Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've given you broad latitude because of your good manners, but
> > now I'm going to call you on it. Here's my "ad hominem" attack:
>
> Thank you. I don't mind being called on anything. I am
> far from perfect and am grateful for the chance to correct
> misunderstandings I may have caused.
>
> >>> Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of
> >>> IBM doesn't actually raise your credibility in this matter?
>
> With some people, it undoubtedly does. With you it does not.
> Contentious messages are least likely to be misunderstood when
> precise and delivered in the framework of the receipient.
>
> >>> Aside from the fact that decades of corporate newsletters
> >>> and water-cooler conversations don't necessarily provide
> >>> useful information,
>
> This is a rather bald statement. Why would anyone read
> newsletters or engage in conversations if they thought they
> _didn't_ provide useful information? The problem is it may
> be inaccurite, or more likely, incomplete.
>
What are you doing here but pecking at me? I said that corporate
newsletters and water cooler conversation don't necessarily provide
useful information. I didn't say the information was always useless to
the point where no one would seek it. You want to edit what I write so
I say exactly what you want me to say? You're not get that privilege,
and neither do you have the right to attack your misstatement of what I
wrote as if I had written it. Why are you doing this?
> >>> you are not exactly a disinterested party.
>
> I suspect we'll discuss the validity of this below, but valid
> or not, it _is_ inflammatory "ad-hominem".
>
I thought it _very_ understated. We disagree, apparently.
> > The unstated subtext of the posts from IBM'er's has been:
> > I was there, so I know. My response is: you were there,
> > so you have a very odd point of view.
>
> This is reasonable, but I would add that the IBMer's posts are
> valuable data into the mindset and culture of the organization.
>
But it is the mindset and the culture of that organization. The only
party that should matter in protecting free markets is the customer.
> >> All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
> >> The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.
> >>
> > What am I supposed to make of this? Someone who calls me vulgar
> > names is one of the more intelligent and so can transcend?
>
> No, but that's another ad-hominem. Keith is unfortunately rude
> at times. It is not to his credit in my eyes even when personal
> attacks make such outbursts understandable.
>
Excuse me? You're telling me that yes, some people are biased, but
that someone who is "more intelligent and observant can transcend." I
almost never even respond to name-callers, but I'm supposed to give
such a person consideration as someone who can factor out his own
biases? You are demanding a suspension of judgment on my part that
defies belief.
And you are accusing me of ad hominem in stating my reason for refusing
to do so when the question at hand _is_ the character of the speaker
(those who are capable of transcending their own biases--or not).
<snip>
> > Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a
> > monopoly, it was experienced that way by customers,
>
> Perhaps with some customers who become locked into IBM
> hardware or apps (CICS etc). I would consider them negligent
> to be seduced and become dependant on a single vendor.
>
Oh, _come_on_. People are still using decades-old Cobol programs for
heaven's sake. IBM was the master of vendor lock, and you cannot blame
customers for being unwilling to risk overturning the apple cart to
save a few bucks on computer hardware.
> > Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee
> > of IBM sees IBM? That's my whole <expletive deleted> point.
>
> _I_ care. I care because I believe it gives me valuable insights
> into predicting behaviours. I take it as _data_, and I will
> make up my own mind about conclusions.
>
It might make interesting conversation, but the only thing that matters
is whether markets can deliver competitive options to customers.
<snip>
>
> > That doesn't mean it's unfair to be calling IBM a monopoly
> > during that period when computer and IBM were all but synonymous.
>
> It is a little unfair because IBM was not a monopoly for
> everyone. Not for the cautious who stuck with COBOL & FORTRAN.
> We still run some VAXen. The last of the IBM mainframes was
> powered off a few years ago.
>
I don't see it as particularly a bad thing that IBM had that kind of
pricing power. IBM's vendor lock wasn't particularly attractive, but
it didn't last forever, anyway. The more we pursue this subject, the
less enthusiastic I become about anti-trust regulation. Historically,
markets have been pretty efficient at disciplining enterprises that try
to abuse customers.
> > I agree with that, and that's been part of my point all
> > along. The anti-trust action against Microsoft was a joke.
>
> Agreed. I'm not sure what could be done. Breakup might
> have been a stinging slap in the face, but it wouldn't
> have changed the economics of lock-in.
>
I don't know what to do about Microsoft. Splitting the Office from the
OS was the only remedy that would have mattered in the slightest.
> > Exactly so. Who *cares* how paranoid Gates and Ballmer are,
> > except to laugh at them? Their assessment of reality just
> > isn't useful as a guide to anything.
>
> As I said above, it is perhaps a guide to their future
> behaviours. And those could be quite awesome. So I really
> don't want them paranoid.
>
They were *born* paranoid. That's why they're so successful.
> > That doesn't mean they don't resent Wintel for taking away
> > the lifetime job security they thought belonged to them and
> > their co-workers.
>
> They might well. Who knows? But pretty much everyone else has
> lost lifetime employment as well, so it's not sure who took it.
>
Resentments are almost never rational.
