🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

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.