Re: Comment on the "Abbreviations" Thread Tizzy

["D. Barry Stubbs" <z24man@earthlink.net>]

Gar, I appreciate the thorough analysis that you've taken your time
for.  You brought up many good points and shortcomings in not only my
method of presentation but also my response to the accusation. 
Considering the content and your commentary, I have only a few quick
responses to make which can be made without dissecting your message.

First, have no fear that the compilation I posted to both of the other
lists were attributed to this, the GMECM, list, clearly and without any
regard to my personal knowledge or authorship.  That message was how
several people have come to ask me the procedure for joining this list. 
I assume that they recognize the value of the information here and wish
to seek it themselves firsthand.  For anyone who wishes to verify of my
credit to this list, you can see the archives of the v6jbody and the
BerettaNet list on eGroups (I hope those are set for public viewing). 
Search for the subject "Automotive Abbreviations" or something like
that.

Second, you are correct in saying that my posting sounded like a "wrap &
ship," and I admit to that being somewhat of my intention.  Of course it
(being the abbreviation list) is not complete.  But, it was my singular
intention to concentrate the efforts contained in about a dozen messages
and to rehash that information in a cleaned-up but in no way "edited for
content" document.  That is part of how I organize things:  I tend to
take the blister-pak off and group it together.  By alphabetizing and
removing duplicates, it was my intention to increase the concentration
of that knowledge, not add my personal scent to it.

My apologies to those who I've offended, PO'ed, or otherwise rubbed the
wrong way.  I also admit to being more of an open-source type person,
and such was the motivation of my intentions.  I also apologize for the
flame-thrower approach of my previous message.  I do have a habit of
dumping the fuel in a lean situation, metaphorically speaking.


