everything that is to get done is authorized, allocated, and ordered
>by a central authority. As soon as competitive pressures enter the picture so
>does secrecy.
>{^_^} Joanne Dow, jd...@bix.com
Joanne, I don't take your response as being brutal at all. I appriciate
your frankness, it's what I want from people. How else am I to address
real concerns?
I understand all that you wrote. Though I may not know or recall labels,
i.e. osborne syndrom, I do understand the elements making up such
movements of concern. If I didn't, Joanne, I'd not gotten as far as I
have. I have been using my understanding of these concerns to move
forward.
These concerns are "part" of an equasion. But what the full equasion tells
me is that these concerns must and are going to vanish in the computer
industry, and soon.
Joanne, what if this program your working on, could be done in less than a
day? A much more complex program be done in less than a week? A major
project be done in less than a month?
Where would it put the concerns you mentioned?
Before you respond with something like "impossible" let's take a look at
more of the equasion.
The advancement of human developed technology is growing at an ever
increasing rate of speed. A fact of history, indeed
The computer industry is unique in comparision to any other industry. It
is the only industry which is founded or centered on human intellect. With
this it inherently greatly influences all other industries, both directly
and indirectly via the holistic whole of industries. In the simplist of
terms, computers are the tools of wide scale productive abstraction usage,
unlike any other industry.
There is a Y2K problem. Regardless of what anyone says or believes, the
blast from this need not be large to set off what it is going to. All it
need do is just touch all elements in the spectrum, and this it will do.
It's going to set off a cascading effect that will put plenty enough at
high risk of unfair loss. Frankly, it's going to really piss people off at
the computer industry.
There is this industry identified problem "software crisis". It is THE
bottle neck of the computer industry. But this bottle neck didn't come
about on it own, something caused it. Do you know what it is? It's this
thing called IP (intellectual property rights), and it evolved along with
evolution of computer technology. This IP issue is quickly becomming top
heavy and will topple from the small but wide blast of the Y2K problem.
Unless the IP issue is quickly and in honesty resolved now.... But the fact
is, it's no longer possible, we no longer have the time to integrate the
solution. The solution strongly involves people, and we know how stubborn
and mean people can be, don't we!? No-one wants to give up what they have
been accustom to, not to mention those getting a free or near free lunch.
The problem is quite frankly to late to prevent, NOW only a matter of
damage control.
So, from where we are now, the valid traditional concerns you express,
point A, how do we get to point B?
I'm a team player and I don't care to hurt innocent and good people, the
ones that are needed the most, so to impliment point B. But then there are
those who are not of this group, whom will do everything they can to
prevent or distroy the solution, point B.
Perhaps more are beginning to realize I do see the big picture.
The solution and damage requires honest help from the first and the last,
first to consider, last to receive. The consumer. But for the consumer to
be a consumer, they must also produce in order to have value to exchange.
This is a test:
What is it that unfair losses will cause?
Hint: consider the wide scope of the holistic full circle!
T.Rue
P.S. It's counter productive, counter solution, to hide what everyone
"needs" to know. In moving from point A to point B, there is a genuine
line to draw between what needs to be open and what doesn't. With this,
know there is no need to take foolish risks or such things to cause
pressure and stress. Open, honest, solution direction can and needs to be
achieved,.... By working from those things we can be certain, safe and
open about. And building from this base with same.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*3 S.E.A.S - Virtual Interaction Configuration (VIC) - VISION OF VISIONS!*
*~ ~ ~ Advancing the way we Perceive and Use the Tool of Computers!*
Timothy Rue What's DONE in anything we do?
Email @ tim...@mindspring.com *AI PK OI IP OP SF IQ ID KE*
Web @ http://www.mindspring.com/~timrue/ >INPUT->(Processing)->OUTPUT>v
^<--------<----9----<--------<
Search email/name @ http://www.dejanews.com for other puzzle parts/posts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joanne Dow
A person who reposts private email to the net does not diserve further
consideration. There will be no further communication between us.
{^_^} Joanne Dow, jd...@bix.com
Jason Brown
<long quote snipped>
>A person who reposts private email to the net does not diserve further
>consideration. There will be no further communication between us.
Reposting personal E-Mail is certainly not acceptable, but then quoting
140+ lines of the original message just to add two lines of your own
isn't exactly great nettiquette (sp?) either, is it.
Wouldn't a <snipped> line have sufficed (like my top line). Spare a
thought for those of us who have to pay for every second online.
--
Jason Brown
Timothy Rue
On 18-Feb-98 08:59:14 Jason Brown <jbus...@bbam.albatross.co.uk> wrote:
><long quote snipped>
>>A person who reposts private email to the net does not diserve further
>>consideration. There will be no further communication between us.
>Reposting personal E-Mail is certainly not acceptable, but then quoting
>140+ lines of the original message just to add two lines of your own
>isn't exactly great nettiquette (sp?) either, is it.
>Wouldn't a <snipped> line have sufficed (like my top line). Spare a
>thought for those of us who have to pay for every second online.
>--
>Jason Brown
This may sound a bit contridictary comming from me. But the fact is,
Joanne apparently didn't realize my original message to her was both
posted in the newsgroup and to her in Email. By the time she realized
this, it was to late. Was she pissed off at me or at herself?
Of course, since this already happen and she was blaming me, judged guilty
and executed, what could it hurt but to follow thru with a post
with quotes from her (but here I did edit out what I felt she wouldn't have
wanted the public to know - once I realized.)
No matter what, in any case, the point is simply this. There is no intent
on doing anything to generate a genuine Open and productive Amiga
community team spirit. It truely is at best, flamming as a sport. You win
only if you chase someone off or pull them behind closed doors. A bunch of
losers that think in terms of illusional power over others is the only way
to win? It certainly seems to be the case, oh well I guess it's just a
black hole, or a void at best.
Alan L.M. Buxey
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:10:22 -0800 ,Joanne Dow posted the following:
: A person who reposts private email to the net does not diserve further
: consideration. There will be no further communication between us.
and a person who reposts a whole article just to add 2 lines to the
bottom also deserves to lose consideration
Alan
Alan L.M. Buxey
On 18 Feb 98 13:53:53 -0500 ,Timothy Rue posted the following:
: This may sound a bit contridictary comming from me. But the fact is,
: Joanne apparently didn't realize my original message to her was both
: posted in the newsgroup and to her in Email. By the time she realized
: this, it was to late. Was she pissed off at me or at herself?
it shouldnt have appeared in the usenet group in the first <swear word> place!
: No matter what, in any case, the point is simply this. There is no intent
: on doing anything to generate a genuine Open and productive Amiga
: community team spirit. It truely is at best, flamming as a sport. You win
no, there ARE attempts, there are MANY attempt at this - keep up man!
however, Joanne has made the choice NOT to join in on one of these
projects with her particular program. fair enough.
alan
Timothy Rue
On 20-Feb-98 09:55:56 Alan L.M. Buxey <kc...@central.susx.ac.uk> wrote:
>On 18 Feb 98 13:53:53 -0500 ,Timothy Rue posted the following:
>: No matter what, in any case, the point is simply this. There is no intent
>: on doing anything to generate a genuine Open and productive Amiga
>: community team spirit. It truely is at best, flamming as a sport. You win
>no, there ARE attempts, there are MANY attempt at this - keep up man!
>however, Joanne has made the choice NOT to join in on one of these
>projects with her particular program. fair enough.
>alan
Where? Behind which doors? What are the requirement to enter and do? What
do you have to sign? How much does it cost?
How is "Open" defined by those participating in such "attempts"? Does this
definition have something to do with Steve Gates methodology?
Maybe there is a fundamental error here. I certainly think so, it's really
quite obivious.
Myron Sothcott
On 20-Feb-98 19:53:57, Alan L.M. Buxey said:
>On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 01:10:22 -0800 ,Joanne Dow posted the following:
>: A person who reposts private email to the net does not diserve further
>: consideration. There will be no further communication between us.
>and a person who reposts a whole article just to add 2 lines to the
>bottom also deserves to lose consideration
>Alan
Amongst all of the noise generated by TR on these newsgroups Joanne's
message (even quoting TR's impolite use of a private message) was just
a minor blip in the overall scene. Don't trash Joanne... She has done
more for the Amiga than most visitors to c.s.a.*, and she is among the
first to respond when someone has a question that she is qualified to
answer.
