New FreeBSD Logo

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Greg Barniskis [mailto:nalists at scls.lib.wi.us]
>Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 7:36 AM
>To: Ted Mittelstaedt
>Cc: cpghost; fbsd at a1poweruser.com; freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
>Subject: Re: New FreeBSD Logo
>
>
>Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>>
>>
>> I take affront to such answers because of the simple fact that it's
>> obvious that your perfectly valid answer isn't a real answer.  A real
>> answer would be something that would get rid of this continual
>> resurgence of this discussion.
>
>Thus the suggestion that folks pursue it in a forum where PR might
>actually be germane, and in a way that might actually bear results.

But that isn't a real answer since the people that put in the new
logo don't want to change things no matter how many people scream
about it.  As long as the new logo is in place and it is as bad as
it is, we are going to see this erupt here periodically.  Why?  Because
as new people come in and start using questions@ they are going to
comment about it and the whole argument is going to start over again.

If barking about it on a different forum would actually make a difference
you would see people doing it on that forum.  But it won't, and we
all know it.

This is exactly like the motorcycle helmet law arguments.  The slight
majority of motorcycle riders are opposed to helmet laws, why?  Because
too large a percentage of riders are flipping idiots and the rest of the
anti-helmet-law percentage of riders are stuck in some born-to-be-wild
fantasy about how they aren't opposed to helmets, but people should
have a 'choice'.

But it's apparent
to the rest of the general population that since too many riders are
flipping idiots, we have to mandate helmet laws.  So we do, and
that has become a sore point on online motorcycle forums and you
can expect to see periodic eruptions of the argument on those
forums, basically forever.

>
>Despite what 24-hour cable news channels might like to have us
>believe, % self-selected email senders <> % actually holding
>opinions. Asserting that these are valid statistics is nonsense.
>

Which is why I said "based on responses" I assume people reading
that would be intelligent enough to understand self-selected results.
But not all self-selected results are viewed as bullcrap.  Consumer
Reports
rakes in millions if not hundreds of millions of bucks and it's
auto ratings are completely self-selected, and is highly respected by
many
people.  Are you saying that Consumer Reports auto ratings are
nonsense? ;-)

>Like many folks who really don't care about the logo all that much
>one way or the other, I simply won't be reading or posting on this
>subject any more (making any future post counts that much less valid
>as statistics).
>

Since you don't have an opinion one way or another on the new logo
vs the old logo, you really shouldn't have posted to this thread in
the first place.

Ted