RM
Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Robert Myers <rbmyersusa@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've given you broad latitude because of your good manners, but
> > now I'm going to call you on it. Here's my "ad hominem" attack:
>
> Thank you. I don't mind being called on anything. I am
> far from perfect and am grateful for the chance to correct
> misunderstandings I may have caused.
>
> >>> Has it occurred to you, Keith, that being an *employee* of
> >>> IBM doesn't actually raise your credibility in this matter?
>
> With some people, it undoubtedly does. With you it does not.
> Contentious messages are least likely to be misunderstood when
> precise and delivered in the framework of the receipient.
>
> >>> Aside from the fact that decades of corporate newsletters
> >>> and water-cooler conversations don't necessarily provide
> >>> useful information,
>
> This is a rather bald statement. Why would anyone read
> newsletters or engage in conversations if they thought they
> _didn't_ provide useful information? The problem is it may
> be inaccurite, or more likely, incomplete.
>
What are you doing here but pecking at me? I said that corporate
newsletters and water cooler conversation don't necessarily provide
useful information. I didn't say the information was always useless to
the point where no one would seek it. You want to edit what I write so
I say exactly what you want me to say? You're not get that privilege,
and neither do you have the right to attack your misstatement of what I
wrote as if I had written it. Why are you doing this?
> >>> you are not exactly a disinterested party.
>
> I suspect we'll discuss the validity of this below, but valid
> or not, it _is_ inflammatory "ad-hominem".
>
I thought it _very_ understated. We disagree, apparently.
> > The unstated subtext of the posts from IBM'er's has been:
> > I was there, so I know. My response is: you were there,
> > so you have a very odd point of view.
>
> This is reasonable, but I would add that the IBMer's posts are
> valuable data into the mindset and culture of the organization.
>
But it is the mindset and the culture of that organization. The only
party that should matter in protecting free markets is the customer.
> >> All observers are subject to "local effect" myopia.
> >> The more intelligent and observant can sometimes transcend.
> >>
> > What am I supposed to make of this? Someone who calls me vulgar
> > names is one of the more intelligent and so can transcend?
>
> No, but that's another ad-hominem. Keith is unfortunately rude
> at times. It is not to his credit in my eyes even when personal
> attacks make such outbursts understandable.
>
Excuse me? You're telling me that yes, some people are biased, but
that someone who is "more intelligent and observant can transcend." I
almost never even respond to name-callers, but I'm supposed to give
such a person consideration as someone who can factor out his own
biases? You are demanding a suspension of judgment on my part that
defies belief.
And you are accusing me of ad hominem in stating my reason for refusing
to do so when the question at hand _is_ the character of the speaker
(those who are capable of transcending their own biases--or not).
<snip>
> > Justice Department or no, IBM had the pricing power of a
> > monopoly, it was experienced that way by customers,
>
> Perhaps with some customers who become locked into IBM
> hardware or apps (CICS etc). I would consider them negligent
> to be seduced and become dependant on a single vendor.
>
Oh, _come_on_. People are still using decades-old Cobol programs for
heaven's sake. IBM was the master of vendor lock, and you cannot blame
customers for being unwilling to risk overturning the apple cart to
save a few bucks on computer hardware.
> > Who *cares* how IBM saw itself, and who *cares* how an employee
> > of IBM sees IBM? That's my whole <expletive deleted> point.
>
> _I_ care. I care because I believe it gives me valuable insights
> into predicting behaviours. I take it as _data_, and I will
> make up my own mind about conclusions.
>
It might make interesting conversation, but the only thing that matters
is whether markets can deliver competitive options to customers.
<snip>
>
> > That doesn't mean it's unfair to be calling IBM a monopoly
> > during that period when computer and IBM were all but synonymous.
>
> It is a little unfair because IBM was not a monopoly for
> everyone. Not for the cautious who stuck with COBOL & FORTRAN.
> We still run some VAXen. The last of the IBM mainframes was
> powered off a few years ago.
>
I don't see it as particularly a bad thing that IBM had that kind of
pricing power. IBM's vendor lock wasn't particularly attractive, but
it didn't last forever, anyway. The more we pursue this subject, the
less enthusiastic I become about anti-trust regulation. Historically,
markets have been pretty efficient at disciplining enterprises that try
to abuse customers.
> > I agree with that, and that's been part of my point all
> > along. The anti-trust action against Microsoft was a joke.
>
> Agreed. I'm not sure what could be done. Breakup might
> have been a stinging slap in the face, but it wouldn't
> have changed the economics of lock-in.
>
I don't know what to do about Microsoft. Splitting the Office from the
OS was the only remedy that would have mattered in the slightest.
> > Exactly so. Who *cares* how paranoid Gates and Ballmer are,
> > except to laugh at them? Their assessment of reality just
> > isn't useful as a guide to anything.
>
> As I said above, it is perhaps a guide to their future
> behaviours. And those could be quite awesome. So I really
> don't want them paranoid.
>
They were *born* paranoid. That's why they're so successful.
> > That doesn't mean they don't resent Wintel for taking away
> > the lifetime job security they thought belonged to them and
> > their co-workers.
>
> They might well. Who knows? But pretty much everyone else has
> lost lifetime employment as well, so it's not sure who took it.
>
Resentments are almost never rational.
RM
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram