> On behalf of plenty of people who I know enjoy your site a great

deal, I have been chosen to speak for the group. FYI: we are a bunch

of CS majors at a University in the US (very unhelpful I know but not

really pertinent info - if you are really determined, "you will find

it anyway...":).

My purpose here is to provide, hopefully, some mental pabulum.

>



Ah, the old problem! 



How díyou find information? Thatís the first question. What díyou do

with the info you have found? Thatís the second one. 



See, Benzedrin, I'm not fed up with people like you, Iím fed up with

people that donít want to give, because Iím fed up with people that

donít want to LEARN. See, one of the things I have learned (and that I

wish all readers of my site will learn in due time) is that you should

always WORK on the info you find, and then you should give at least a

little part of this work as ëfeedbackí, as stimulus to the development

of the material you did read. Thatís the real spirit of the web of

ëoldí. 



> The time old problem with this, as I'm sure you have realized can be

summed up in the following adage: "Teaching your grandmother to suck

eggs" (not my favorite expression in any event but it will do...).

What on earth can we possibly offer you in this regard besides

gutwork? Would anybody in their right mind lecture to Knuth about

algorithms for example, and taking that unwelcome leap of faith, go on

to publish it? As for the web of old...good luck in finding/recreating

it: I really mean that. It is just that I  see no renascence of it in

the near future. Don't get me wrong here. I cannot find fault with

this line of reasoning it is merely that I have little faith in its

occurrence (spero meliora...but it only goes so far :(

I have however become convinced that the release of such information

would result in far less damage and a possibility, however slim, of

recovery while not releasing information never accomplished anything

except social regression. You are faced with which dream you wish to

realize: an Orwellian dearth or a Huxleyan tedium. It is possible to

recover from latter much less painfully. Besides, all things take

time: nemo repente fuit turpissimus :)

>



Now, see you donít need to be a ëtop elite insiderí to give a little.

Why do you say that you "have no chance in co-operating"? In fact

there are MANY helpful things you could do, if you wanted. Letís

imagine youír really interested in an advanced section of mine (this

one does not exist, itís just an example), let's say... "advanced

section on code flow charting analysers" and flow analysing techniques. 



> Yes, we could also flood you with a formidable amount of information

but nihil ad rem I'm afraid. On the other hand, if you might indicate

a few possibilities, or perhaps, what you don't want to see, seeing as

that is a narrower line of inquiry...

>



So you plod through my basic ëflow analysingí section and then read

"please

understand: to access the advanced section you should contribute

somehow". Oh my! Restricted information! How awful! Fravia+, you

bloody Anti+ORC! 



> satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum :) I do see you're point but I

think perhaps you might be taking it a bit too far(?). Are you angry

at "us" for abusing your hospitality, as it were, or the fact that you

think you have failed us as a host/teacher? Most teachers are happy if

they only succeed in influencing a small percentage of their students.

Personally, on behalf of a great many people, I think you have

succeeded beyond expectations. Yes I am sure that very phrase has been

repeated to the point of banality (and perhaps, even the seemingly

perspicacious observation that it has become so has also joined the

ranks of quotidian drudgery) but it remains true.

>



Now, would it really be so difficult to gather a lot of information on

code

flowcharting, and, say, put together a small essay about the existing

tools? 



> 

But eventually, you will get tired of that eventually as well. You

line of reasoning looks to me like mumpsimus and not your usual

incontrovertible line of reasoning. Once again: is this a jeremiad

against your seeming failure? You have not failed. You merely have not

succeeded as much as you would have liked. No! It is not a trivial

distinction. Quite the contrary. You, just as you would expect us to,

have done what you could and contributed according to your ability. It

is a question of blame? Sorry, I cannot help you there. It looks to me

as if this whole business can be summed up in two words (and please

correct me if I am far off) : ignoratio elenchi (the logical fallacy

of arguing about the wrong point). 

>



Or, say, prepare a small page of links to what you have already found

that is not listed in my basic section? Or, say, criticise the text

you found on my basic section on this and that points you donít agree

with? Or, say, point out some interesting connections that have not

been seen yet? 



> Do you think it a matter of indolence on our parts or rather respect

for your choices in the links? You have left a certain amount of links

up for a reason. You have left others out completely. I presumed, as

did others, that this was a logical choice. You deliberately did not

encourage people, through absence of the links, to go to those places.

