Re: Automatic Entry and Forms

Robert Hazeltine (
Sun, 25 Feb 1996 15:39:41 +1100 (EST)

Date: Sun, 25 Feb 1996 15:39:41 +1100 (EST)
From: Robert Hazeltine <>
To: "Daniel W. Connolly" <>
Cc: Walter Ian Kaye <>,
Subject: Re: Automatic Entry and Forms 
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>

Hi Dan

On Sat, 24 Feb 1996, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:

> In message <>,
>  Robert Hazeltine writes:
> >Hi Dan
> >
> >On Fri, 23 Feb 1996, Daniel W. Connolly wrote:
> >
> >> Enough of this sort of innuendo, Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt already!
> >
> >What I wrote had none of the characteristics you mention.
> Umm... what I saw was:
> >>If you are naive enough not to see the implications of this, move over and
> >>let others overtake.

Obviously you missed the caveat emptor in what I was saying.

> >
> >I and others contributing to this thread have outlined our concerns.
> Where? In the above message, you cited no sources and gave no argument.

Just follow the thread, you were not the only one contributing to the 

> If you outlined your concerns in an earlier message, it's possible that
> I (and others) missed them. You should reference/excerpt the earlier
> message.

Maybe, I understood it was your discussion list.  Haven't they shown up yet?
You should be been the first to know.

> > A
> >situation which the proponents haven't (they have made many an assertion
> >though on how it might be used, for example). 
> I can't parse that sentence.

It means that assertion is not argument (as any freshman can tell you).  
I've put argumentation forward.

> >I have put some argument on the ethics of the proposal, the practicality
> >of establishing the data set, the problems of confining it to what was
> >initally perceived as good for us, the relative weight to protecting
> >machine/system information compared to people, and more. 
> Where?

Just follow the thread.

> >> Phil's draft was a bit brief, but there's nothing wrong with the
> >> mechanism.
> >
> >Maybe not.  However, my argument when replying to other posters is that it
> >is unsafe and we need to reinforce human values as well as promote
> >technological excellence.  It patently does not. 
> That's argument by assertion. Please give evidence.

No it's not.  I am just summarising what I said to others.  Read my reply 
to others contributing to the discussion. You cannot have it both way!

> >> All it does is save ths user a little typing: it allows
> >> the browser to fill in the same info the user gave last time. Just
> >> like Quicken's QuickFill (TM?)  feature.
> >
> >Actually, Dan I find this a spurious argument just like the con man 
> >saying this is good for you while he goes for your hip pocket.  Quicken 
> >is an inappropiate example since it's generally used in-house and data 
> >does not generally leave the local system; data is not uploaded without 
> >human intervention across a public network.
> Nor is data uploaded without human intervention in the proposal in
> the "Automated forms" draft. The form is automatically filled out,
> but not automatically submitted.

Please put into the context I already outlined in previous postings 
because I never asserted that.  

> >> But if you have a REAL problem with the proposed mechanism, please
> >> make your argument plainly.
> >
> >I trust I have done better than making the assertion that this is really
> >good for you and that it will save a bit of typing. 
> Huh? I have no idea what this sentence is about. Are you saying that
> you have presented your argumetn plainly? Where?

See above where I said I have answered others.  On the face of it, I 
thought it fairly straight forward English.

Pardon me, but I think this line of non-argument is counter-productive.

However, if you want it in very plain English, argue YOUR case which you 
have not, IMHO.  I have on this discussion list.

If you want to discuss this rationally fine, but I am not falling into 
the sycophantic mould.

My whole line of approach has been caveat emptor.

Want to discuss rationally?


Robert Hazeltine          
Library Web Support