Myron
Joanne Dow
Myron Sothcott wrote:
> Amongst all of the noise generated by TR on these newsgroups Joanne's
> message (even quoting TR's impolite use of a private message) was just
> a minor blip in the overall scene. Don't trash Joanne... She has done
> more for the Amiga than most visitors to c.s.a.*, and she is among the
> first to respond when someone has a question that she is qualified to
> answer.
>
Thanks for the vote of confidence. It is this sort of nonsense that
tends to keep me OFF USENET. The signal to noise ratio here is utterly
ridiculous.
{+_+}
Joanne Dow
Alan L.M. Buxey wrote:
>
> and a person who reposts a whole article just to add 2 lines to the
> bottom also deserves to lose consideration
If I had not reposted the whole thing I foresaw discussions about
"I did not do that." I made my point with the proof quoted.
{^_^}
Joanne Dow
Alan L.M. Buxey wrote:
>
> no, there ARE attempts, there are MANY attempt at this - keep up man!
> however, Joanne has made the choice NOT to join in on one of these
> projects with her particular program. fair enough.
>
to be pointedly excluded. All I can conclude is that the collection of
elitists running ICOA are not interested in what I have to say so I gave
up trying. Can you tell me WHY they would not respond when I registered?
I am quite interested. Is it maybe because I have this "thing" about
private email and idiots who relay it to the net? (Tim, it makes no
difference if your original posting was to the net. Posting my reply,
which was NOT to the net was improper and not acceptable. If I wanted
it on the net I would have posted it there.)
{^_^} Joanne Dow, jd...@bix.com
Timothy Rue
>{^_^} Joanne Dow, jd...@bix.com
You should have no problem joining the, as you put it, "elitist running the
ICOA".
You've proven yourself worthy, my child.
And your welcome.
Mark A. Loyd
Joanne Dow wrote:
>
> Alan L.M. Buxey wrote:
> >
> > no, there ARE attempts, there are MANY attempt at this - keep up man!
> > however, Joanne has made the choice NOT to join in on one of these
> > projects with her particular program. fair enough.
> >
> Negative Alan. I have registered on the ICOA site several times and seem
> to be pointedly excluded. All I can conclude is that the collection of
> elitists running ICOA are not interested in what I have to say so I gave
> up trying. Can you tell me WHY they would not respond when I registered?
> I am quite interested.
>
Sorry to hear that. Seems impolite at the very least. You
got no reply at all? They should have sent a form letter
if nothing else.
Joanne Dow
Mark A. Loyd wrote:
> Sorry to hear that. Seems impolite at the very least. You
> got no reply at all? They should have sent a form letter
> if nothing else.
No reply at all.
{O.O} Maybe if I try again now things will be different.
Jason Brown
>Joanne Doe wrote:
Well that's debatable. I still feel that a <lengthy quote snipped>
would have sufficed. I can however see you dilemna in wanting to
avoid further arguments.
Perhaps we can all learn from this and when we feel we must include
a lenghy quote, explain our reasons for doing so.
--
Jason Brown
Alan L.M. Buxey
On Mon, 23 Feb 1998 06:39:44 -0800 ,Joanne Dow posted the following:
: Alan L.M. Buxey wrote:
: >
: > no, there ARE attempts, there are MANY attempt at this - keep up man!
: > however, Joanne has made the choice NOT to join in on one of these
: > projects with her particular program. fair enough.
: >
: Negative Alan. I have registered on the ICOA site several times and seem
: to be pointedly excluded. All I can conclude is that the collection of
: elitists running ICOA are not interested in what I have to say so I gave
: up trying. Can you tell me WHY they would not respond when I registered?
nope - and from I've seen (or rather not seen ;-) ) from their work, i
wouldnt even be bothered by them. I just noted that you were being
bitched about because of one particular thing - and as i read from your
post and noted, you've not bothered with it. good on you! - you have
freedom to do what you want.
alan
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Joanne Dow wrote:
> Negative Alan. I have registered on the ICOA site several times and seem
> to be pointedly excluded. All I can conclude is that the collection of
> elitists running ICOA are not interested in what I have to say so I gave
> up trying. Can you tell me WHY they would not respond when I registered?
> I am quite interested. Is it maybe because I have this "thing" about
> private email and idiots who relay it to the net? (Tim, it makes no
> difference if your original posting was to the net. Posting my reply,
> which was NOT to the net was improper and not acceptable. If I wanted
> it on the net I would have posted it there.)
I'm sorry to hear that the registration procedures at ICOA did fail to
respond to you. I'm not a member of ICOA myself, if I had been more
active after the initial stages I might still have been helping out
there.
IIRC on the mailinglists, which started out as arise and second-wind and
has ended in the Jay Miner Society and ICOA, there was a lot of
discussion on how to gain support from prominent memebers of the Amiga
community. I'm pretty certain that Joanne Dow was among those on the
list to be contacted early on, in recognition of the work she has done,
and do, for the Amiga community.
Those on that list back then were not 'elitists' at all, in fact I found
people like Carl Sassenrath, and not to forget Fleecy Moss and Giorgio
Gomelsky, to be polite, hard working, and open to ideas from all
participants. We all knew that those on the second-wind list were
professionals with much to do, and therefore we limited the traffic on
that list, and participation.
It was at that time a general concensus that we limit the list(s) to
those who could pull their weight and participated actively. (That's why
elected to sign off both when my main thesis came up, and some new
jobs.)
It never was intened to publicize ICOA and JMS in such away as to hype
expectations and give an impression of elitism. That it has become so is
regretable; but I don't believe it's deliberate, but just a result of
events getting out of hand.
And as was announced in this group, on the Amiga Web Directory and
elsewhere, the ICOA is now accepting memberships (again). I don't know
how these are handled at the moment, but I believe that the initial
caution which I felt on the list might have prevailed, and that they now
has the infrastructure in place to handle requests properly.
The moral is: newer place something on the net before you are ready to
handle the effect of it.
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Metaphor Systems as
Gerald Bonnstetter
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen <pau...@metaphor.no> wrote in article
<34F407BB...@metaphor.no>...
> Joanne Dow wrote:
>
> > Negative Alan. I have registered on the ICOA site several times and
seem
> > to be pointedly excluded. All I can conclude is that the collection of
> > elitists running ICOA are not interested in what I have to say so I
gave
> > up trying. Can you tell me WHY they would not respond when I
registered?
That I don't know, I do know that the number of people on the list was
limited to keep it from getting out of hand. I woul;d hope that you had
been excluded only because the list was already full. Myself, I'd think
you'd have been worth an exception.
[snip]
> And as was announced in this group, on the Amiga Web Directory and
> elsewhere, the ICOA is now accepting memberships (again).
Just to clarify, this is the first chance apply for "real" membership.
Before you just got onto the mailing list that helped setup the ICOA.
> I don't know
> how these are handled at the moment, but I believe that the initial
> caution which I felt on the list might have prevailed, and that they now
> has the infrastructure in place to handle requests properly.
For anyone interested in joining ICOA or finding out what it is, the new
web site is at:
http://www.amiganet.org/icoa/
the old ICOA web site was at:
http://www.netreach.net/~fleecy/icoa/
If any buttons on the new site are dead, try the old site. ;-)
Before anyone joins ICOA, read the Membership section first, members will
have to pay dues after things get organized better.
To join you'll need to get into the Register! section on the new site (top
button on the frames view!). You can register as a company or an
individual. Read the membership section to see what the difference is.
Do note that ICOA is intended mostly for developers and other technically
oriented people. So I think Joanne Dow is an A1 canidate to get into ICOA.
Me, I'm hoping to get in. ;-)
Gerald Bonnstetter Team *AMIGA*
Ventura, Iowa, USA Bonnsoft
bonn...@netins.net
http://www.netins.net/showcase/bonnsoft
Giorgio Gomelsky
I haven't visited c.s.a.misc for over 6 months, so I'm not familiar with the ins
and outs of this re-current issue, but I take exception at Joanne's statements
that people involved in what resulted to be the ICOA initiative are a bunch of
"elitists".
