Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: On the poll results for ufodiscussion

Expand Messages
  • Keith McLean
    Regan, Thanks for your comments and good wishes. :) :) Yes, despite having studied IT subjects academically I can t understand either why computers at times do
    Message 1 of 7 , Dec 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Regan,


      Thanks for your comments and good wishes. :) :)

      Yes, despite having studied IT subjects academically I can't
      understand either why computers at times do not function properly.

      Computing and the internet are increasingly a commercial venture it
      would seem, with increasing competition between stakeholders.
      Typically, the efficency aspect and the desire to avoid legal
      confrontations via copyright law are both factors which would concern
      internet companies, I would think. Artistic and social freedoms are
      reduced to fit this codified landscape, in favour of a product
      orientated or "branding" strategy and ethic. So it would seem these
      reductions in features and technical foulups that you refer to are a
      product of this activity.

      Do you know what I discovered today? My computer informed that a had a
      number of unread emails, refering to the contents of my Outlook
      Express program. Now, while I receive email correspondence from my ISP
      in Outlook, I don't use it activity for email. Surprisingly, not opnly
      had a few messages from my ISP, but I had actually received email meat
      for SOMEONE ELSE! The person who was the intended recipient was also a
      "Keith McLean", but naturally his email address was not mine, but
      shared the same ISP email service system. So, somehow my ISP had
      fouled up somewhere.

      Anyway, I hope you can remedy the computer problems, Regan. I have
      found having a friend involved in IT is a great person to get
      technical advice from - someone who deals with technical issues directly.


      Thanks,

      Keith


      --- In ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Regan Power"
      <soulsearcher_22@b...> wrote:
      > Keith,
      >
      > I would just like to say that I do think you are doing just
      fine as
      > Moderator/Owner and I am glad to hear that you feel happy about
      remaining in
      > that capacity for the time being.
      >
      > Also, I am sorry not to have been able to participate in the
      recent
      > poll, but I have been suffering a plethora of technical "glitches" on my
      > computer lately that have made using the net a real ordeal for me.
      It all
      > seemed to start when I downloaded Windows Security Pack 2 and found
      that it
      > immediately blocked my access to basic system-information! It told
      me that
      > I could get more information from my system administrator. That's me!
      >
      > A series of problems arose thereafter, involving all three of my
      > ISPs and various bits of security software that are running on my p.c.,
      > although these were probably unconnected with Windows Security Pack
      2, it's
      > fair to say. However, the concatenation of the whole lot has left me
      > breathless and feeling that the term "internet surfing" has become a
      sick
      > joke these days. Surfing implies effortless motion that is under
      one's own
      > control. But today, my computer is not under my own control and the
      > once-simple and easy act of visiting and navigating a web-site has
      become an
      > arduous, time-consuming labour, in which I can realistically expect new,
      > unexpected and unnecessary problems to assail me on every occasion.
      As I
      > write, an icon is flashing on my task bar which bears the dispiriting
      > legend, "Updates are ready for your computer. Click here to
      download these
      > updates." Who knows what can of worms I shall open now if I do
      "Click here"
      > as prompted? And who knows what spam, spyware or virus
      susceptibilities my
      > p.c. may be open to if I don't?
      >
      > Happy, the "primitive" tribesman who does not have to suffer
      such
      > afflictions of a hi-tech, commercially aggressive, uncivilized
      civilization.
      > His time is his own and his life is under his own control. No so
      for those
      > of us who want/need to use the Internet, however. I think this
      forum itself
      > demonstrates how poorly we are being served by a
      communication-system that
      > has been vaunted as the culture-icon of the modern age. When it
      started,
      > less than half a year ago, we were able to correspond in Rich Text
      format,
      > which meant we could use italics, bold-type, underlines, different
      fonts and
      > even different colours. We could include pictures in the text-body
      and the
      > text would go wherever we put it. This facility enabled us to produce
      > emails that were not only clear to read, but also a pleasure. (Not
      that we
      > always did that, of course, but my point is that the facility to do
      it was
      > there.) But steadily and progressively, restrictions have come in
      and now
      > we are reduced to just being able to correspond in Plain Text - the
      minimal
      > facility and functionality. And accordingly, communication is harder.
      >
      > Is this situation not ironic? We have at our fingertips a
      > communication facility that is widely thought to be the most
      sophisticated
      > product of any human civilization that ever was, but we cannot use
      it beyond
      > the most crude and primitive level. How much of our disk-space is
      taken up
      > by "facilities" like Rich Text that we cannot use? If this trend
      goes on, I
      > can foresee us going back to corresponding by snail-mail
      round-robins before
      > very long. Hmmn, now that idea might be worth some consideration.......
      >
      > Regards,
      > Regan
      > _____
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: Keith McLean
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:03 AM
      > Subject: [ufodiscussion] On the poll results for ufodiscussion
      >
      >
      >
      > Hi everyone,
      >
      >
      > Thanks for voting in the recent polls on the moderation questions.
      >
      > I think the results indicate that everyone is generally happy with how
      > things are going with regard to ufodiscussion. I'll remain as
      > moderator/owner for the foreseeable future, and feel happy enough with
      > things. Thanks to everyone for contributing articles, opinions and
      > points of view to the list and keep it going. :)
      >
      > Thanks also to Regan and Janet for your interest and support.
      >
      > Anyway, have a good day.
      >
      >
      > Thanks,
      >
      > Keith McLean (owner/moderator)
    • Keith McLean
      Sorry about the typos in that email, Regan. Some a s should have been I s, meat should have been meant , etc. Thanks, Keith ... directly. ... on my ... of
      Message 2 of 7 , Dec 3, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Sorry about the typos in that email, Regan.

