bloody CTC

In message , MJ Ray
writes

It's disappointing that a CTC member actually *flames* people who would
like to listen to CTC but can't because of their bad communication skills.
Why don't you put that energy into talking to CTC?

I have done before now, actually, since you mention it. I was
buttonholing one member of HQ staff about the Highway Code only a few
weeks ago.

So I feel justified in speaking up when I think someone's being
unreasonable with them. By all means ask the CTC to send you plain-text
equivalents if you, personally, cannot (or will not) read Word
documents. (My level of sympathy here depends on whether the recipient
has a disability that prevents them reading the format, or whether they
just like showing off their techie cred by refusing to use the same kit
as everyone else.) By all means offer the CTC training in how to do this
- though what exactly you would prove by sending the offer in a format
THEY can't read, I don't know. Doesn't sound like a good example of
communication to me.

What you haven't justified is why you think you can call on the wider
membership to campaign to get the CTC to stop sending information in a
format which would be perfectly readable and more user-friendly than
plain text to 99.9% of its recipients. If you *genuinely* have
difficulty in reading .doc files then by all means insist on a plain
text version for yourself. To try to force that on every other recipient
of CTC messages, regardless of those recipients' own preferences, just
seems silly to me.

Even on the limited IT aspect, there are much more urgent issues - as
you've said yourself, the website needs a lot of attention - that come
much, much, MUCH higher up the scale than word documents in emails.

There is as ever a fascinating (to you or me) debate to be had about the
rights and wrongs of proprietary file formats and their commercial
implications, but the CTC is not the place to have that debate. Let's
face it, it is a debate that is of little interest to all but a tiny,
tiny minority. Sorry. That's how it is.

--

In message , MJ Ray
writes

It's disappointing that a CTC member actually *flames* people who would
like to listen to CTC but can't because of their bad communication skills.
Why don't you put that energy into talking to CTC?

[Damn. Answered this once then cancelled it due to email address slip,
but not sure if it's actually cancelled. Apologies to all if I seem to
be repeating myself in slightly different words.]

I have done (for instance I buttonholed a CTC HQ staff member about the
Highway Code only a few weeks ago). So I feel justified in speaking up
when they're being criticised unreasonably. As you pointed out yourself,
even in the limited area of IT, sorting out the website would be time
much better spent.

If you are unable to read the format of an email the CTC has sent you,
by all means ask the sender to provide it in a different format. If you
can't read it because of some disability or other, you are doubly (nay,
triply) justified in asking. But bear in mind that the format you're
complaining about will be readable by almost EVERY other person on the
mailing list.

So I don't see that you're justified in calling for CTC members to
campaign for a blanket change to plain text communication, for your own
convenience but to the inconvenience of the other recipients who would
find the document format more comfortably readable than plain text.
Sorry. It might matter to you but it doesn't matter to those people out
there who are more interested in advancing cyclists' rights on the road
than they are in a format war that is of limited interest to anyone who
isn't a computer buff.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 00:34:59 +0100, Andy Key wrote:

If you are unable to read the format of an email the CTC has sent you,
by all means ask the sender to provide it in a different format. If you
can't read it because of some disability or other, you are doubly (nay,
triply) justified in asking. But bear in mind that the format you're
complaining about will be readable by almost EVERY other person on the
mailing list.

You are talking ********. I guarantee that not one person the message
was sent to could read it. 100% failure rate.

It wasn't a mailing list post - it was an email from one CTC bod to me
alone - one CTC member. Sent with no plain text translation and no
indication what the .doc file contained. No way whatsoever to
distinguish it from any number of viral infections (in fact, it was
rather less convincing than many virus attempts).

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

On 7 Jun, 00:04, Andy Key wrote:

What you haven't justified is why you think you can call on the wider
membership to campaign to get the CTC to stop sending information in a
format which would be perfectly readable and more user-friendly than
plain text to 99.9% of its recipients.