If anyone was an elitist it was you, Joanne. I can go and fish out quotes after
quotes from you putting our efforts down as those of a bunch of "brainless
fanatics" one day and "bratty maniacs" the next. Remember writing in ARise with
regards to approaching Gwk2:
"Giorgio, if you want to kill the Amiga go right ahead. I cannot stop you. I
can, however, urge you not to mess with the Gateway 2000 people until they
actually own the property and have assessed what they REALLY plan to do with it.
A collection of "Amigoids" descending on Gateway with a manifesto or a broadside
of unsolicited information will so alienate them that they will simply kill the
Amiga rather than suffer more of the same. I have INFINITE trust in the innate
idiocy of Amigamaniacs to do the wrong thing. And there are way way too many of
these Amigoids out there..."
As if, if you are not a developer, programmer or engineer that helped create the
Amiga then you can't do anything right and you cannot be trusted to say anything
at all.
One more:
"Be ready to jump WHEN THEY ASK. Do *NOT* flood them with unsolicited diatribes
of advice. If a collection of Amigoids manages to annoy Gateway management
sufficiently to kill the Amiga I will sit here unsurprised, crying. I fully
expect that day to come."
How wrong you were. You didn't just play devil's advocate (a useful
function in group dynamics), you consistently formulated your opinions of us and
our efforts in astringent, if not downright castrating language. Combined with
your lack of discrimination and judgment, plus the public broadsides you took at
some of our companions, the few of us hanging in there by the skin of our teeth,
almost felt like giving up. Personally, and that's just me, I dreaded reading
your interventions for fear of having my spirit sink into my socks.
Thankfully, other Amiga veterans morally, even actively, encouraged
us. We were able to endeavor, to call for unity, for integration of the wisdom
of "the legends" with the keenness of the "new wave generation" of programmers
and informed users. We convinced gw2k to listen to us,
to officially work with us in setting the ground stone for a whole new future
for the Amiga.
Of course things can still go wrong, Compaq can buy out GW and Gates
buy out Compaq , etc.,. But whatever happens, we will never, ever again feel
helpless, hopeless and defeated.
Of course, you (or any other person reading this) are free to think that the
results of these long, exhausting, dedicated efforts by a small number of
determined people, who never gave up hope to find some innovative solutions to
the Amiga conundrum, have been and still are a waste of time and of no
consequence to the community. I say, let the facts speak for themselves.
And before long, they will.
giorgio gomelsky
Timothy Rue
On 25-Feb-98 16:29:32 Giorgio Gomelsky <gi...@interport.net> wrote:
>I haven't visited c.s.a.misc for over 6 months, so I'm not familiar with the
>ins and outs of this re-current issue, but I take exception at Joanne's
>statements that people involved in what resulted to be the ICOA initiative
>are a bunch of "elitists".
[snipped - see Giorgio post]
People can read this how ever they want and will, I don't give a damn.
Although Joanne is mad at me for what recently happened, she is much more
honest and direct than most anyone else I have communicated with.
There was that which I recently communicated into the public. Of this
communication from Joanne, she said something that could easily anger many
users and clients alike (I'm not going to repeat it here). However, it was
out of her honesty and humanity that she did communicate this to me. This
is the person she is, real. She wasn't putting on any sort of front, as
many do.
Now it's not whether or not I approve of what she said because in the big
picture she needs no approval, simple because she was being bulls-eye
honest.
I have no doubt that Joanne will be extreamly happy when the needed
corrections in the industry, regarding intellectual property rights,
happens. And it will, simply because it has to as a matter technology
bottleneck solution, and if not this then a matter of simple justice and
fair play.
Point blank, Joanne is a very honest person. Someone that has little
choice than to go against this honest nature of hers, simply because the
computer industry will not allow honesty and making a living to co-exist.
Joanne is being practical, and applying what many might term survival
techniques. Funny, somehow this makes me appriciate my own mother more.
If Joanne really said the things you quoted, Giorgio, I'd like to see the
full context in which she said it. Not that I expect to, mind you.
There is absolutely no question about it. This built in incentitive of the
industry must be changed so that it promotes and rewards honesty and
forward productive movement. This rather than the dishonest game of tac
toe that has gone on long enough.
One last thing: The rules I'm talking about (IP based) where not designed
to handle this industry, but existed before this industry did. The very
tool this industry produces, just so happens to be the tool to help make
the needed corrections.
Imagine how nice it would be to have incentive to honestly and
productively work together, rather than hide, fight and sue.
T.Rue
I'm the tenth card, and know it.
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Timothy Rue wrote:
> If Joanne really said the things you quoted, Giorgio, I'd like to see the
> full context in which she said it. Not that I expect to, mind you.
I think I can remember those quotes Giorgio put forth. Better yet, I
think I have a htmlized archive of all postings on second-wing and arise
on my Amiga at home. Let me have the weekend and a couple of days to
solicit a CD-writer and I will take you on your word.
Timothy Rue
Please, only so long as it is not to put people down but to help extract
and identify the underlying source of why their is conflict.
Timothy Rue
On 26-Feb-98 05:14:29 Skal Loret <sk...@notonyourlifespambreath.nac.net> wrote:
>On 25 Feb 1998 17:40:41 Timothy Rue wrote about "Re: Hi Joanne.":
>>
>> On 25-Feb-98 16:29:32 Giorgio Gomelsky <gi...@interport.net> wrote:
>> >I haven't visited c.s.a.misc for over 6 months, so I'm not familiar with
>> >the ins and outs of this re-current issue, but I take exception at
>> >Joanne's statements that people involved in what resulted to be the ICOA
>> >initiative are a bunch of "elitists".
>>
>> [snipped - see Giorgio post]
>>
>> People can read this how ever they want and will, I don't give a damn.
>>
>> Although Joanne is mad at me for what recently happened, she is much more
>> honest and direct than most anyone else I have communicated with.
>Tim:
>Having reread what Gio wrote, and what you wrote in response, and to
>Jason( a person who wouldn't piss up your ass if your guts were on
>fire...I posit...), I think you are desperately flailing for support
>of the VIC, and any other wild-hair ideas you have contrived.
>You are an really an opportunist. Without portfolio.
>I am really dissapointed in you. Really.
>You are really a lick-spittle.
>An Amigoid(Tm:1997, Joanne Dow, once in a position of some feeble importance)
>She was talking about you.
>But she looks good in black...;')
It's really easy to be negitive, isn't it? People can change and I know
your not a bot, Skal.
But to add some weight to the other side of the scale of this ICOA -
Joanne thing:
I don't see things as being either black or white. There is a spectrum of
color with shade and tint.
With this there are things about the ICOA that I support and things about
the ICOA that I don't and things that can be improved.
I don't support the dishonesty that I personally know is there. I do
support the focal point objectives of the ICOA as being a developer based
effort to deal with standards and technology direction of the Amiga
platform. I do not support anything that wrongly forces standards but
support that which determines standards thru the natural process of
forward moving user usage of things. I do understand there is a fine line
between establishing standards without available user usage and forced
standards. But I also know compatability is a major issue for both users
and platform survival, and it is this that helps determine the difference
between right and wrong regarding standards.
I am certain there is plenty of room for improvement in the ICOA regarding
the user base feed back loop as it applies to standards.
Overall I know I have had such an influence in the direction of the ICOA
but from the perspective of being outside of it, thru public communication
that generates thru others, feedback to the ICOA.
My work and influence seems to be enough that I have appeard to be in the
eyes of some, a member of the ICOA. But I am not.
What I have received in return is proof enough that there is much room to
improve user based public relations from the ICOA. The ICOA needs user
based feedback, otherwise the ICOA will only be able to force standards
it, thru whatever mystical calculation, determines what is needed.
The user base doesn't need to know the details of how things are done, but
the ICOA does need to know how usable the standards they establish are to
the user base. The ICOA is not going to find this out by guessing,
assuming or claiming the user is stupid if it doesn't work for the user!
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Timothy Rue wrote:
>
> On 26-Feb-98 05:36:16 Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen <pau...@metaphor.no> wrote:
> >Timothy Rue wrote:
>
> >> If Joanne really said the things you quoted, Giorgio, I'd like to see the
> >> full context in which she said it. Not that I expect to, mind you.
>
> >I think I can remember those quotes Giorgio put forth. Better yet, I
> >think I have a htmlized archive of all postings on second-wing and arise
> >on my Amiga at home. Let me have the weekend and a couple of days to
> >solicit a CD-writer and I will take you on your word.
>
> Please, only so long as it is not to put people down but to help extract
> and identify the underlying source of why their is conflict.
Hi, Timothy. It will undoubtedly be a bit messy for some people if I put
out the archives, but they have allready been publicly abailable in the
past.
But why do you first doubt Giorgios motives and ask for a publication of
the FULL context, and then to not find it that important now? (Yes I
question YOUR motives.)
I will do my utmost to have the archive available during next week or a
week later, at geocities (it there is enough room), since I feel that
this can clear up much of the misunderstandings in the issues
surrounding ICOA and the JMS.
I have nothing against those who didn't believe what we did back then;
everyone both now and then is entitled to do, and persuade others to do,
what they think are right at the moment. In hindsight everything seems
very clear and we start flinging accusations at each other. Since there
exist an archive of a public mailinglist which can clarify the issue,
and show every persons view in the full context, I believe that will be
most fruitfull, and unharmfull to everyone. (I'll stop elaborating on
this until asked;)
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Timothy Rue wrote:
> It's really easy to be negitive, isn't it? People can change and I know
> your not a bot, Skal.
I agree with you Timothy, it's to easy to be negative, and much harder
to be constructive. I don't particularly agree with Skals
characterizations at all.
> With this there are things about the ICOA that I support and things about
> the ICOA that I don't and things that can be improved.
A very good sentiment, which I believe those involved with ICOA share.
> I don't support the dishonesty that I personally know is there. I do
> support the focal point objectives of the ICOA as being a developer based
> effort to deal with standards and technology direction of the Amiga
> platform. I do not support anything that wrongly forces standards but
> support that which determines standards thru the natural process of
> forward moving user usage of things. I do understand there is a fine line
> between establishing standards without available user usage and forced
> standards. But I also know compatability is a major issue for both users
> and platform survival, and it is this that helps determine the difference
> between right and wrong regarding standards.
Before you start accusing people and organizations of dihonesty, you
have to prove objectively that they are. I won't ask you to do that now,
since we both know that most of the ICOA discussions was on two or three
mailing lists, which was tried to be limited in numbers. (I still
believe it was a public mailinglist, as it was possible to subscribe to
it via at least two web-sites.)
When I get the archives online, you can then point to where the
dishonesty can be found. If it's in private e-mails, then the views
expressed to you are private, and not representative of the ICOA.
> I am certain there is plenty of room for improvement in the ICOA regarding
> the user base feed back loop as it applies to standards.
As human beeings everyone need to understand that in most human
endeavours there is room for improvement.
> Overall I know I have had such an influence in the direction of the ICOA
> but from the perspective of being outside of it, thru public communication
> that generates thru others, feedback to the ICOA.
>
> My work and influence seems to be enough that I have appeard to be in the
> eyes of some, a member of the ICOA. But I am not.
Which you obviously seem to believe is a badge of honour. What is a
badge of honour is not which organization on is a part of or not, but
how we conduct ourselves, as you have pointed out.
> What I have received in return is proof enough that there is much room to
> improve user based public relations from the ICOA. The ICOA needs user
> based feedback, otherwise the ICOA will only be able to force standards
> it, thru whatever mystical calculation, determines what is needed.
Which takes a while to set up. Of course I haven't been in contact with
ICOA for nearly nine months (or more) therefore I can't claim to know
the people there as well as I did earlier. I also feel that ICOA need to
prove itself to the Amiga society, in one fashion or another.
But, they were mainly concerned with developers and the continuation of
the Amiga legacy. We were (back then) most concerned with the
differences in standards between companies operating on the Amiga, and
felt that an organization where all developers could participate on
equal ground would help facilitating solutions.
What you ask is important, but to ensure that users get heard and have
their views incorporated into future developments, one also need a
strong user organization. That one should concentrate on finding out
what the users want, why they want it and how. And those views should be
lobbied with the developers and ICOA.
As you understand it's not ICOAs explicit goal to make the Amiga what
everyone want (though the ICOA is a fairly good cross section of users,
who happen to be developers as well), but to make the Amiga more
homogenous, leveling the playingfield and give every developer the same
information and background, so that we won't see an Amiga where several
RTG, RTA, and hardware standards (on the same processor) appear.
> The user base doesn't need to know the details of how things are done, but
> the ICOA does need to know how usable the standards they establish are to
> the user base. The ICOA is not going to find this out by guessing,
> assuming or claiming the user is stupid if it doesn't work for the user!
I have a standard error message if people don't make the program do what
it can: "IUI - Insufficient User Intelligence." ;)
Myron Sothcott
On 26-Feb-98 02:29:32, Giorgio Gomelsky said:
<clip>
>If anyone was an elitist it was you, Joanne. I can go and fish out quotes
>after quotes from you putting our efforts down as those of a bunch of
>"brainless fanatics" one day and "bratty maniacs" the next. Remember writing
>in ARise with regards to approaching Gwk2:
>"Giorgio, if you want to kill the Amiga go right ahead. I cannot stop you. I
>can, however, urge you not to mess with the Gateway 2000 people until they
>actually own the property and have assessed what they REALLY plan to do with
>it. A collection of "Amigoids" descending on Gateway with a manifesto or a
>broadside of unsolicited information will so alienate them that they will
>simply kill the Amiga rather than suffer more of the same. I have INFINITE
>trust in the innate idiocy of Amigamaniacs to do the wrong thing. And there
>are way way too many of these Amigoids out there..."
<similir statements clipped>
>Of course, you (or any other person reading this) are free to think that the
>results of these long, exhausting, dedicated efforts by a small number of
>determined people, who never gave up hope to find some innovative solutions
>to the Amiga conundrum, have been and still are a waste of time and of no
>consequence to the community. I say, let the facts speak for themselves.
>And before long, they will.
Well GG, I remember what was going on at that time, and even earlier when
VisCorp was the heir apparent. The Internet was rife with Amigoids virtually
screaming for everyone to email Gateway every day with their demands for
hardware/software requirments. "Flood them with mail" regardless if it
had any intelligent content or not.
Joanne was a voice of caution suggesting that a more ordered approach would
achieve a better response. Your concluding paragraphs indicates that
results were achieved by "a small number of determined people", exactly
what Joanne was proposing.
Joanne may not be the most diplomatic person in the world (Hi, Joanne :),
but it doesn't take many days of reading the newsgroups to determine that
diplomacy is not a prerequisite for participation.
Myron
Joanne Dow
Giorgio Gomelsky wrote:
<overlong message deleted>
Did you follow the advice? Did it work? (Especially the wait until GW2K actually
owned it?)
I tried counseling patience. Finally to get through I had to suggest in broader
terms. Maybe
I should just sell my Amigas and kiss this community goodbye. (I note that RJ, Carl,
Dale,
and Dave are conspicuously absent from the ICOA members list..... I also tried to
counsel
brevity as it was driving them crazy with long hard to follow email messages.)
{^_^} Joanne Dow, jd...@bix.com
Timothy Rue
><overlong message deleted>
>Did you follow the advice? Did it work? (Especially the wait until GW2K
>actually owned it?) I tried counseling patience. Finally to get through
>I had to suggest in broader terms.
From a group that promotes itself as being egoless, one cannot expect to
be given credit for anything productive that they do. But by the same
token, such a group cannot be anywhere near a judgemental of others as
they have. On closer inspection it is easy to see that if you are outside
then you can expect efforts to discredit you. Inside, just the opposite.
Ultimately, such promotion of egolessness is in fact against natural law
and will always produce such opposite error. Genuine self esteam and honest
recognition for one's work is a natural and unavoidable positive
characteristic of being human. There are many other natural and positive
qualities of being human of which such efforts to counter or deny them
will unavoidable produce observable error in direct opposition.
In other words, the promotion of this group as being egoless is verifiably
an illusion. Egolessness is not consistant with human nature.
>Maybe I should just sell my Amigas and kiss this community goodbye.
I hope not. The Amiga platform needs people overall honest like you,
Joanne.
Sam Stickland
Timothy Rue wrote:
> What I have received in return is proof enough that there is much room to
> improve user based public relations from the ICOA. The ICOA needs user
> based feedback, otherwise the ICOA will only be able to force standards
> it, thru whatever mystical calculation, determines what is needed.
>
> The user base doesn't need to know the details of how things are done, but
> the ICOA does need to know how usable the standards they establish are to
> the user base. The ICOA is not going to find this out by guessing,
> assuming or claiming the user is stupid if it doesn't work for the user!
For the ICOA bylaws (available on the web site):
3.Structure
1.The Steering Committee
1.The Steering Committee (hereby known as the SC) shall be made up of
6 seats.
2.2 full voting seats to be occupied by commercial members. The
electorate for
these seats is ALL full members of the ICOA.
3.1 full voting seat to be occupied by an individual full member. The
electorate
for this seat is ALL individual full members of the ICOA.
4.1 full voting seat that is open to any full member, commercial or
individual.
The electorate for this seat is ALL full members.
5.1 full voting seat to be occupied by a user representative selected
in the manner
deemed by the ICOA to be the most representative way in which to
provide a
user representative.
6.1 non voting seat to be occupied by the those currently possessing
legal
ownership of the Amiga technology. This seat cannot vote in any SC
decisions
but can veto any decision made.
As you can see from 3.5 there is a space on the SC for a user representative.
This does not yet exist. The ICOA is still governed by the Transitional Steering
Committee (TSC), whose job it was to set up the by-laws, incorporate the ICOA
etc.. Basically get everything going. The ICOA is now accepting applications for
membership (you can register on the web site). Up until now "membership" of the
ICOA has not technically existed (those on the limited number mailing list were
there to help set it up, although naturally discussion did driff a little ;) ).
Once 100 members are in the ICOA elections will start.
Sam
Timothy Rue
On 28-Feb-98 09:49:13 Sam Stickland <sps...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>As you can see from 3.5 there is a space on the SC for a user representative.
>This does not yet exist. The ICOA is still governed by the Transitional
>Steering Committee (TSC), whose job it was to set up the by-laws, incorporate
>the ICOA etc.. Basically get everything going. The ICOA is now accepting
>applications for membership (you can register on the web site). Up until now
>"membership" of the ICOA has not technically existed (those on the limited
>number mailing list were there to help set it up, although naturally
>discussion did driff a little ;) ). Once 100 members are in the ICOA
>elections will start.
>Sam
Yes, I'm aware of this position. On the negitive side, given what
experience I have had with the ICOA I see only one reason why I might be
elected as a user rep. and that is to get me to sign an NDA. To shut me
up and then expell me either directly or thru a simple wait for end of
term.
On the positive side I understand the methodology or qualifications of
selection has not yet been determined.
Personally there is a way to do this so that there is no arguement from
anyone as to who holds this position. Simple because it'd be clear to all
that such persons (it's not a permanet position) have met the
qualifications.
This method is achieved not from within the ICOA but external in the form
of a user marketing plan. In other words those who clearly advance the
sales of the platform inherently generate valid qualification. Inherently
this also qualifies such individuals to have a very good perspective as to
what is needed technology wise and standards with the platform. If they
want to improve their business (apparent in achieving such qualifications)
they will provide valid and valuable feedback to the ICOA.
This is no maybe, but absolute inherent certainty.
A few other points:
Although the needed user marketing plan is NOT multi-level-marketing, for
many reasons, it is designed in such a manner that there is upline and
downline organization financial incentive. But designed in such a manner
to correctly and fairly allow the little guy, just in, an equal
opportunity to make it to the top.
To begin such a plan fairly, given the existing user base, it becomes very
helpful to consider past damage done to amiga supporters and in relation
to what they had done (i.e. William Hawes). With this it should be easy to
establish initial organizations and only a matter of who each of the
individuals left of the user base want to be under.
This is extreamly brief!!! There is much more to consider, such as the
details of the plan itself. But what is mentioned here is so that you may
get the idea of how a user rep is qualified to hold this position on the
ICOA without question or debate from anyone.
A few more points:
If the generally described initialization of such a marketing plan is not
"Goodwill" in undoing damage done, then I don't know what the hell
goodwill is. And NO I certainly would not qualify as an Amiga supporter of
the past, regardless of the real losses and abuse I've suffered.
Such a marketing plan is not for the ICOA to handle, but more correctly
Amiga International (as they are the marketing base).
I don't know what Gateway and AI have in mind regarding marketing, but I
do know this: I don't gamble and know a well design, fair and honest user
marketing plan will work with absolute inherent certainty. For Gateway/AI
to follow a traditional marketing method I will certainly view such as the
very likely to lose gamble it is.
BTW, I'm well aware there are numerious such plans in existance and
directly dealing with computers, especially in regards to set-top boxes.
I pay these plans little mind, simply because I know how to beat the hell
out of them. This post is public, enough said.
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Joanne Dow wrote:
> Did you follow the advice? Did it work? (Especially the wait until GW2K actually
> owned it?)
> I tried counseling patience. Finally to get through I had to suggest in broader
> terms. Maybe
> I should just sell my Amigas and kiss this community goodbye. (I note that RJ, Carl,
> Dale,
> and Dave are conspicuously absent from the ICOA members list..... I also tried to
> counsel
> brevity as it was driving them crazy with long hard to follow email messages.)
Ah, now you ring my bells, I remember you as one asking for brevity.
That's also why the list was split.
I also remember that some wanted to petition GW2K in the start (and that
you asked not to). My recollection was that most were of that sentiment,
and Giorgio too. I can't for my bare life remember that it was such a
rush (from the people of the list(s)) to try to petition GW2K.
There was a general rush to make the ICOA and JMS appear fast, and
positioning ICOA to be a spearhead in the move towards GW2K.
Your counseling did work, the results have been phenomenal. I don't
remember those snippets Giorgio posted as being as harsh as they seemed
in his newsgroup message, but that's probably because of the context.
Carl obviously did want to proceed on his Rebol, and he never was to
enticed with ICOA during all the discussions. About the others, I don't
know, I'm not the right person to answer that.
Again I must say I'm sorry that the ICOA hasn't responded to your
application, as I'm one who would like to see you there. And that even
though Dave, RJ and Dale isn't members of ICOA, as you say.
I hope that ICOA does something with the situatioan, or else it has lost
what I believed was driving it. And I can't see the community well
served by a organization which seems to have generated some mistrust.
Is it really that much mistrust? (It's not the right fora to ask in,
since all those who mistrust ICOA will answer, surely, but those who
don't will be more silent, but he most important function is to see why,
and perhaps something can be done.)
George Noel
In article <1316.361T5...@mindspring.com>,
Timothy Rue <tim...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On 26-Feb-98 05:36:16 Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen <pau...@metaphor.no> wrote:
>>Timothy Rue wrote:
>
>>> If Joanne really said the things you quoted, Giorgio, I'd like to see the
>>> full context in which she said it. Not that I expect to, mind you.
>
>>I think I can remember those quotes Giorgio put forth. Better yet, I
>>think I have a htmlized archive of all postings on second-wing and arise
>>on my Amiga at home. Let me have the weekend and a couple of days to
>>solicit a CD-writer and I will take you on your word.
>
>Please, only so long as it is not to put people down but to help extract
>and identify the underlying source of why their is conflict.
Actually her bias stems from a long time before arise/second-wind and the
JMS and ICOA were formed. It just simply stems from joe blow Amiga users
who are more vocal then others and would run off to "defend the Amiga" to
magazines, editors/columnists, reporters etc. when they misrepresented
something about the Amiga or basically said the Amiga sucks and/or is dead
etc. To add to this, what they would say to them would be something to the
effect of "Amiga RUL3S!!!!!!!!!!!! PCs SUCK!!!!!!!!!!" or comments like
were made to Rick Snyder (or was it Jim Taylor?) of Gateway... something to
the effect of "If you screw this up [referring to the buying out of the
Amiga], I will kill you!"
This bias was obtained via monitoring the Internet and seeing what was being
said there, and personally talking to people who had stupid comments made to
them [editors etc.] by these Amiga users, as well as perhaps hearing
comments made to Commodore-Amiga employees also. Seeing as how a lot of these
people are also on bix, she got the feedback moreso there and as she
recently posted, bix seems to be more free of this stuff than the Internet.