Garfield Willis wrote:
> 
> Please pardon my segue on the subject, but I didn't want to further
> pollute what I think is on it's way to being another "keeper" thread.
> This way, we don't mess with the "Abbreviations General EFI" goodie.
> 
> Gar
> 
> On Fri, 07 Jul 2000 18:04:33 -0400, "D. Barry Stubbs"
> <z24man@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >Maybe I'm missing something here. ...
> 
> Yup, you might be, but I'll forwarn you; you still might not think it's
> a big deal even AFTER I try to explain it to ya. Depends on the person,
> and perhaps how they wuz raised up. Kinda like toilet training. :)  So
> YMMV.
> 
> But I'll try to tickle your curiosity and snag you in, by suggesting the
> trouble may have all started not by what you *did* say in your post, but
> by what you DIDN'T say. Read on if you care to. If not, hit the big
> DELETE key; it's a free and pubic list, after all. :)
> 
> >Did I make personal gain from posting that compilation?  Nope.  My
> >checkbook balance is just a sorry as it was yesterday (more so,
> >actually).  Did I help a few people to understand technical literature
> >and conversation more thoroughly?  You betcha.  Where's the harm in
> >that?  I just checked the GMECM list description on www.diy-efi.org and
> >can't find anything that, to me, says that the list is about keeping
> >information to one's self for the possibility of making a dime.  It says
> >that the list is to "... understand the operation of GM ECMs in great
> >detail."
> 
> Note the above says "personal gain", not "monetary gain". That's quite
> correct: I don't recall anyone posting anything about *monetary* gain.
> Switch and flail at the straw-man, and at the *least* someone's going to
> suspect you don't appreciate the difference. :)
> 
> Let's take an example I'm painfully aware of, both the reality AND
> rotten frequency of, shall we? Suppose I take upon meself the burden of
> trying to start up a systematic presentation of a particular topic that
> I can contribute something on, in a hopefully significant way, in some
> group, let's say on the art of origamy. Let's say I'm pretty
> accomplished at paper-folding as an art-form; it ain't much in the
> cosmic scheme of things alas, but it's me "thing" and let's say I took
> some extensive classes in it (I'm picking an absurdly diverse example so
> nobody thinks to read any more into this than intended :), and in the
> course of list events, I offer up a pretty nice tome/compendium of
> stuff, probly/certainly all known by someone somewhere, but still a nice
> "summary" on say "folding paper butterflies". Let's suppose in addition
> I invite me mates on the diy_origamy list to also try to make this
> "summary" as rich and complete as we can: ya know, make it a real
> "keeper" on the subject of paper butterflies. No thots of "ownership",
> certainly obviously no thots of what you called "keeping information to
> one's self" not either for 'secret society' purposes, nor certainly not
> as you styled it "for the possibility of making a dime". Nope. Nothing
> farther from anyone's mind; just a desire to get the "good stuff" we
> enjoy, compactly into a nice gem of a package.
> 
> Some time passes, and lowNbehold, I see someone post this same
> compilation on some other list, say the "craft_toys" list and the guy's
> putting it out "matterOfactly" (no clear attribution of where it came
> from, and that he's only a delivery boy) in hopes of posturing himself
> as "a person in the know, with comprehensive chops on the subject at
> hand". Someone to be looked up to for expertise on the subject. IOWs,
> he's all about reaping what's often euphemistically referred to as
> "psychic income". A PC term for a suckup plagarist who's trying to make
> himself look smart by pretending someone else's labors are his own. He
> doesn't outNout claim they're his own; he just fails to make clear
> they're NOT just his own; fails to laud his collegues who made the thing
> happen, and so by indirection and inference, take the credit for it
> hisself. Getmedrift?
> 
> That's why I wonder about your choice of personal pronouns (singular
> rather than plural) when you say/ask rhetorically:
> 
> >Did I help a few people to understand technical literature
> >and conversation more thoroughly?  You betcha.
> 
> What's the "I" there for? Why didn't you AUTOMATICALLY think to rather
> say, "Didn't WE (those who compiled the list in the first place) help a
> few people to understand better by me posting it elsewhere?". You may
> have made yourself (that "I") out as a good guy and illuminator of the
> unwashed masses on those other lists, but what happened to the "WE, us
> GMECM guys"? (Mind you, I'm not including meself in that we, cuz I'm on
> the learning end when it comes to those abbrevs, meself). Was that a
> mere slip, or a Freudian one? Beginning to see the picture? Not saying
> all this "is so"; just trying to suggest HOW your post *might* have been
> construed in an unexpectedly negative manner.
> 
> >Furthermore, the information contained in that compilation is, to the
> >best of my knowledge, all in the public domain.  Those are abbreviations
> >used in texts all over the automotive industry, as well as outside that
> >industry.  If there truly is proprietary information contained in that
> >compilation, I would certainly appreciate it being pointed out to me.
> 
> Wrong place for you to go defensive, methinks, but I'll answer it
> anyway.
> 