It is not true to say that 99.9% of people can easily read Word files.
If the CTC want to send fancy-looking emails then PDF and HTML are two
open formats that would be more convenient.

Sorry, that's how it is.

Cheers,
Luke

Andy Key .notthisbitcom wrote:
I have done (for instance I buttonholed a CTC HQ staff member about the
Highway Code only a few weeks ago). [...]

Well done!

If you are unable to read the format of an email the CTC has sent you,
by all means ask the sender to provide it in a different format. [...]

I did and they either weren't capable or weren't willing to do so, as
I previously mentioned in

[...]
So I don't see that you're justified in calling for CTC members to
campaign for a blanket change to plain text communication, [...]

Actually, I called 'please stop your organisation using single-vendor
IT like Microsoft Office files.'

If this is a demonstration of communication skills, then sorry, but I
can see why you don't think CTC have problems... :-/

[...] It might matter to you but it doesn't matter to those people out
there who are more interested in advancing cyclists' rights on the road
than they are in a format war that is of limited interest to anyone who
isn't a computer buff.

While this should be of interest to every computer user (but some might
not realise it yet), I'm more interested in advancing cycling on the
road and this silliness with recent CTC emails hinders it. If we didn't
care about advancing cycling, why would we care that we can't read CTC's
messages? How stupid is it to suggest otherwise? Gagh!

Fortunately, others are stepping in to fill this gap, but aren't CTC
members at all worried about how they're wasting their membership fees?

One of the biggest barriers against advancing cycling is the tendency
of some councils to put their plans in the modern equivalents of a
locked filing cabinet in an unlit basement loo behind a beware of the
leopard sign. Now CTC does it too and I think it's getting itself a
bad name from this, combined with its other recent stupidities.

Hope that explains,
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

Roos Eisma wrote on 04/06/2007 20:23:
I got some of the local double glazing ones to hang up on
me when I started firing back questions about their company name, address,
etcetera.

The easiest way to get rid of double glazing, mortgage, conservatory etc
salesman (in person and on the phone) is to say (truthfully, in my case)
"I rent". They realise there's no point continuing.

Peter


--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:48:53 +0100 someone who may be Peter
Scandrett wrote this:-

The easiest way to get rid of double glazing, mortgage, conservatory etc
salesman (in person and on the phone) is to say (truthfully, in my case)
"I rent". They realise there's no point continuing.

"I am unemployed" also works quite well.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Jun 8, 9:16 am, David Hansen
wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 21:48:53 +0100 someone who may be Peter
Scandrett wrote this:-

The easiest way to get rid of double glazing, mortgage, conservatory etc
salesman (in person and on the phone) is to say (truthfully, in my case)
"I rent". They realise there's no point continuing.

"I am unemployed" also works quite well.

I have read that a good way of getting rid of life insurance sales
droids is to say, "I'm so glad you called. You see, I've had such
difficulty getting insurance since my 3rd heart attack."

--
Dave...

dkahn400 wrote:
I have read that a good way of getting rid of life insurance sales
droids is to say, "I'm so glad you called. You see, I've had such
difficulty getting insurance since my 3rd heart attack."

I'm surprised they don't rub their hands with glee after working out
their commission on the very loaded premium offer. Depends if they're
a "no complications only" insurance selling droid, I guess.
--
MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op.
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

MJ Ray wrote on 10/06/2007 15:00 +0100:
dkahn400 wrote:
I have read that a good way of getting rid of life insurance sales
droids is to say, "I'm so glad you called. You see, I've had such
difficulty getting insurance since my 3rd heart attack."

I'm surprised they don't rub their hands with glee after working out
their commission on the very loaded premium offer. Depends if they're
a "no complications only" insurance selling droid, I guess.

They're all programmed with scripts so it can be fun to throw them a
curved ball and watch them flounder. OTOH I'm just grateful that I
don't have to do that to earn a living and have some sympathy for their
predicament.

--
Tony

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there
is no good evidence either way."
- Bertrand Russell