RE: Mail order catalogues was Re: Cognition Simulation

Anne wrote:
>          Both Jonathan and I have been working on these issues far longer
> than you've been around. How can you presume to call either of us
> a troll?

I didn't. In fact, I said just the opposite. Read my post.

> Your first two points were fine. The rest went downhill from
> there.

I'm glad to see that I passed muster on at least a couple.

> Please look back in the archives and see how your "issues" have
> already been refuted.

It is customary to provide URLs when referring to archived posts. Which
posts specifically refute my comments? You point to them, I'll read them.

I don't believe that anything I've said has been refuted, only disputed.
There is a difference.

> Children learn to draw before they come to school,
> and during the early years, there skills are honed and refined.

Not to anything approaching a professional level. And immediately after
those early years, those skills are most often left to decay. Almost
everyone I know can write (though a few can't spell). Most of the people I
know don't consider themselves anywhere close to proficient at drawing or
graphics (and the graphic designers I know seem to agree). Do you have
evidence to support your claim?

Now, I think that these skills are latent, and that they can be developed.
That's why I'm advocating a significant increase in the amount of
information regarding use of graphics, etc. in the techniques document. Read
my post and you'll see. Point 12.

> In any high
> schools I've been in, the art classes were full to capacity.....

Oh, in my high school, too. Full of people who wanted an "easy" class, who
were trying to avoid yet another writing-related class. There were real
artists in there, too, but they were the exceptions, not the rule.

Are you saying that students spend as much time studying art as they do
studying how to write? As much time drawing as writing? I'd be amazed if you
could produce evidence to show this.

> And it
> makes no sense to say that those who need graphics can't have
> them because
> someone in a third world country can't download them. That simply isn't
> fair, and it isn't what the guidelines are about.

Oh, I agree. See my post. I never said anything about denying graphics to
people who need them -- for any reason. In fact, I think I said just the
opposite, that graphics, audio, video, etc. were vital (see points 1 and 2).
What I did say was that graphics should be used judiciously -- that means
wisely and carefully -- so that we do not unnecessarily deny access to
people who can't afford fast access and the latest technology. It's not the
same thing at all as saying "no graphics." Really.

Chas. Munat

Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2001 08:14:08 UTC