        Some "a"s should have been "I"s, "meat" should have been "meant", etc.


        Thanks,

        Keith


        --- In ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Keith McLean" <kmskywatch@y...>
        wrote:
        >
        > Regan,
        >
        >
        > Thanks for your comments and good wishes. :) :)
        >
        > Yes, despite having studied IT subjects academically I can't
        > understand either why computers at times do not function properly.
        >
        > Computing and the internet are increasingly a commercial venture it
        > would seem, with increasing competition between stakeholders.
        > Typically, the efficency aspect and the desire to avoid legal
        > confrontations via copyright law are both factors which would concern
        > internet companies, I would think. Artistic and social freedoms are
        > reduced to fit this codified landscape, in favour of a product
        > orientated or "branding" strategy and ethic. So it would seem these
        > reductions in features and technical foulups that you refer to are a
        > product of this activity.
        >
        > Do you know what I discovered today? My computer informed that a had a
        > number of unread emails, refering to the contents of my Outlook
        > Express program. Now, while I receive email correspondence from my ISP
        > in Outlook, I don't use it activity for email. Surprisingly, not opnly
        > had a few messages from my ISP, but I had actually received email meat
        > for SOMEONE ELSE! The person who was the intended recipient was also a
        > "Keith McLean", but naturally his email address was not mine, but
        > shared the same ISP email service system. So, somehow my ISP had
        > fouled up somewhere.
        >
        > Anyway, I hope you can remedy the computer problems, Regan. I have
        > found having a friend involved in IT is a great person to get
        > technical advice from - someone who deals with technical issues
        directly.
        >
        >
        > Thanks,
        >
        > Keith
        >
        >
        > --- In ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Regan Power"
        > <soulsearcher_22@b...> wrote:
        > > Keith,
        > >
        > > I would just like to say that I do think you are doing just
        > fine as
        > > Moderator/Owner and I am glad to hear that you feel happy about
        > remaining in
        > > that capacity for the time being.
        > >
        > > Also, I am sorry not to have been able to participate in the
        > recent
        > > poll, but I have been suffering a plethora of technical "glitches"
        on my
        > > computer lately that have made using the net a real ordeal for me.
        > It all
        > > seemed to start when I downloaded Windows Security Pack 2 and found
        > that it
        > > immediately blocked my access to basic system-information! It told
        > me that
        > > I could get more information from my system administrator. That's me!
        > >
        > > A series of problems arose thereafter, involving all three
        of my
        > > ISPs and various bits of security software that are running on my
        p.c.,
        > > although these were probably unconnected with Windows Security Pack
        > 2, it's
        > > fair to say. However, the concatenation of the whole lot has left me
        > > breathless and feeling that the term "internet surfing" has become a
        > sick
        > > joke these days. Surfing implies effortless motion that is under
        > one's own
        > > control. But today, my computer is not under my own control and the
        > > once-simple and easy act of visiting and navigating a web-site has
        > become an
        > > arduous, time-consuming labour, in which I can realistically
        expect new,
        > > unexpected and unnecessary problems to assail me on every occasion.
        > As I
        > > write, an icon is flashing on my task bar which bears the dispiriting
        > > legend, "Updates are ready for your computer. Click here to
        > download these
        > > updates." Who knows what can of worms I shall open now if I do
        > "Click here"
        > > as prompted? And who knows what spam, spyware or virus
        > susceptibilities my
        > > p.c. may be open to if I don't?
        > >
        > > Happy, the "primitive" tribesman who does not have to suffer
        > such
        > > afflictions of a hi-tech, commercially aggressive, uncivilized
        > civilization.
        > > His time is his own and his life is under his own control. No so
        > for those
        > > of us who want/need to use the Internet, however. I think this
        > forum itself
        > > demonstrates how poorly we are being served by a
        > communication-system that
        > > has been vaunted as the culture-icon of the modern age. When it
        > started,
        > > less than half a year ago, we were able to correspond in Rich Text
        > format,
        > > which meant we could use italics, bold-type, underlines, different
        > fonts and
        > > even different colours. We could include pictures in the text-body
        > and the
        > > text would go wherever we put it. This facility enabled us to produce
        > > emails that were not only clear to read, but also a pleasure. (Not
        > that we
        > > always did that, of course, but my point is that the facility to do
        > it was
        > > there.) But steadily and progressively, restrictions have come in
        > and now
        > > we are reduced to just being able to correspond in Plain Text - the
        > minimal
        > > facility and functionality. And accordingly, communication is harder.
        > >
        > > Is this situation not ironic? We have at our fingertips a
        > > communication facility that is widely thought to be the most
        > sophisticated
        > > product of any human civilization that ever was, but we cannot use
        > it beyond
        > > the most crude and primitive level. How much of our disk-space is
        > taken up
        > > by "facilities" like Rich Text that we cannot use? If this trend
        > goes on, I
        > > can foresee us going back to corresponding by snail-mail
        > round-robins before
        > > very long. Hmmn, now that idea might be worth some
        consideration.......
        > >
        > > Regards,
        > > Regan
        > > _____
        > >
        > >
        > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > From: Keith McLean
        > > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
        > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:03 AM
        > > Subject: [ufodiscussion] On the poll results for ufodiscussion
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Hi everyone,
        > >
        > >
        > > Thanks for voting in the recent polls on the moderation questions.
        > >
        > > I think the results indicate that everyone is generally happy with how
        > > things are going with regard to ufodiscussion. I'll remain as
        > > moderator/owner for the foreseeable future, and feel happy enough with
        > > things. Thanks to everyone for contributing articles, opinions and
        > > points of view to the list and keep it going. :)
        > >
        > > Thanks also to Regan and Janet for your interest and support.
        > >
        > > Anyway, have a good day.
        > >
        > >
        > > Thanks,
        > >
        > > Keith McLean (owner/moderator)
      • Regan Power
        Keith, Ah, the tribulations of composing and posting readable emails, eh? I know how you must feel! But your sentence construction was so good that I could
        Message 3 of 7 , Dec 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Keith,

