🚀 go-pugleaf

On 7/21/2018 1:35 PM, Questor wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 13:47:31 -0400, Richard Thiebaud <thieba...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>> On 07/19/2018 12:25 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> On 7/19/2018 9:33 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
>>>> Charles Richmond <nume...@aquaporin4.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 7/18/2018 2:27 PM, Stephen M. Jones wrote:
>>>>>> The past couple of weeks I've been thinking about MRC a lot.  He was a
>>>>>> fixture on alt.sys.pdp10 and I'm sure people thought of him as a pretty
>>>>>> difficult person.  I knew him in person and I know the MRC face to
>>>>>> face was
>>>>>> different than what you might come across on alt.sys.pdp10.  I
>>>>>> recently came
>>>>>> across a memo authored by BAH regarding 3M and the shortage of
>>>>>> DECTAPES,
>>>>>> et cetera and I also came across boxes carefully arranged by MRC from
>>>>>> Stanford that had not been opened until now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MRC was a private person and if he was a friend you could get to him.
>>>>>> For instance, he once gave me a DTMF code that would bypass his anti-
>>>>>> telemarketer setup on his phone when I need to all him on
>>>>>> Bainbridge.  But
>>>>>> MRC could also turn on you and if he thought you had nothing to say,
>>>>>> he'd
>>>>>> write an SMTP response that you'd get that would say something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 451: STOP TALKING ABOUT IT ALREADY
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think I still have that response somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>> ISTM that MRC did *not* "suffer fools lightly"... nor should he have
>>>>> done that IMO.  If you asked a question on <alt.sys.pdp10> ... a
>>>>> question that showed the asker had *not* worked much on his problem
>>>>> ... MRC would deride you and *not* offer any answers (other than to
>>>>> suggest you go away).  If a person's question indicated that the asker
>>>>> had done a lot of work on the problem, MRC was willing to offer help.
>>>>>
>>>>> MRC was *not* a baby sitter ... if you understood that, you'd get
>>>>> along fine with him.  IMHO
>>>>>
>>>>> I miss his presence on <alt.sys.pdp10> .
>>>>
>>>> This MRC fellow doesn't sound like a nice person.
>>>>
>>>> I've met more than a few people that acted like that and
>>>> never found it to be an endearing trait.
>>>>
>>>> I know I'm smarter than average but don't see any point in
>>>> lording over the less gifted.
>>>
>>> Mr. Espen, even you can get tired of people with stupid questions...
>>> people who waste your time and talents because they are too lazy (or not
>>> really interested enough) to do a *little* work and look things up
>>> themselves.
>>>
>> Yes, but he doesn't have to get unpleasant about it.
> 
> I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> I don't know if Mark ever had a support job where he was expected to help people
> with less technical sophistication, so perhaps he could get a pass on being
> polite.  And certainly there were no expectations or requirements regarding his
> behavior on Usenet.
> 

But as you said... Usenet is *not* a "support job", or ant kind of work 
for pay.  If little simpering nitwits want to waste your time with dumb 
questions (the answers to which one could find themselves with a little 
effort), one is *not* required to "help" them.  Mark was *not* "the 
jackass whisperer".  He had *no* desire and *no* responsibility to solve 
other people's problems.

> More than once I have seen management hire or favor people with more personable
> demeanors over those who were more technically capable.  Businesses want smooth
> operation, and that goal isn't aided by people who insult or demean their
> coworkers.  As others have noted, the mark of a truly superior technical person
> is being able to work with the less knowledgeable and explain things to them.
> The irascible genius may be a common stereotype in fiction, but they're not very
> pleasant to work with.
> 

If being on Usenet was a "job", then you might have a point.  But 
posting on Usenet is *not* a job.


-- 
numerist at aquaporin4 dot com