Now getting back to arise/second-wind etc.. the people that initiated all of
this were to Joanne, only these Amigaoids whom she never put any trust in
and thought they could do nor say anything right or benefit the Amiga
whatsoever because.. (see Giorgio's post re: developers, programmers,
engineers of the original Amiga).
Not all Amiga users are like this - some can voice their opinion and/or
correct misconceptions in a professional and/or serious manner and tone with
factual information. To see an example of this, see a copy of The Net magazine
sometime last year when a big reply campaign was put forth to a highly
derogatory/biased one line comment about the Amiga computer in their magazine
by one of their editors (Editoroids?). IMO, Joanne was being majorly
stereotypical about Amiga users and unless they were a part of HER "elite
force" then they can do no right in her mind. Heck, as was quoted, she
didn't even want anyone to write Gateway any e-mail about the Amiga but
in reality, they actually encouraged it. It just goes to show how much she
really knows about that situation. If anyone was being elitist, it was
Joanne - hypocrite comes to mind.
I won't get into my feelings about Arise and second wind but I can see
some of what Joanne was saying but heck, look what they have acomplished
since.. I never thought it would even get that far when it came to the
ICOA. As for the JMS though, well, my thoughts on that were just about
right (no offense to anyone there).
Joanne coined the term Amigaoids as far as I know and personally I cannot
stand how you say it nor what it stands for. I am sure Joanne would also
include me in that ground.
I like Amigans.. we are all Amigans whether we are end users, developers,
coders, programmers, engineers, dealers etc. Whether we have OCS, ECS, AGA
or a graphics card in our systems ranging from an A1000 -> A4000T. That is
what makes our community and that is a major thing that makes the Amiga
special and gives it something other than just being platic and metal.
>Timothy Rue What's DONE in anything we do?
-=*George*=-
P.S. I am not speaking for Joanne Dow, I am simply speaking for myself.
Jason Brown
<snipped>
>> People can read this how ever they want and will, I don't give a damn.
>>
>> Although Joanne is mad at me for what recently happened, she is much more
>> honest and direct than most anyone else I have communicated with.
>Tim:
>Having reread what Gio wrote, and what you wrote in response, and to
>Jason (a person who wouldn't piss up your ass if your guts were on
>fire...I posit...),
Is that "Jason" supposed to be me. If so I'm not sure how to take that
comment. Compliment or insult. Especially since I've made few comments
on this subject myself other than to complain about long quotes.
--
Jason Brown.
Gary Peake
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen scribed to us about ICOA and users (was:
Re: Hi Joanne.) in comp.sys.amiga.misc
PKE> Timothy Rue wrote:
>> I am certain there is plenty of room for improvement in the ICOA
>> regarding the user base feed back loop as it applies to standards.
PKE> As human beings everyone needs to understand that in most human
PKE> endeavours there is room for improvement.
>> Overall I know I have had such an influence in the direction of the
>> ICOA but from the perspective of being outside of it, thru public
>> communication that generates thru others, feedback to the ICOA.
>>
>> My work and influence seems to be enough that I have appeard to be
>> in the eyes of some, a member of the ICOA. But I am not.
PKE> Which you obviously seem to believe is a badge of honour. What
PKE> is a badge of honour is not which organization on is a part of
PKE> or not, but how we conduct ourselves, as you have pointed out.
>> What I have received in return is proof enough that there is much
>> room to improve user based public relations from the ICOA. The ICOA
>> needs user based feedback, otherwise the ICOA will only be able to
>> force standards it, thru whatever mystical calculation, determines
>> what is needed.
PKE> Which takes a while to set up. Of course I haven't been in
PKE> contact with ICOA for nearly nine months (or more) therefore I
PKE> can't claim to know the people there as well as I did earlier. I
PKE> also feel that ICOA need to prove itself to the Amiga society,
PKE> in one fashion or another.
Yes, there are many members involved with Team AMIGA waiting to see
which direction they choose to take.
PKE> But, they were mainly concerned with developers and the
PKE> continuation of the Amiga legacy. We were (back then) most
PKE> concerned with the differences in standards between companies
PKE> operating on the Amiga, and felt that an organization where all
PKE> developers could participate on equal ground would help
PKE> facilitating solutions.
PKE> What you ask is important, but to ensure that users get heard
PKE> and have their views incorporated into future developments, one
PKE> also need a strong user organization. That one should
PKE> concentrate on finding out what the users want, why they want it
PKE> and how. And those views should be lobbied with the developers
PKE> and ICOA.
There is such an organization already and when the ICOA is settled in
and has their new board (with a User Rep involved) Team AMIGA plans to
be the lobbying force that you talk about here.
PKE> As you understand it's not ICOAs explicit goal to make the Amiga
PKE> what everyone want (though the ICOA is a fairly good cross
PKE> section of users, who happen to be developers as well), but to
PKE> make the Amiga more homogenous, leveling the playingfield and
PKE> give every developer the same information and background, so
PKE> that we won't see an Amiga where several RTG, RTA, and hardware
PKE> standards (on the same processor) appear.
If the ICOA and Amiga Inc don't take this into consideration, however,
they will lose support of the users and thus sales. That is the way of
the free market economy of this New World Order that keeps getting
talked about.
>> The user base doesn't need to know the details of how things are
>> done, but the ICOA does need to know how usable the standards they
>> establish are to the user base. The ICOA is not going to find this
>> out by guessing, assuming or claiming the user is stupid if it
>> doesn't work for the user!
PKE> I have a standard error message if people don't make the program
PKE> do what it can: "IUI - Insufficient User Intelligence." ;)
Or FD ... Faulty Docs ... :)
--
Gary Peake, Coordinator 1:106/7511.1
Team *AMIGA* Worldwide gpe...@wans.net
--
Team *AMIGA* Headquarters http://www.wans.net/~gpeake/teamamiga.html
... Stupidity is NOT a handicap. You'll have to park elsewhere.
Ben Hutchings
In article <6dem1a$mlk$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
George Noel <geo...@cs.mun.ca> wrote:
<snip>
>I won't get into my feelings about Arise and second wind but I can see
>some of what Joanne was saying but heck, look what they have acomplished
>since.. I never thought it would even get that far when it came to the
>ICOA. As for the JMS though, well, my thoughts on that were just about
>right (no offense to anyone there).
Your thoughts that the ICOA should be part of the JMS? They were
wrong then, and they are wrong now.
Your thoughts that the JMS would be pointless without the ICOA as part
of it? Also wrong. See today's press release from the JMS and ICOA -
and watch for further announcements from the JMS in the coming months.
--
Ben Hutchings, M&CS student | Jay Miner Society website: http://www.jms.org/
email/finger m95...@ecs.ox.ac.uk | homepage http://users.ox.ac.uk/~worc0223/
Absolutum obsoletum. (If it works, it's out of date.) - Stafford Beer
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Jason Brown wrote:
> Is that "Jason" supposed to be me. If so I'm not sure how to take that
> comment. Compliment or insult. Especially since I've made few comments
> on this subject myself other than to complain about long quotes.
I thought it was Jason Compton; anyway it's untasteful whoever it was
directed at.
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen
Gary Peake wrote:
> Yes, there are many members involved with Team AMIGA waiting to see
> which direction they choose to take.
There seems to be some new energetic activity in ICOA, and there is the
upcomming elections of the user-rep. I've talked with people within
ICOA, and they seem to be as concerned about the way ICOA has generated
some mistrust. Nobody likes it.
But, we must also see why this mistrust has come about, some of those
expressing mistrust have been willing to discuss it with ICOA or others
supporting ICOA, and in those discussions misunderstandings and
apologies has been extended where due.
Others have elected to put themselves outside the discussions, though
they at the same time claim to support the Amiga and the
communityfeeling around the Amiga. We can't all be in agreement, but if
some only continue to accuse and don't face those they accuse, they only
will splinter the community as it is.
I'm glad that most see this and choose to discuss and extend goodwill.
