"Doktor DynaSoar" <targeting at OMCL.mil> wrote in message
news:loi430ho3f9lnjht1l6402lvvhv92gg1uq at 4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:40:59 GMT, "k p Collins"
> <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote:
>> } A number of folks have commented
> } on what they've referred to as my
> } 'disruptiveness'.
> } In this post, I'll explore that, a bit.
> } What have I, or am I, 'disrupting?
> } Discussions here in b.n?
> } Come on, folks! If a discussion
> } cannot be sustained in the face of
> } anyone's comments, then that's
> } disclosing, with respect to what was
> } the 'information-content' of the dis-
> } cussion, isn't it?
> } Yup.
> } So it can't be that.
>> It is disruptive to insert irrelevant information. Worse, it is
> misleading. Whn there's a specific question, and your respond with
> material that at best wastes the time of the reader and is likely to
> confuse them, THAT is disruptive. Irrelevant information is not and
> does not lead to discussion of the matter at hand. If anything, it
> leads discussion of entirely different things. Since it was the
> questioners intent to obtain a direct answer to a direct question,
> when this happens, yes, it is disruptive.
>> This has been explained several different ways now. Do you understand
> it? I am not asking if you agree or if you like it, I am asking if you
You won't get-it until you try to select something
from anything that I've posted, with the intent of
stating that whatever it is that you've selected is,
Give it a try, and I'll demonstrate that, not only
is whatever it is that you will have selected not
'disruptive', but also that it is flat-out Necessary
with respect to actually discussing what's being
Instead of doing this, all you've done is make
generalized 'pronouncements' that do not, at all,
address anything that I've posted, but which, do
disclose your own 'presumption'.
Then, you 'blame' me for what's in your 'pre-
Sorry, I Think for myself, thank-you-very-much.
K. P. Collins