> Not that it matters for real in this case, but to touch on something you
> don't seem to be aware of, didya know that even a compilation of
> well-known factoids can be copyrighted? The work involved in the
> assembly and crafting of the mere presentation of the material is
> something that's protected by copyright law. I know of what I speak; my
> family's been in book publishing for over 350yrs. Yep, no typo, 350+ .
> Copyright law is like oatmeal to me by now.
> 
> Like I said, it dudn't matter in this case since obviously nobody's
> talking or caring about actual "intellectual property rights" in that
> abbreviations list, but by the same token, you don't wanna go begging
> the question that it's "all in the public domain", by proposing another
> straw man, that just because the information contained in a publication
> is well-known and available from public sources, that there isn't any
> "added value" created simply from the act of compilation, be it created
> by one individual or a whole cadre of comrades. Simple fact is there's
> "good stuff" there that didn't exist until someone took the timeNeffort
> to make it so. Remember, I know this is NOT an issue here, but you
> brought up a common misconception I just LUV to stomp on, every chance I
> get.
> 
> How bout this for a basal example; you make up a table of measurement
> units and their conversion factors, and print it up. THAT is protected
> by copyright law. Got it? NO, the claim isn't that the units of
> measurement nor their conversions are anyone's "property", but copyright
> law and the courts have recognized that there IS added value and
> contribution made by mere "compilation" of well-known public facts.
> Again, NOT in dispute in this case, but you raised it in your straw-man
> argument above. No biggie, dood; I'm not making the mistake out as some
> "war crime", just another example of what we've all done in trying to
> make a point sometimes: overstated it with a flawed or erroneous
> analogy/example.
> 
> >I can definantly understand Bruce's point of maintaining a central
> >depository of information regarding EFI content.  I think I have
> >enhanced that by placing the compilation in an email which will be
> >archived for future observation by list members and non list members
> >alike.  Whoever maintains the aforementioned central depository can now
> >take a cleaned-up compilation, and dump it into an HTML editor and have
> >a blast.
> 
> Sure, but with something like this, where there are some individuals who
> INTENTIONALLY start out a thread as a "keeper/archiveable" thread, THEN
> it seems only common sense for you to try to have some sense of
> comradery by keeping it clearly to, "here's my mite added to the group's
> effort". The other thing is, the tone of your defense above sounds
> almost like you viewed your editing as some "final act" that "put the
> finishing touches" on something that's then ready for achival or
> conversion to HTML in your opinion, unless of course someone can find
> something wrong with your production. That has a wiff of arrogance, if
> ya ask me (which of course you didn't :). Who in all the people involved
> in this "Abbreviations" thread ever suggested it was ready to be
> declared "a wrap"?
> 
> Bottom line, AFAIK, is what was MISSING from your earliest postings, and
> what STILL remains somewhat in doubt, is HOW was it you viewed/posted
> that "combined effort of many on the GMECM list", to these other lists
> you inhabit? Did you make it clear/explicit in all cases that this
> *wasn't* YOUR authorship, but was "Compliments of the GM ECM group" that
> you were just passing along. I noticed when you posted your
> "final/corrected" compilation, you also didn't say, "OK, guys, I tried
> to put all the pieces I could find together, tidy up...how does it
> look?". You just seemed to say, well, here's your quote:
> 
> >The compiled list, as best I can make out.  Please let me know if I
> >garbled or left anything off:
> 
> This sounds perhaps like the words of someone possibly kinda tryna "take
> charge" or at least "sum up", sotaspeak. Why didn't you say something
> like what I proposed above? I know, I know, you can say, "so what's the
> diff?". But like I said, if ya don't get it, ya just don't get it.
> 
> What I think you could have said (and yes, I'll certainly allow as how
> it could have simply been an oversight on your part not to say so) was,
> "anyone have any objections to spreading this around some of the other
> auto lists, as a goodie in progress, 'COMPLIMENTS OF the GMECM List
> Denizens' ?". I'll betcha dollars to dohickeys if you'd just made clear
> that LAST clause above, the response you received here woulda been
> totally different. Instead of the response you GOT, it might have moved
> on calmly to the discussion of why it's better to put it in HTML form on
> the GMECM website, and have YOU just point to it there on whatever lists
> you wish. That way it's something the group takes pride in
> offering/showcasing to their automotive list brethren, as well as a
> central place that can be corrected without being strewn all over
> creation in separate copies.
> 
> Somehow a few guys got the impression you might be wanting to distribute
> it in some way that made you come out looking like some individual
> benefactor. You can protest all you want that you were misunderstood,
> but then again, that presently just goes ta show ya something also may
> have gone wrong in the delivery. OTOH, if you don't give a zip about