> PKE> As you understand it's not ICOAs explicit goal to make the Amiga
> PKE> what everyone want (though the ICOA is a fairly good cross
> PKE> section of users, who happen to be developers as well), but to
> PKE> make the Amiga more homogenous, leveling the playingfield and
> PKE> give every developer the same information and background, so
> PKE> that we won't see an Amiga where several RTG, RTA, and hardware
> PKE> standards (on the same processor) appear.
>
> If the ICOA and Amiga Inc don't take this into consideration, however,
> they will lose support of the users and thus sales. That is the way of
> the free market economy of this New World Order that keeps getting
> talked about.
What I failed to communicate (or perhaps I misunderstand your post;) is
that there are very different goals among Amiga users, and among
developers. The same divisions are among both "camps" so there are
almost certainly developers supporting the view you have. (Almost to
accomodate the fact that some are more qurreoulous than others.)
If there is two different methods of accessing the same hardware on the
Amiga, who win? Hopefully the best system, but that's not my point. Some
of these things are very basic, as RTG, RTA and different processor
chips, and the community isn't well served if you can't use your
graphicscard with program A, because program A supports RTG type X, and
your card only has an RTG type Y driver.
Those are the things which developers are concerned about, the sales of
their products if they choose X over Y, and X becomes the standard. The
aggrevation of the users while they wait for developer of A to get
around to support Y.
The Amiga isn't big enough to support such diversification at this time.
(The PC world has to stratify, because all users don't have the same
needs, and there is quite a difference between the needs of a server and
a palmtop.)
IMHO, of course.
Gary Peake
Paul Kenneth Egell-Johnsen scribed to us about Re: ICOA and Team Amiga
in comp.sys.amiga.misc
PKE> Gary Peake wrote:
>> Yes, there are many members involved with Team AMIGA waiting to see
>> which direction they choose to take.
PKE> There seems to be some new energetic activity in ICOA, and there
PKE> is the upcomming elections of the user-rep. I've talked with
PKE> people within ICOA, and they seem to be as concerned about the
PKE> way ICOA has generated some mistrust. Nobody likes it.
I do not know why this has happened, but many of us are watching just
the same. For my part, the people I know who are involved with ICOA
are a responsible bunch who love the Amiga as much as the rest of us.
PKE> But, we must also see why this mistrust has come about, some of
PKE> those expressing mistrust have been willing to discuss it with
PKE> ICOA or others supporting ICOA, and in those discussions
PKE> misunderstandings and apologies has been extended where due.
And THIS is how things should be done in the Amiga world. We are now
too small to lose any single unit.
PKE> Others have elected to put themselves outside the discussions,
PKE> though they at the same time claim to support the Amiga and the
PKE> community feeling around the Amiga. We can't all be in
PKE> agreement, but if some only continue to accuse and don't face
PKE> those they accuse, they only will splinter the community as it
PKE> is.
I agree totally. I think the biggest problem right now is making the
European community feel a part of ICOA. Many there do not.
PKE> I'm glad that most see this and choose to discuss and extend
PKE> goodwill.
>> PKE> As you understand it's not ICOAs explicit goal to make the
>> Amiga PKE> what everyone want (though the ICOA is a fairly good
>> cross PKE> section of users, who happen to be developers as well),
>> but to PKE> make the Amiga more homogenous, leveling the
>> playingfield and PKE> give every developer the same information
>> and background, so PKE> that we won't see an Amiga where several
>> RTG, RTA, and hardware PKE> standards (on the same processor)
>> appear.
>>
>> If the ICOA and Amiga Inc don't take this into consideration,
>> however, they will lose support of the users and thus sales. That
>> is the way of the free market economy of this New World Order that
>> keeps getting talked about.
PKE> What I failed to communicate (or perhaps I misunderstand your
PKE> post;) is that there are very different goals among Amiga users,
PKE> and among developers. The same divisions are among both "camps"
PKE> so there are almost certainly developers supporting the view you
PKE> have. (Almost to accomodate the fact that some are more
PKE> qurreoulous than others.)
Yes, and BOTH camps should be represented so that some modern
compromise can be made that will give and take both ways. Although, I
realize that in some instances it must be 'all or nothing', there ARE
areas where compromise could do wonders for the platform.
PKE> If there is two different methods of accessing the same hardware
PKE> on the Amiga, who win? Hopefully the best system, but that's not
PKE> my point. Some of these things are very basic, as RTG, RTA and
PKE> different processor chips, and the community isn't well served
PKE> if you can't use your graphicscard with program A, because
PKE> program A supports RTG type X, and your card only has an RTG
PKE> type Y driver.
I agree totally and the sooner these things are worked out, the
better. Until they are, we continue losing users.
PKE> Those are the things which developers are concerned about, the
PKE> sales of their products if they choose X over Y, and X becomes
PKE> the standard. The aggrevation of the users while they wait for
PKE> developer of A to get around to support Y.
PKE> The Amiga isn't big enough to support such diversification at
PKE> this time.
PKE> (The PC world has to stratify, because all users don't have the
PKE> same needs, and there is quite a difference between the needs of
PKE> a server and a palmtop.)
I agree wholeheartedly!
PKE> IMHO, of course.
Me too!!! :)
--
Gary Peake, Coordinator 1:106/7511.1
Team *AMIGA* Worldwide gpe...@wans.net
--
Team *AMIGA* Headquarters http://www.wans.net/~gpeake/teamamiga.html
*... Sex is better than logic. You can't prove it, but it is.
Joanne Dow
George Noel wrote:
> In article <1316.361T5...@mindspring.com>,
> Joanne coined the term Amigaoids as far as I know and personally I cannot
> stand how you say it nor what it stands for. I am sure Joanne would also
> include me in that ground.
>
No, Jerry Pournelle originateed the term as a description for ALL Amigans. I
adopted it to
describe the rabid foaming at the mouth types who sent some of the email Jerry
showed me.
He got to the point he was afraid to print ANYTHING about the Amiga, good or bad,
because he could say no right according to some people.
<aside>
One example was early in the life of the A2000. I was at a party at Jerry's house
and we
wanted to show off the A2000 by running a game. The game had a code wheel designed
to
be uncopyable. In the party setting we could not make the program work. Jerry
reported it
in about that level of detail. People missed the fact that it was a derogatory
comment about
the colors on the code wheel being unreadable and not about the A2000's
capabilities or power or personal habits. The vitriol in the postings I saw on
UseNet in response to the
articles was horrid until I stepped in and allowed as how *I* personally was the
person they
were accusing of being a dummy and that the code wheel was really unreadable in the
ambient
lighting used for an evening party. This is one example of the kind of feeling
industry reporters
have about the Amiga. I also note, rather drily, that Guy Kawasaki has led HIS
Macoid
troops into exactly the same kind of hole. It is nothing unique to the Amiga. It is
unique to rabid
vocal "computer fans" who have more emotional attachments to their computers than
logical.
</aside>
The kind of commentary I was seeing in the mailing list at the time made it appear
that it would
be this kind of message sent to GW2K. It was neither appropriuate nor was it
appropriate to
attempt contact before they were in possession of the machine except as individuals
expressing
support. All along I thought the purpose of the mailing list was laudable. It got
derailed a few
times trying to get into details when the broader picture was not yet completed. At
the time of
those messages I was hearing comments indicating the people to whom I diirected the
message
wished to tell (not inform) Gateway 2000 that they "had to do XXX and YYY". Yet
this was
before the sale was completed. And one NEVER tries to "tell" a corporate executive
he HAS
TO DO something unless you hold the keys to his paycheck or IRS audit. You
recommend
politely when asked for recommendations. All I wanted was for the cooler heads to
prevail.
And if anybody was dumb-assed stupid enough to think *I* wanted the job of running
this
show I am less than politely informing them that they had their heads so far north
they were
comming back up their south side anal ports after circumnavigating the universe.
That people apparently misunderstood my intentions and frustration engendered from
decades
of dealing with and literally growing up among top executives for major
corporations is quite
indicative to me and others that I would not be suited to try to run the show. I do
feel suited to
attempt to give advice.
{^_^} Joanne Dow, jd...@bix.com who is liable to jump down the throat of the next
person to attempts to put words into my mouth or impute intentions that were
not there.