          Ah, the tribulations of composing and posting readable emails, eh?
          I know how you must feel! But your sentence construction was so good that I
          could correct your typos in my mind with little effort and get the sense of
          what you were saying anyway. I would that could be so with all the emails I
          send and receive!

          In saying that you have studied IT academically and even you can't
          understand why our computers act up sometimes, you have helped answer a
          question that has been in my mind for a few years now. I have been
          wondering who really owns my computer. Do I, or does Bill Gates? Now I
          know. Bill Gates does.

          Regards,
          Regan
          _____


          ----- Original Message -----
          From: Keith McLean
          To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 2:02 PM
          Subject: [ufodiscussion] Re: On the poll results for ufodiscussion



          Sorry about the typos in that email, Regan.

          Some "a"s should have been "I"s, "meat" should have been "meant", etc.


          Thanks,

          Keith


          --- In ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Keith McLean" <kmskywatch@y...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Regan,
          >
          >
          > Thanks for your comments and good wishes. :) :)
          >
          > Yes, despite having studied IT subjects academically I can't
          > understand either why computers at times do not function properly.
          >
          > Computing and the internet are increasingly a commercial venture it
          > would seem, with increasing competition between stakeholders.
          > Typically, the efficency aspect and the desire to avoid legal
          > confrontations via copyright law are both factors which would concern
          > internet companies, I would think. Artistic and social freedoms are
          > reduced to fit this codified landscape, in favour of a product
          > orientated or "branding" strategy and ethic. So it would seem these
          > reductions in features and technical foulups that you refer to are a
          > product of this activity.
          >
          > Do you know what I discovered today? My computer informed that a had a
          > number of unread emails, refering to the contents of my Outlook
          > Express program. Now, while I receive email correspondence from my ISP
          > in Outlook, I don't use it activity for email. Surprisingly, not opnly
          > had a few messages from my ISP, but I had actually received email meat
          > for SOMEONE ELSE! The person who was the intended recipient was also a
          > "Keith McLean", but naturally his email address was not mine, but
          > shared the same ISP email service system. So, somehow my ISP had
          > fouled up somewhere.
          >
          > Anyway, I hope you can remedy the computer problems, Regan. I have
          > found having a friend involved in IT is a great person to get
          > technical advice from - someone who deals with technical issues
          directly.
          >
          >
          > Thanks,
          >
          > Keith
          >
          >
          > --- In ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Regan Power"
          > <soulsearcher_22@b...> wrote:
          > > Keith,
          > >
          > > I would just like to say that I do think you are doing just
          > fine as
          > > Moderator/Owner and I am glad to hear that you feel happy about
          > remaining in
          > > that capacity for the time being.
          > >
          > > Also, I am sorry not to have been able to participate in the
          > recent
          > > poll, but I have been suffering a plethora of technical "glitches"
          on my
          > > computer lately that have made using the net a real ordeal for me.
          > It all
          > > seemed to start when I downloaded Windows Security Pack 2 and found
          > that it
          > > immediately blocked my access to basic system-information! It told
          > me that
          > > I could get more information from my system administrator. That's me!
          > >
          > > A series of problems arose thereafter, involving all three
          of my
          > > ISPs and various bits of security software that are running on my
          p.c.,
          > > although these were probably unconnected with Windows Security Pack