Consider what would happen if we, having no name and seemingly no

proven worth, suggested links? We'd be ignored at best and denigrated

at worst. What would you have us do? Consider that matter of

reputation here. You can say what you want and people, whether or not

they actually care about what you say, believe it to be true. It all

comes down to credibility again. Who are we to go around making

suggestions? No, that is not hypocrital, in the context in which I

said it. Yes I am making a suggestion to you but it is within a line

in which I can plausibly make it. Perhaps I am, as the saying goes, a

eunuch in a harem ("he knows what he has to do but can't do it

himself). Would you dismiss something true merely because it is cliche

or in this case, told by somebody without reputation? Whether or not

you accept what I say, you will end up proving it :)

>



And so on, and so on... díyou get the picture? There are MANY forms of

contributing that require a little (a little!) work on your part and

that

are so easy to accomplice I could shriek... when I see how few

actually care to give something (something, just something!) back. I'm

not speaking of you, Benzedrin, (although I cannot remember you did

contribute until now :-) I'm speaking of those that instead of

contributing, instead of working just a little to show that they care

for what they are doing, that they have learned that the net is based

upon mutual help, instead of giving something, even small crumbs...

instead of that I keep finding a lotta

readers ready to defend their holy right to leech whatever they want,

even that what is meant only for real students... ah, those readers

donít seem to know the ABC of information... 



> Yes but in getting back at the people who leech (and they will

always be the majority) - a rather feeble attempt -, you would cut off

everybody who has managed to donate. The people who are truly capable,

and they are not even a plurality (a smaller minority you will not

find), do not need this forum as much as those in the middle. Once

again, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Yes what you

have here is not to your satisfaction but the alternative is

unthinkable. You may ask, after all of this, since when was this

incumbency to my fellow (would-be) cracker foisted upon me? You did

after all, volunteer. Absolutely and irrefutably true. Nobody made you

do what you did and that was part of why we came: you meant what you

said. Your probity was above question. I am not trying to attack your

right to do as you damn well please and change the scope of your page

but don't do it under the current pretext. Then anybody can rightfully

criticize you. Don't quit for the wrong reasons. If you really meant

what you said, please consider what I have written. If, having done

that, you still firmly believe that you shouldn't continue the way you

have, I will not only stop asking you to reconsider but I will defend

you every step of the way on your way out. I don't know how much that

means. It could be, as Trevanian describes the French in his book

Shibumi (on pg.271 I think...but I don't know seeing as I haven't read

it in about a year): "the amorous antics of the ant as he climbs up

the cows leg and he assures her that he will be gentle..." :) Once

again, it is a matter of reputation :(

>



Should I open my advanced site-busting pages to all teenagers that

just want to brag around? 



> 

Very cogent point. That is undeniably a problem. That is a matter of

re-structuring, but not I think, removal of material. Actually, the

idea of requiring people to demonstrate competence is a excellent one.

If they want more, they must show that they not only know the material

but that they have a certain level of maturity with it. How you might

do that is entirely your decision (perhaps you might ask your

readers?:). It is a time honored method after all...

>



Díyou really want the spammers to know how to defeat every

anti-spamming defense? 



> Now that is actually quite scary. But there is really nothing you

can do about competent people working for the wrong side. While it is

noble to try to inculcate people with a sense of ethics, it is quite

implausible. Some more famous words: "Given the ideal conditions of

temperature, pressure, and the perfect stability of all other outside

forces, the electron will do exactly as it damn well pleases...". It

is the same old story: it is a matter of which situation is worse, not

exactly which one is actually any good. Preventing people from

learning at all is, in my opinion a much worse eventuality than not.

>



Should any idiot be capable of nuking his neighbourís email address

just because he does not like the way he looks/smells/speaks? We are

speaking of (in part) real information here, and real information is

powerful (yeah, I know this sounds stupid, yet it is damn true :-(

Therefore real information deserves your own work, your attempt in

developing yourself... c'mon, at least a little. Besides myy site is

already quite dangerous as it is, as anyone can see and many

testify... and I think Iíll soon shut down most of it anyway. 



> 

As long as you do it in good conscience..."yeah, I know this sounds

stupid, yet it is damn true :-("...

>



See, readers, the ABC of information is that information is NOT free.

It must be found, it must be reversed, it must be passed to others...

all this requires work and understanding. Either you are capable to

work and give, either you understand the VALUE of the (free)

information you can gather on this site (and some other sites, I'm

-thanks godzilla- not the only one), or you do not, and you just want

to exploit pre-chewed info that others 

> It is a matter of thermodynamics here (as a metaphor of course...).

People will do what is easier for them. Simple as that. You will

doubtless fail great deal of the time to convince anybody to sit down

and work. Yet somebody will end up surprising you every single time,

without exception. Yes, it might be the same person each and every

time. Consider the percentages of failures you are getting and then

make an educated judgement.

>



have gathered without your contribution and without

your help. 



If that is the case (and I hope not), then, only for those readers...

get lost. 



> a most expetible desire...but I have little faith in it :(



anyway, best of luck and above all, thank you for your time and patience



Vive Vale,



_Infinidim 



p.s. I am not actually much good with Latin, as you have proably

already realized. I am merely trying out what little I know on

somebody who might (possibly) correct me...



*******************************************************

 Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

       Then he is not omnipotent.

 Is he able, but not willing?

       Then he is malevolent.

 Is he both able and willing?

       Then whence commeth evil?

 Is he neither able nor willing?

       Then why call him god?

                             -Epicurus



"I dislike arguments of any kind. They are vulgar and often convincing"

                          - Oscar Wilde