Jason Brown
>> Is that "Jason" supposed to be me. If so I'm not sure how to take that
>> comment. Compliment or insult. Especially since I've made few comments
>> on this subject myself other than to complain about long quotes.
>I thought it was Jason Compton;
I think you're right. I've just read Jason Compton's excellent Tim
Rue impersonation.
>anyway it's untasteful whoever it was directed at.
Right again.
--
Regards,
Jason Brown
Joanne Dow
Skal Loret wrote:
> On 04 Mar 1998 19:48:05 Gary Peake wrote about "Re: ICOA and Team Amiga":
>
> Out of the members of the TSC, two are European: fleecy, who is
> scottish(Brogans, kilt, sporren, and all...), and Alain, who is Belgian.
>
And for what it is worth so far it appears Alain is one of the cooler heads on
the ICOAmailing list.
> Could you possibly help me with just *why* some, in .eu, see this as a
> US-Centric initiative?
When I was on the original mailing lists this was a concern. I agreed with
everyone else
that we MUST have the European participation and contact to make it all work.
Heck,
most of the developer faith seems to be over there these days. The US
developers seem
to have pretty much given up.
{^_^} Joanne Dow, jd...@bix.com
John Kelly
Skal Loret <sk...@notonyourlifespambreath.nac.net> wrote:
> Could you possibly help me with just *why* some, in .eu, see this as a
> US-Centric initiative?
Two words.
"Moo Eee"
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jk...@SPAMragtime.com | ... heard a singer on the radio, late | Protect
Sup...@finale-dev.com | last night; said he's gonna kick the | the
Net-Viking ]:| | darkness, 'till it bleeds daylight ... | Net!
John Kelly
Skal Loret <sk...@notonyourlifespambreath.nac.net> wrote:
> That won't stop me from scratching a bloody spot into my head, pondering
> the fact.
>
> JKay, things do get weird in TerraAmiga sometimes, don't they?
Just come out shooting, Skal ... and leave the rest to God.
(God being Haynie, of course.)
Gary Peake
Skal Loret scribed to us about Re: ICOA and Team Amiga in
comp.sys.amiga.misc
SL> On 04 Mar 1998 19:48:05 Gary Peake wrote about "Re: ICOA and Team
SL> Amiga":
>> I agree totally. I think the biggest problem right now is making
>> the European community feel a part of ICOA. Many there do not.
SL> If this is true, Bubba(...and I have no reason to doubt *your*
SL> veracity), it is a strange, strange thing.
I am repeating what I have seen here and what has been sent to me in
private email from some of the more prolific of our German and UK
Amiga brethren. They feel somehow left out?
SL> Let's look at the record:
SL> Out of the members of the TSC, two are European: fleecy, who is
SL> scottish(Brogans, kilt, sporren, and all...), and Alain, who is
SL> Belgian.
SL> To our assembled Scottish Bretheren Scottish ain't .eu, but it's
SL> close enough for horseshoes, hand grenades and tactical nuclear
SL> weapons...;')
SL> A significent number of regular participants in the list are
SL> *very* European, and there are signatories from Saudi Arabia,
SL> Iran, Malaysia and Hoboken(...very exotic ports of call...). If
SL> fact, as I remember, during the IRC work for the ICOA rollout at
SL> WoA, I was one of the few Native-Born US Citizens there(Gio is
SL> swiss, by way of everywhere else in .eu...). The amount of .eu
SL> participation may very well overshadow participation from people
SL> in .na, based upon quantity of input.
SL> Could you possibly help me with just *why* some, in .eu, see this
SL> as a US-Centric initiative?
SL> Could you make some suggestions as to how the ICOA might break
SL> through this clearly erroneous assumption?
SL> I assure you, as regards ICOA being .na-centric, nothing could be
SL> further from the truth.
I know this and you know this, but THEY do not know this. I merely
brought it up so that some vociferous hippy could correct the record
publicly as I did not have all the facts.
Once again, ya done well ... ;)
--
Gary Peake, Coordinator 1:106/7511.1
Team *AMIGA* Worldwide gpe...@wans.net
--
Team *AMIGA* Headquarters http://www.wans.net/~gpeake/teamamiga.html
... "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."
Richard Broekman
On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Skal Loret wrote:
> Perhaps there is something more that ICOA needs to communicate about
> itself, that communicates to .eu developers that .na-centrism could not be
> further from the truth.
Since I just recently started to get involved in this 'amiga community'
business (having been an avid Amiga fan for years in silence :)), maybe
you could start out by introducing me to ICOA. I.e., what is it, what's
its URL or something like that ... And don't get fooled by my .net, I'm
European :)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-Richard- Team *AMIGA* - "You don't know how it feels to be me" Tom Petty -
-Broe...@molyvos.net ----- Life isn't a movie, so why are we acting? -----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
fleecy
Gary Peake wrote:
>
> I am repeating what I have seen here and what has been sent to me in
> private email from some of the more prolific of our German and UK
> Amiga brethren. They feel somehow left out?
>
Well there is certainly no need to, and no intent on the part of
the ICOA. Anyone can apply for membership as long as they have
a certain technical level of expertise and experience with
the Amiga.
About 40% of our members now are European, and P5, H&P and Finale-Dev
to name but a few have joined as company members. With the next election
coming up soon, it is an excellent time for ppl to join and help guide
the future of the ICOA.
fleecy
Richard Broekman wrote:
>
> On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, Skal Loret wrote:
>
> > Perhaps there is something more that ICOA needs to communicate about
> > itself, that communicates to .eu developers that .na-centrism could not be
> > further from the truth.
>
> Since I just recently started to get involved in this 'amiga community'
> business (having been an avid Amiga fan for years in silence :)), maybe
> you could start out by introducing me to ICOA. I.e., what is it, what's
> its URL or something like that ... And don't get fooled by my .net, I'm
> European :)
>
Please come along and have a read of what we are about - whilst the
ICOA is primarily for developers, the affiliate scheme will soon open up
many of the ICOA resources to ppl who want to keep up with the
technical side of the platform.
Dr. Peter Kittel
In article <2347.371T1...@wans.net> "Gary Peake" <gpe...@wans.net> writes:
>Skal Loret scribed to us about Re: ICOA and Team Amiga in
>comp.sys.amiga.misc
> SL> On 04 Mar 1998 19:48:05 Gary Peake wrote about "Re: ICOA and Team
>
>>> the European community feel a part of ICOA. Many there do not.
>
> SL> If this is true, Bubba(...and I have no reason to doubt *your*
> SL> veracity), it is a strange, strange thing.
>
>private email from some of the more prolific of our German and UK
>Amiga brethren. They feel somehow left out?
Ugh, I don't. Where do you get this weird impression?
--
Best Regards, Dr. Peter Kittel // http://www.pios.de of PIOS
Private Site in Frankfurt, Germany \X/ office: peterk @ pios.de
Richard Broekman
On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Skal Loret wrote:
> goto http://www.amiganet.org/icoa/
Hmm, maybe next time I'll just search for myself instead of taking the
easy route :)
> I always marvel, a little bit, at the concept of an "Amiga Community". It
> does exist, you know...Something born out of hard times, methinks...
I always liked the idea of 'teaming up' against the big guys ...
Thanks to you and fleecy for the URL, I'll check it out. Even though I'm
no developer, I'm happy enough to be able to get programs working as a
user :)
Giorgio Gomelsky
Joanne Dow wrote:
> The kind of commentary I was seeing in the mailing list at the time made it > appear that it would be this kind of message sent to GW2K. It was neither
> appropriuate nor was it appropriate to attempt contact before they were in > possession of the machine except as individuals expressing support.
-------snip----------
> All along I thought the purpose of the mailing list was laudable. All I
> wanted was for the cooler heads to prevail.
Good rationalization Joanne, which however does not detract from the fact that
you misjudged our enthusiam(s) and looked upon us as a lowly, immature,
unsagacious bunch of ill-informed brats with not a miligram of sense.
Some of us got pretty hurt by your intemperate, self-righteous pronouncements
and lack of support.
Things fell into place and a lot of water has passed under the bridge and other
challenges await us all. Way back then, however, you did make a mistake of
judgement and it would show a degree of generosity and graciousness on your part
to just admit it so we can put it all behind us, full stop.
giorgio gomelsky