From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 13 09:39:49 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEC5F16A40F for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 09:39:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.web-strider.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3EF443D62 for ; Sat, 13 May 2006 09:39:46 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id k4D9dHx85419; Sat, 13 May 2006 02:39:18 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "Greg Barniskis" Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 02:39:17 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <44634BC1.40407@scls.lib.wi.us> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807 Importance: Normal Cc: fbsd@a1poweruser.com, cpghost , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: New FreeBSD Logo X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 09:39:50 -0000 >-----Original Message----- >From: Greg Barniskis [mailto:nalists@scls.lib.wi.us] >Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 7:36 AM >To: Ted Mittelstaedt >Cc: cpghost; fbsd@a1poweruser.com; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >Subject: Re: New FreeBSD Logo > > >Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: >> >> >> I take affront to such answers because of the simple fact that it's >> obvious that your perfectly valid answer isn't a real answer. A real >> answer would be something that would get rid of this continual >> resurgence of this discussion. > >Thus the suggestion that folks pursue it in a forum where PR might >actually be germane, and in a way that might actually bear results. But that isn't a real answer since the people that put in the new logo don't want to change things no matter how many people scream about it. As long as the new logo is in place and it is as bad as it is, we are going to see this erupt here periodically. Why? Because as new people come in and start using questions@ they are going to comment about it and the whole argument is going to start over again. If barking about it on a different forum would actually make a difference you would see people doing it on that forum. But it won't, and we all know it. This is exactly like the motorcycle helmet law arguments. The slight majority of motorcycle riders are opposed to helmet laws, why? Because too large a percentage of riders are flipping idiots and the rest of the anti-helmet-law percentage of riders are stuck in some born-to-be-wild fantasy about how they aren't opposed to helmets, but people should have a 'choice'. But it's apparent to the rest of the general population that since too many riders are flipping idiots, we have to mandate helmet laws. So we do, and that has become a sore point on online motorcycle forums and you can expect to see periodic eruptions of the argument on those forums, basically forever. > >Despite what 24-hour cable news channels might like to have us >believe, % self-selected email senders <> % actually holding >opinions. Asserting that these are valid statistics is nonsense. > Which is why I said "based on responses" I assume people reading that would be intelligent enough to understand self-selected results. But not all self-selected results are viewed as bullcrap. Consumer Reports rakes in millions if not hundreds of millions of bucks and it's auto ratings are completely self-selected, and is highly respected by many people. Are you saying that Consumer Reports auto ratings are nonsense? ;-) >Like many folks who really don't care about the logo all that much >one way or the other, I simply won't be reading or posting on this >subject any more (making any future post counts that much less valid >as statistics). > Since you don't have an opinion one way or another on the new logo vs the old logo, you really shouldn't have posted to this thread in the first place. Ted