Agree that personal responsibility and judgement must be the ruling
factors (read character traits) of anyone brave enough to deal with
the abomination that is the modern personal computer.
I for one am self-preserving enough, that when I get burned crispy
enough by some software (or other thing), new solutions and
directions are what I GO AWAY AND FIND!
>>If instead Person B goes away finds something else (or someone else)
>>to play with, they've won.
There just could be no end to the convolutions in a humorless dialogue
regarding the supposed "mental damage" incurred by using software.
What really sux tho, IMHO is how some of the worst, needlessly
frustrating and high maintenance os/software setups [ you know what
you are using ] end up being inflicted upon people at their jobs.
But again, it is for folks to stand up to the tyrany of
tradition/convention and go for what is sane & sensible; to petition
rigorously for better solutions - or get out and participate in
something that will NOT let you damge yourself.
We go to what we know sometimes, even pain, but all I know about
software is that the best hasn't been made yet by far and I also
learned a long time ago to take it all with a BIG grain of salt...
> Garret D. Langlois wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Francis Swasey wrote:
> >>Even if the subject has been playing with humans, would it have
> been the
> >>humans that caused the emotional trauma? No, it would have been
> >>subject's response to the actions of the other participants that
> >>resulted in the emotional trauma.
> > I am going to respectfully disagree with that. If Person A
> punches Person
> > B in the face, Person A is still exonerated because it was Person
> > response to fell that pain.
> > Seems to me it is a simple matter of stimulis - response or cause
> > effect. Person / Software A is what causes these neurons to
> exocytose or
> > "fire" and Person B is has the response. The point is at no
> instance in
> > time does Person B have a true choice of responding or not.
> > hardwired psycho-chemical
> I'm not sure how we got from a nice simple game of toss the ball
> Persons A and C suddenly decide to ignore Person B to a brawl in
> Person B got a punch to the face. I will contend that we are
> about apples and oranges at this point.
> Obviously, Person B will respond to Persons A and C throwing the
> back and forth between themselves and being ignored. But, it is
> B's decision on HOW to respond to the stimulus of being ignored (or
> dissed as my kids would say).
> I will contend that if Persons A and C have decided not to play
> Person B, it is time for Person B to find something else to do.
> about it and having emotional scars because the other kids (or
> computers) decided to play with themselves instead of with him/her
> only egging them (A and C) on to do it again... If instead Person B
> away finds something else (or someone else) to play with, they've
> I'm reminded of the age old Peanuts cartoon where Lucy pulls the
> football away and Charlie Brown winds up on his back, year after
> after year... Some kids (people) just love to be the victim and
> themselves the victim over and over and over. I say, it's time to
> the cycle. Take responsibility for your own actions and
> they don't want to play. Who are they hurting? Themselves by
> themselves of your friendship... Let them. Go read a book and talk
> your invisible friends about what you have learned!
Harley W. Blake III
Digital/Analog AV Tech
University of Vermont