On 7/14/06, Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net> wrote:
[snip]
I don't see how I'm making this assumption.
Quite to the contrary, you
now seem to be making the assumption that users always get pissed when
admins do bad against them...
I'm not making any assumptions. My only claim is that we do not have
statistically significant information... and that you are complaining
about a complaint level which is probably itself too low to be
statistically significant.
If my restatement of your position didn't match your thoughts, then
I've failed to understand what you are arguing.
The claim you
are referring to made is that only if users are bad
admins are pissed, not if and only if.
I'm sorry, this sentence does not parse grammatically. Please rephrase? :)
I omitted 'being' before made.
Your (2) is effectively: Only if users are bad admins are pissed
It seemed to me that you were reading (2) as : If and only if users
are bad admins are pissed.
Does it? Are you alleging that all or most annoyed
people speak up? I
don't think so.
No, I'm claiming that we have a lot of users and that you've failed to
make any attempt to demonstrate that the level of complaint we are
seeing is significant.
I am quite
sure that mistakes are made... and that we even have a few
low quality admins. ... But I've seen no information which causes me
to believe that this should be considered a high priority problem
You'd rather continue to have this flurry of angry complaints on this
mailing list? :)
They don't bother me.
You can always unsubscribe if they bother you.
How else could I respond? Even if everything were perfect we'd still
get complaints... and if the number of users becomes large enough,
we'd still get a lot of complaints in absolute terms. So if lots of
complaints bothers you, you should unsubscribe.
Now if you actually think that the complaints are evidence of
something that needs improvment, please provide evidence...