Clean Up or Buy New PC?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by tw

Problem I have with your example is also what I recently encountered with software descriptions. Each routinely forgot to cite its purpose or objective. But its text was so user friendly with all those "I", "you", and irrelevant "they" words that it was easy to read and provided near zero useful information.

..

Been doing this stuff too long to be anything but blunt and honest.

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.

I freely admitted that I don't know much about computers and that my example might contain flawed information. Perhaps you missed that. It was the last line of my post. The purpose of my example was to show you a writing style that is more accessible to the reader. After all, that's the whole point, isn't it?

[tw]

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.)

[glatt]

tw, you forget that this is not a user manual. You are having a written conversation with a person.

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

tw, you forget that this is not a user manual. You are having a written conversation with a person.

I am the technical manual. For all practical purposes in this thread, I am nothing more than an interactive service manual. My posts are nothing but technical responses to technical problems. Again, the reason why words such as "I", "You", etc must be eliminates as much as possible. If anyone sees anything different, well that is their personal biases being read into what I did not write.

But again, we are wasting time by avoiding the subject - that enemy of all mankind - a failed machine.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by tw

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.

Well that's just total BS. I've read some very well written programming books and articles that did not require multiple readings to understand. I, for one, appreciate clear and straightforward prose.

Reread your posts, tw. If you can't hear how pompous they sound, then there's your problem.

[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

Reread your posts, tw. If you can't hear how pompous they sound, then there's your problem.

If you hear anything pompous, then you are entertaining your emotions. I don't care how they sound. I only care what the technical facts are. If you are reading what I am writing, you only see those facts. Pompous is an emotional perception - how you perceive something. If I wanted to be pompous or did not want to sound pompous, then I would worry about being politically correct. I don't. I am only posting facts with complete disregard for something irrelevant - how your emotions react to the sentence structure.

This is a technical discussion. A list of thing to do and to not do – how to solve a technical problem. “You” and “I” have no dog in this fight. “You” and “I” are irrelevant to the subject. If you perceive some hidden meaning in my post, that is you adding what I never stated or even intended.

“It sounds like” is the technical equivalent of wild speculation. Does it specifically state something pompous? Where does that post state a pompous intent? Only way something ‘sounds like’ is if you apply your perceptions – emotions.

I don't care how it sounds. Sounds have nothing to do with technical facts and numbers. A failed computer is the topic here. How to fix it. What is and is not known. What is needed to glean new facts. Pompous has no relevance, is not intended, is (by your own admission) what you perceive.

Worse, you say it 'sounds pompous' without example. In a technical discussion, a fact stated without the underlying whys has no merit. You don't even provide example meaning I can only wildly speculate why you achieved that conclusion. Not that it is relevant. The subject is Juniper's computer; not perceptions due to implied assumptions.

So, where is are your technical facts and objectives that contribute to a solution or the ultimate objective?