"Robert Redelmeier" <redelm@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:EoCrk.11266$vn7.8476@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Dean Kent <drkent3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in part:
> > John Corse was the 'trigger', but there were several regulars here
> > who used him as an excuse to demonize every visitor here who dared
> > to express a contrarian view - particularly when it was not in
> > praise of AMD. It certainly drove me away, and I know of many
> > others who expressed the same feeling. The ones who remained,
> > of course, were of a like mind, and defended that behavior -
> > but it is obvious that they essentially killed the group.
>
> As you anticipated, I disagree. There was plenty of spirited
> disagreement in csiphc yet it was vibrant for over a decade.
>
Yes, I am well aware of the discussion, at least from 1996 when I started
contributing. But the 'Corse debacle' definitely changed the discussion
here.
> Nor did Coarse kill it. Such impotence could not. But he did
> generate a great deal of traffic which hid the fact that there
> was less to reasonably discuss with the maturing of the industry.
> So when he finally desisted, traffic plummetted to where it should
> have been. Or perhaps below, because the level of vitriol generated.
>
Corse did not kill it, the people who used Corse as an excuse to attack
anyone with a different opinion did - primarily with regards to AMD and
Rambus. It isn't too hard to go back and search how many people were
called 'Corse in diguise' for quite some time after Corse left, which
invariably drew the same group of jackals to the fight, effectively
drowning
out any attempts at rational discussion. And it was done so by a
specific
group of people who I know you respect - and I did too. Unfortunately,
it
is often difficult to see how rude and mean-spirited people are when they
are your friends/allies and you are not subject to their attacks. It is
easy to justify such behavior as 'necessary', not unlike the treatment of
'terror suspects' who end up not being terrorists at all... it's just
'collateral damage', no big deal...
In my opinion, that is why there is little real discussion - those who
dared
express alternative conclusions were driven away, and what was left were
those who mostly agreed and 'got along together'. While I know you
disagree with this *****sment, I'll simply point to the fact that the
group
is, for all practical purposes, 'dead' as evidence. You can, of course,
interpret it any way you wish. But, you have one annoyed and estranged
former contributor here telling you what he personally experienced, and
believes.
Regards,
Dean
>
> -- Robert
>
>
|
