Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!bcase
From: bcase@cup.portal.com (Brian bcase Case)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Criteria ... [really: are N designs better than 1?]
Message-ID: <18154@cup.portal.com>
Date: 9 May 89 19:05:24 GMT
References: <2368@ogccse.ogc.edu> <1464@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> <141@dg.dg.com> <156@dg.dg.com> <658@pitstop.West.Sun.COM> <19088@winchester.mips.COM>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 25

If John Mashey can post 300+ lines of marketing counter-measures, then I can
post a few lines about my OPINIONS too.

I think these discussions are very interesting, after all, I did read all
of John's posting, but they are nearly completely inappropriate for comp.arch,
IN MY OPINION.  Even the note that precipitated John's note was dicey.

I understand why John posted:  there is a sensitivity to inaccurate
statements, perceived or actual, that are interpreted as slurs against one's
own stuff.  How many times I have resisted the urge....  But, my gosh, there
was so little architecture content that I was distressed.

Disclaimers:  I am not without sin in this area.  I still like and encourage
your postings, John.  This group would certainly be dry without a little
"feet on the ground, how to sell this stuff"-type discussion.  Yes, I can
simply skip any particular note or complete discussion that I don't like.
Maybe I am alone in my interpretation of John's note.  If so, just tell me
to go away.

BUT, this seems on the verge of getting out of hand.  I mean, the performance
brief stuff is one thing.  However, when I see terms like "price-performance"
etc. in a comp.arch posting I look sideways at the content.

Again:  I am not without sin here.  Witness this note!  I am saying we
should all work harder to stay true to the subject.