Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt
You admit that my post was easy to read and user friendly. That's the point. If the writing style of your post makes it so difficult to read that nobody gets information out of it, then it's pointless to post it.
|
As a kid, I obtained service manuals for all Ford automobiles. I read every one of those manuals. What did I learn? Best written material required three to five readings. The stuff that is easily read the first time - that results in nothing new the second time - is some of the greatest trash.
To make post 4 easiest to read, I kept it short, numbered all three points, confirmed every keyword before posting it, and never confused people with things such as what Task Manager is.
One primary intent here - which is the #1 reason why we fix things - was to teach. Ever see the movie Paper Chase? What is necessary before going to class? Homework. Profession Kingfield required each to come to class with facts and numbers. Without numbers from Post 4 - if the homework is not first done - then I can teach nothing useful. IOW had numbers from post 4 been first provided, then I could have identified the suspects AND explained what and why is happening. No numbers? Nothing as required in post 4. Well then Juniper was struggling with wild speculation - it could be this or could be that.
Why am I "being a twit" as it was described? There is also a larger lesson here. "I" "You" "We" etc has no place here. I can only be a 'twit' if one personalizes what is only a technical discussion.
Numbers are always essential to solving technical problems. Never short your help of facts. Never add anything personal in what is only a technical solution. Never try to first solve a problem; always first collect facts and identify the suspects long before trying to fix anything. Follow the evidence; ignore wild speculation. And the best service manuals, technical solutions, science papers, etc require multiple rereads to comprehend - are that chock full of facts.
Post 4 was a perfect example of so much information in so few words. Post 4 would have avoided wasting time with McAfee / AVG solutions - also called wild speculation.
When do we move on the only problem here - that computer? When facts request by three point in post 4 are provided. Notice how many wasted posts and so many emotional people only because those numbers still are not provided.
(I am also entertained that so many got emotional over what is simply a technical problem. I did not even have to cry, “Fire” in a theater to create a riot. How easily so many let their emotions rage – and those numbers from post 4 still are not provided.)