          > 2, it's
          > > fair to say. However, the concatenation of the whole lot has left me
          > > breathless and feeling that the term "internet surfing" has become a
          > sick
          > > joke these days. Surfing implies effortless motion that is under
          > one's own
          > > control. But today, my computer is not under my own control and the
          > > once-simple and easy act of visiting and navigating a web-site has
          > become an
          > > arduous, time-consuming labour, in which I can realistically
          expect new,
          > > unexpected and unnecessary problems to assail me on every occasion.
          > As I
          > > write, an icon is flashing on my task bar which bears the dispiriting
          > > legend, "Updates are ready for your computer. Click here to
          > download these
          > > updates." Who knows what can of worms I shall open now if I do
          > "Click here"
          > > as prompted? And who knows what spam, spyware or virus
          > susceptibilities my
          > > p.c. may be open to if I don't?
          > >
          > > Happy, the "primitive" tribesman who does not have to suffer
          > such
          > > afflictions of a hi-tech, commercially aggressive, uncivilized
          > civilization.
          > > His time is his own and his life is under his own control. No so
          > for those
          > > of us who want/need to use the Internet, however. I think this
          > forum itself
          > > demonstrates how poorly we are being served by a
          > communication-system that
          > > has been vaunted as the culture-icon of the modern age. When it
          > started,
          > > less than half a year ago, we were able to correspond in Rich Text
          > format,
          > > which meant we could use italics, bold-type, underlines, different
          > fonts and
          > > even different colours. We could include pictures in the text-body
          > and the
          > > text would go wherever we put it. This facility enabled us to produce
          > > emails that were not only clear to read, but also a pleasure. (Not
          > that we
          > > always did that, of course, but my point is that the facility to do
          > it was
          > > there.) But steadily and progressively, restrictions have come in
          > and now
          > > we are reduced to just being able to correspond in Plain Text - the
          > minimal
          > > facility and functionality. And accordingly, communication is harder.
          > >
          > > Is this situation not ironic? We have at our fingertips a
          > > communication facility that is widely thought to be the most
          > sophisticated
          > > product of any human civilization that ever was, but we cannot use
          > it beyond
          > > the most crude and primitive level. How much of our disk-space is
          > taken up
          > > by "facilities" like Rich Text that we cannot use? If this trend
          > goes on, I
          > > can foresee us going back to corresponding by snail-mail
          > round-robins before
          > > very long. Hmmn, now that idea might be worth some
          consideration.......
          > >
          > > Regards,
          > > Regan
          > > _____
          > >
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: Keith McLean
          > > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
          > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 8:03 AM
          > > Subject: [ufodiscussion] On the poll results for ufodiscussion
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Hi everyone,
          > >
          > >
          > > Thanks for voting in the recent polls on the moderation questions.
          > >
          > > I think the results indicate that everyone is generally happy with how
          > > things are going with regard to ufodiscussion. I'll remain as
          > > moderator/owner for the foreseeable future, and feel happy enough with
          > > things. Thanks to everyone for contributing articles, opinions and
          > > points of view to the list and keep it going. :)
          > >
          > > Thanks also to Regan and Janet for your interest and support.
          > >
          > > Anyway, have a good day.
          > >
          > >
          > > Thanks,
          > >
          > > Keith McLean (owner/moderator)
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.