Re: Just FYI and Re[2]: Just FYI

["Thomas, Pat" <pbt4 -at- NIP2 -dot- EM -dot- CDC -dot- GOV>]

I am a veteran lurker, and never thought I would post anything.  I monitor
this list for information useful to me as a writer, including expertise
others have concerning "tools of the trade."

But, after months of putting up with (and  deleting) long-winded, verbal
exhalations from posters who seem to have nothing better to do in life than
get on a list so that they can dazzle the rest of us with the superior
intellect that they so aptly demonstrate by their incessant, pubescent
electronic d__k-waving, I have to say something.

I agreed with what Iain said.  And, I thought, "praise the Lord, it's about
time someone said something that made sense."  Postings that include things
like source references, or pointers on software used by tech writers are
useful to me.

Philosphical meanderings about acceptable error levels are not.  It's a
given that the goal is none, and also,  that particular circumstances along
with their particular constraints are an influence on whether the goal is
attained, or not.

 I expected disagreement to Iain's posting, or I would have thought I
somehow got derailed onto the wrong list.  But, I guess I've just witnessed
one extended, colloidal diatribe too many, at this point.

I may be the only one on the list that is tired of the pseudo-psychoanalytic
self-help sessions, the pseudo-Socratic debates and discussions, and the
pseudo-professionalism that is ultimately belied and betrayed by the
self-consciously cute witticisms that kite-tail so many postings like
scattered, incidental, wind-bound bits of gnat dung.

 But, I don't think I am the only one that agrees with Iain, even if the
others don't come out from their off-topic redoubts, where they may stay
lurking, to say so.