OT, more or less. Hi Scott,
How are you? I remember you particularly from NSM, I believe. No? No matter. Relax, your post does not stir my urge to flame and taunt. I've lots of respect for your name, as I recall it, so first off, let me say that coming from you, your message does give me pangs of pause. You've called me out, so to speak, and I hope this long post isn't considered too off-topic. Yes, I have regrets. I agree, petty bs I've offered, and it doesn't help my position. Lately I regret using smart-ass ad hominems against Pat. Likewise for snapping at Mark Lewin the other day. That never helps an argument, so far as I know. Makes it colorful, perhaps- but I just don't know what good that does at all. Heavy sigh. I was pretty rough with Mark laubach, too. I still suspect contradiction and/or omission within the overall anti-S-CDMA argument from all quarters here- but I've posted hastily and too long- matching Pat point for point for instance. The wisdom to be drawn from the threads is to stay out of the mudslinging and I've failed many times.
When it comes to the sort of foray as the one with Pat, it's too late for me, as my record shows plainly that I've been involved in like diatribic discussions before- and probably will again somewhere. It seems that when the right two folks- two willing folks- come together, occasions like this sprout up. Then it ends. The twain may never meet. I've often been one of those willing people. Stubborn. Good or bad, I've learned, been tickled, surprised, praised and panned for the same posts, and enjoyed it, up to somewhere near that end point that comes in time, more or less. I've also enjoyed reading like situations sprout up between others. Heavy sigh...Perhaps it's too late for me.
Alas, in the end, I'll keep trying to be "ruly". Of course, you see, success may be limited.
There was the time I fought on the Gilder thread as to whether Ayn Rand employed any logical arguments, or not. Ad hominems spewed through the cracks of civility. By the by, she does, IMO.
In the interest of disclosure:
There was the time spent as a short term regular on the Did Slick Boink Monica thread- hating the notion that women would defend the man whos lying disrespected citizens rights to truth from a President, and hence too, the reputations(falsely claimed Monica must have lied- thinking he'd save his own hide) of Monica and probably other citizens(quite likely now, I think)who live in the face of his strong presidential denials(normally expected to be honest- and particularly if lying hurts a citizen- a "little guy/gal", I'd think). Ad hominems abounded.
There was the Gilder influenced foray into NSM..and there, finding plenty of ad hominem activities flailing about too, I succumbed to them in the end. "We appreciate you, but stay out of the mud" was the message I got from several of the best there and elsewhere. That's prudent(heavy sigh).
There was DCHT and a battle with two guys who said it was a scam(still undecided- heck you never know for sure with anything) where-in I was fairly well confident it would prove to be on the up and up. I could go on with tales of willing adversaries and Ad hominems. I guess it takes all kinds, they're pretty much all here(I don't know who said that, sounds like maybe a Red Skelton-ism- or Will Rodgers?), and I'm another one.
In this current case, I saw that S-CDMA is viewed negatively on these threads. I saw that the technically minded folks who write about it basically conclude it's of little value, in general. As Mr. Gilder has continued his push of Terayon, I realized I've not seen a single technical evaluation of S-CDMA that came from a tech. person who didn't also have negative thoughts about Mr. Gilder's veracity to offer. I've seen little but the two together. Indeed, how can I expect folks to give a man credit where they believe he is wrong in his choice, among other things?. Never-the-less, I saw a growing gap between the sides, and decided this is a sign that the truth is somewhere in-between, at worst. I decided to explore it.
I apologize for what I've allowed my part to become- the ad hominem's in particular. Everybody has something to offer in the end- and ad hominem's just don't reflect that reality.
I expected, when I came to this thread with my view and questions, that there would be mud slung my way. Still, in this case I just felt I had to get in the mud, so to speak(well, at the moment). Oh, I planned to stay civil- didn't work. My view, really, was to find some guts in the anti-S-CDMA case that I could understand, or not. I'd nearly accepted long ago that Gilder was wrong on the issue, but then seeing his continued push for it and TERN's continued forward march, I began to doubt that conclusion much more strongly.
It occurs to me that my stubborn defense of the "industry standard" issue may be more than partly the last straw impetus behind your message to me. Well, believe or not, I'll take the consequences willingly, and stand up for Gilder on that issue. It seems to me that Gilder employed a quite legitimate dictionary definition of the word "standard" in his opening teaser, and then the more accepted definition(by far, in these parts) in his piece on the whole. The opening tease would be in stark contradiction to his obvious overall understanding, if I applied the same definition of "standard" to it as to the issue within the piece as a whole. I felt he was saying that TERN was pulling a QCOM in the meantime. I feel "industry standard," in the context of his teasing reference to Qualcom, is fine in this case. I find his teasing opening consistent with both the way Qualcom became successful, and an acceptable alternative definition of "standard," (heck,seeing his overall understanding, it's the ONLY definition consistent with his teasing opener, IMO) and I can't fault him. But I ramble with excessive defense again...I do know that when I first read his Terayon piece, I took it exactly this way, never imagining that he meant to imply S-CDMA was already a DOCSIS-like common standard anywhere. I viewed it in the sense that S-CDMA has been ad hoc sold into the industry, and is by common enough definition, a "standard" -a standard used in the industry, an "industry standard"(Def. ANY type, model, or example for COMPARISON). Hence I just don't think bashing Gilder on this point is accurate or worthy at all. And it isn't getting me a better understanding of S-CDMA.
I know I've butted-up against some very respectable folks in this and other points. I guess defending Gilder is part of trying to get him out of the way as an issue. He's just no reason to doubt Terayon. I leave it up to the reader to decide if I'm grasping at straws, I won't back down on the "industry standard" point....and I see cracks in the anti-S-CDMA argument(no conclusions yet). Still, I do regret the anger in my posts. But, there you go, If I think my position is reasonable, and I'm told flatly I'm certainly wrong, I want to stand my ground. It's no excuse for flying off the handle- that just adds to the notion that I am involving myself with extreme self-defensive gyrations and lessens credibility. Far be it from me to deny it's my nature- and if my opinion is dismissed haughtily at all, I get upset(ahh, questions of chickens and eggs- who hit who first). I'd like to limit getting upset, and improve how I respond to it in others. I obviously do stand strong on the issue- hopefully more congenially in the future(which may not even help when noone agrees). Believe me, when someone doesn't agree, often as not, I don't have to initiate nasties, just limit them in my responses if I can hold back. They're bright spots here and there, I hope. Yes, I'm still learning.
I've been wondering for some time when SI will sell an archival disk...the first five years perhaps? It would be great fun if eminently searchable. I've tried and failed to stay away from venom for venom exchanges. I'll keep trying to edit ad hominems out. The temptation gets great at times to let it fly- and try, I guess, it is all I can do for any legacy I may leave here.
Dr Ahhaha once told me, essentially, that I backed GBLX(after hearing his anti-GBLX arguments) only because I didn't want to ruin my image and standing with board members. He allowed, essentially, that I had a need to be a good 'ol boy. He's quite a guy. I told him he didn't know what he was talking about(I knew how stubborn I am)in so many words. Perhaps I've proved it over and over now, ggg. I just hope there will be something redeeming found in my posts. And I encourage anyone to take me with a big grain of salt always, and/or as they see fit from time to time. I hope I stay pretty friendly from time to time or always;-)...which is a worthy goal, I'd rather be "oh so pleasant."
Regards,
Freedom works,
Dan B
|
