Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bobmon
From: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Releasing RAM-DISK to free system memory
Message-ID: <2572@iuvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Jan-87 20:48:32 EST
Article-I.D.: iuvax.2572
Posted: Tue Jan 27 20:48:32 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Jan-87 04:20:05 EST
References: <9714FIB@PSUVM> <6917@ut-sally.UUCP> <366@neoucom.UUCP> <2935@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Reply-To: bobmon@iuvax.UUCP (Robert Montante)
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Lines: 25
Summary: a mild reply to a mild flame...
Xref: watmath comp.sys.att:132 comp.sys.ibm.pc:1205

Jim Greenlee comments that two people offered to e-mail copies of RAMDISK to
requestors, and wishes that others wouldn't clutter up the net with postings.
I am one of those posters, and I am somewhat sympathetic to his views.
However, from his point of view the postings came AFTER the offers for e-mail.
Jim, do you realize that I posted the code some days BEFORE I saw that any
others had posted?  And that the e-mail offers arrived at this site more than
a week after I posted?

In other words, this is not a real-time medium.  There is a sometimes large,
and quite variable, delay in propagation and response times.  I try to allow
for this, and posted anyway in this case because the total package was fairly
small and I decided "what the heck..."  Perhaps that was a mistake (not my
first, if so).  But the irregular response is a general problem.  Many people
talk about code they've posted to comp.sources.  We haven't received anything
for comp.sources since it was created.  I often read responses to articles I
haven't yet seen, and may never see.  Occasionally a burst of articles arrives,
pertinent to a topic that seemed to have (finally) died weeks ago.

This isn't trying to be a flame, or a defense of my posting.  Just a plea:
when someone's article seems incredibly stupid to you, realize that it may be
a reaction to a much different sequence (and/or subset) of previous articles
than what you've seen.  And that, on that person's timeline, what (s)he said
may have been the best possible answer.  And what you say may seem equally
dense, given that you've seen or not seen other articles than those received by
that site on the far side of the country.