The Science of Journalism

If I Had My Way
One Man's Opinion -- for what it's worth.

To: Doc Searls -

Cc: Dave Winer -

From: Doug Skoglund -

Date: 31 Mar 2015 08:00 am CDT

Subject: 2015010 - Trust, but Verify!!

First, and foremost -- I have absolutely no need to insult you. I have far too many things that I want to accomplish that I am not about to waste my valuable time on such petty tasks.

My primary motive for responding to your idiotic response to my last post (01)is to post some kind of continuity to my previous post for whoever may choose to read my writings -- and to round out my own personal documentation.(02)

(01) First you say "I have absolutely no need to insult you," then you call my response "idiotic" and worse (below). Not a very helpful way to keep a conversation going, much less a crusade.

(02) Fine. But that's also not a conversation.

That last post was a test, which you should have been able to detect, if you had your mind in the right place. Since you failed so miserably I have to ask the following question:

You are either awfully dumb, or awfully smart with a hidden agenda, or a mixture of the two -- which is it?? (03)The following is documentation offered to support my asking such a blunt and potentially insulting question.

(03) Neither. But if you think that's the only choice, you have no respect for me, and there is no reason to go on with this.

1) Your picky, picky process of analyzing a written post is just plain stupid - sample from previous post:(04)

(04) What you call "picky, picky" is what others call "interleaved posting" or "inline": <>. There's nothing wrong with it. In fact it is customary.

First, I have absolutely no need to challenge your feelings and concerns about the advertising business -- I bow to your superior knowledge in that area. (A)I do, however, question your problem solving ability. But, on with the story...

(A)If you do, why do you dismiss what I wrote in response to Christopher  Brock's comment? I do have a lot of knowledge in that area. I worked in it for most of my adult life and have studied it without stop since the '70s.

That is rude -- very rude -- you have interrupted my statement before I have had any ability to express a thought. I haven't even formulated an opinion yet. 

Besides, I see nothing in those first few words about Christopher Brock -- you are making your own interpretation of something I wrote further down in the post. 

In addition, you fail to acknowledge that the only thing that I can do as a writer is express an opinion. You, as the reader, are responsible for the interpretation of what I write. If you chose to see my words as an insult or failing to meet your psychological needs, that is your problem.(05)

(05) So it's my problem that I don't like having what I say called "idiotic" and "stupid." Got it.

2) My primary purpose for writing any thing is to clarify a point that most other people either don't understand or don't care. The age of the computer has introduced a factor that must be controlled:

3) I, as a programmer have the power to make your computer do anything I want -- if you allow me access. I can read your mail, I can monitor your activity and I can tell the whole world about it and you can do absolutely nothing about it. Our government has completely failed to protect us -- and, as a matter of fact, that government is the major offender.

4) I, obviously, know where I am on the subject; however, I have no way of insuring my potential users of the security of my software because Microsoft does not provide that capability in their operating systems.

5) Furthermore, the browser concept, which allows indiscriminant access, furthers the problem as it is knowingly programming your computer to suit the needs of the programmer without the users specific consent.

6) Everybody needs to understand that there is an interloper involved in their every move on the computer -- the programmer. They are trusting -- with no ability to verify.

7) As a supposed knowledgeable writer, you must understand the realities as I have described (06)-- and are either stupid -- or a conspirator. Which is it, Doc??(07)

(06) I do. And I've been working on solving problems in exactly those areas. But you have your own crusade, as you put it below.

(07) Again you're presenting impossible and insulting choices. Some call that kind of thing "conversational terrorism":

8) No bull shit, Doc -- You are welcome to join my crusade -- or you can ignore this message. And my readers will know (if there are any)!!

9) BTW, don't give me any crap about present protective activity -- which is nothing more than a competitive programming game and a worthless sham. It is the responsibility of the technology community to provide a secure computer and the government to force the issue. And we need to elect the kind of people that will do the job properly.(08)

(08) I won't give you any more of anything, Doug. I'm done. So is Dave, who I
won't trouble by cc'ing. His tolerance for insult is lower than mine, and I am sure he has long since finished listening to you.

To be continued (I really hope)(09)

(09) No, there's no hope left, Doug. I'm done.

Doug Skoglund

I don't provide for comments since that is a system designed to control the communication process -- I do provide an e-mail address!! (Please put a [MYWAY] in your title to get my attention).

BTW, I am working on a replacement system -- and I sure could use some help.

This page posted at

2015 Archive List

2014 Archive List(10)

(10) I hope you get help from somebody. But it won't be from me not when you publish insulting emails like this one online.

But I do wish you the best. Have a good life.