> what those other guys think (I have my own list of such people I don't
> pay any attention to either :), then it's totally no biggie. Just ignore
> em.
> 
> One last finally gasp: I usually hate Dr. Laura sessions like this,
> mostly because often the person waxing philosophical/psychological
> usually (always?) has some hidden agenda, but claims objectivity. So
> let's put it this way; I don't claim the above scenario is in any way
> "objectively, necessarily, or obviously" even close to what went on in
> the other guy's minds. I ain't pretending to speak for nobody but me.
> All I know is, that's how it struck me, as someone who's repeatedly been
> on the receiving end of suckups and plagarists. And that's not to say
> your situation even *smelled more than a suspicious wiff* in that
> direction. But since the world is such a smelly place, making an effort
> to be CLEAR to others, who's opinions you DO care about, that you're not
> heading in that direction, is sometimes the only protection to avoid
> being suspected, and the worst construction being assumed or placed on
> what you do or say. If you've ever been poisoned by some substance,
> you'll understand how ACUTE one's senses become to anything that even
> hints of being the same nasty crap.
> 
> In short, having been stuck in the back a few times by smooth-talkin,
> smiley "warm handshake" characters who're just "here to help" or "just
> wanna learn from you", you have a tendency to tune up your senses to
> know when you might be walking on eggshells. Cuz being repulsed and
> sickened by the poison, you wanna make double sure no one ever even
> *suspects* you might have such slimey motives.
> 
> One final example so you don't think I'm just shootin the psycho-shit
> breeze here. Remember when the guy recently asked about the Blitz AFR
> device? And I responded that CharlesM had mentioned it to me recently,
> which led me to go looking around for that Blitz JP site? WHY did I make
> a point of saying WHO gave me the lead in the first place? Why hell, I
> coulda put on aires of being God's gift to O2 sensing (which arrogance I
> have been accused of before, naturally :), and stated matterOfactly,
> "Oh, that's Blitz's brand new product offering; why it's SOOOO new that
> there may not be a $US dollar price established yet. Here's their
> corporate site in JP, and if you could read Japanese like I can (har
> har), you'd clearly see their list price in Japan is 120,000yen". And
> said nothing about Charles' friendly alerting me to this new gizmo. Not
> to mention I'd be a complete shithead not to have thanked him for the
> reference, it also would have been a thankless disregard for the
> comradery that Charles showed me by mentioning it to me, in the midst of
> some other commercial questions about EGOR, which he didn't want to ask
> onlist. IOW, a GREAT way to make sure Charles doesn't EVER share
> anything with me in the future! Geez, ego CAN be expensive if you try to
> fake it amongst pals.
> 
> And finally, Barry, if the above blather sounds like it's coming from
> some preppy amateur psychobabbler, I don't blame ya. Not knowing
> anything more than what I saw/read (I didn't interview the respondents
> like some groupie gossip so I really DON'T know what any of them think)
> and the pretty surprising retorts (in terms of their forcefulness) you
> got, I can well appreciate why you might feel maligned and totally
> misunderstood.
> 
> All I'm saying is in cases where you're dealing with joint human
> collaboration, sometimes you have to bend WAY over backwards to make and
> keep the impression with your collegues solid, that you're joining them
> in their endeavors just for the fun and personal benefit *of the
> collaboration*, and not because you're some leech pretending to be
> buddies just for what you can suck up. I'd bet you'd say "I'm most
> certainly and clearly the former, and NOT the latter". Then let this lil
> tempestINAteacup serve to point out how delicate friendly collaboration
> can be sometimes. Next time, maybe OVERstate the case of you being just
> oneOthe guys. Cuz even with the best of motives, there are so many turds
> in this public punch bowl we call the world, that you can easily be
> mistaken unless you fly your flag REAL high up thar.
> 
> I wish it were a better world, where such suspicions of motive were
> merely psychotic, but it's not.
> 
> Garsophically speakin, o'course
> 
> P.S. If anyone thinks this posting is totally unrelated to DIY/GM/EFI
> lists, I have only to point you to the events of the last month (not to
> mention lots of ancient DIY hystery :) to prove otherwise. Besides, if
> you read this far, you have no one to blame but yourself. :)  If you're
> here for the long haul, these kinda things ARE useful to discuss. Just
> me dos centavos, amigos. After all, wadawino?
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
> in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org


-- 

========================================================================
D. Barry Stubbs                                    http://surf.to/z24man
(912) 745-9429                                     AOL IM: thez24man
z24man@earthlink.net          BNet Member #828     ICQ #5409648
#101DSP MidGa Region SoloII   94 Q4 5spd Aqua Z26  88 2.8 5Spd White Z24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from gmecm, send "unsubscribe gmecm" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo@lists.diy-efi.org