> In article <070720030944187609%sytech>, <sytech>
> > > And what's with including advocacy groups in the post? I'm starting to
> > > wonder if you're actually trying to start a flame war somehow.
> > >
> > Can you explain what the "problem" is with posting to "advocacy" groups?
> > As a 15 year Mac user it would appear to me that I'm an "advocate" of
> > that system and would like to address my questions to other "advocates"
> As an 18-year Mac user, I'd point out that the problem with posting to
> advocacy groups is bi-directional. First, the posts I've seen from you
> are not advocacy themselves or related to the process of advocacy.
> They're straight, factual questions. Second, the advocacy groups are not
> about advocacy _or_ straight, factual questions. They're about large
> groups of people engaging in knee- arguments not so much _for_ a
> platform as against the alternative. Commonly - although there are rare
> exceptions - whichever option a given participant in those groups is
> arguing against, their arguments are based on information that is
> outdated if it ever was correct, opinion posed as fact, and comments
> that the person to whom they're nominally responding never actually
> made. An overwhelming percentage of the people who contribute in
> advocacy groups do so to argue. Note the distinction between argue and
> In short, the advocacy groups are not a breeding ground for anything
> resembling informative useful conversation.
> For example, if I had not noticed csm.advocacy in the group list and
> _had_ (as I considered doing) included a discussion about which models
> support USB-invoked startup and why recent ones don't, it would almost
> certainly have triggered a rant about Apple's being incapable of
> adopting standard interfaces without somehow ing things up to make
> them proprietary, forcing their users to buy rarer and more expensive
> equipment and yadayadayada. This despite the fact that Apple's extension
> to USB to support startup is a) history, b) exceptional and c) didn't
> strictly conflict with the USB standard _or_ lock users into non-generic
> hardware. Said rant would trigger responses going on at great length
> about a, b and c - and also d through q - and they'd be off to the races.