Help and Support

[Gene Wirchenko]

You see rudeness where many others don't.

True.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Char Jackson]

I do not. I recognise the rudeness and move on, on to a book
that is politer.

Fine, I'll rephrase the question. Why do you give the power of
rudeness to a book title? Do song titles have equal power over you?

You realize, of course, that titles of inanimate objects can't hurt
you, right?

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

Fine, I'll rephrase the question. Why do you give the power of
rudeness to a book title? Do song titles have equal power over you?

Not power, but status. The book title has the status of being
rude.

You realize, of course, that titles of inanimate objects can't hurt
you, right?

Condescend much?

Unless they are so awkward to read that my eyes go funny or
something similarly extreme, no.

Spoken words also do not hurt, but would you want a tirade
directed at you? Probably not. It would be rude, even if it would
not hurt you.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Char Jackson]

Not power, but status. The book title has the status of being
rude.

I give up. The way you're going round in circles it's apparent that
you're unwilling or unable to answer the question.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

I give up. The way you're going round in circles it's apparent that
you're unwilling or unable to answer the question.

No, I have not been going around in circles. I have steadfastly
held to a point.

You keep trying to steer me to admitting something that just is
not so. That is what happens when you use "Have you stopped beating
your wife?" questions.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Stan Brown]

You see rudeness where many others don't.

Let me say it a different way, because I see Gene's point and I think
maybe you don't. Of course I speak for myself, not for Gene.

It's not a question of "giving power" to a book title. It's simply
that I don't want to give money to people who call other people
dummies. Yes, it seems rude and insulting to me. No, it doesn't
seem personal: I don't think the authors have me in mind. No, I
don't think that I have to share their opinion of the "dummies" who
read their books.

Maybe they mean it as a joke, but it doesn't seem funny to me. (And
bear in mind that "can't you take a joke?" is the sometimes, not
always, the last refuge of people who have been insulting on purpose,
like men who make sexist comments to women [*cough* Limbaugh] and
then use that lame excuse when called on it.) If you find it funny
and don't mind giving them money, that's your prerogative of course.
I won't try to tell you you're wrong, because humor is a very
personal thing; but at the same time I hope you can accept that Gene
and I are not wrong either.

 

[Nil]

It's not a question of "giving power" to a book title. It's
simply that I don't want to give money to people who call other
people dummies. Yes, it seems rude and insulting to me. No, it
doesn't seem personal: I don't think the authors have me in mind.
No, I don't think that I have to share their opinion of the
"dummies" who read their books.

Maybe they mean it as a joke, but it doesn't seem funny to me.

If you had ever even glanced at one of the books you would have
immediately seen that the authors in no way treat their readers like
"dummies." They are clearly using it as a term of endearment, as
they state below. Do you really think the books would be popular if
the tone of the content was insulting? It's just an intentionally
silly title, as any curious reader will see.

http://www.dummies.com/Section/The-For-Dummies-Success-Story.id-323929.html

It doesn't really matter, of course, because they've been selling
millions of copies of their books to people who are not thin-skinned
and close-minded. People who actually look at the books before
passing judgment on them.

 

[Gene Wirchenko]

[snip]

You see rudeness where many others don't.

Let me say it a different way, because I see Gene's point and I think
maybe you don't. Of course I speak for myself, not for Gene.

But you stated my point excellently. Thank you.

It is truly amazing how much people will defend rude behaviour.

[snipped excellence]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

 

[Nil]

It is truly amazing how much people will defend rude
behaviour.

It's even more amazing how some people will go out of their way to find
"rudeness" where there is none.

I can only assume that you've never taken the time to look at the
contents of the book.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

alt.windows7.general:

It's even more amazing how some people will go out of their way to find
"rudeness" where there is none.

I can only assume that you've never taken the time to look at the
contents of the book.

I have started to wonder if the other Gene's ability to find rudeness
is a form of projection...

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Maybe they mean it as a joke, but it doesn't seem funny to me. (And
bear in mind that "can't you take a joke?" is the sometimes, not
always, the last refuge of people who have been insulting on purpose,
like men who make sexist comments to women [*cough* Limbaugh] and
then use that lame excuse when called on it.)

Now I can accuse you of equating me to Mr. Limbaugh.

No, I don't mean that at all, and I have no intention of making such an
accusation.

BUT...I *am* saying it to demonstrate an example of the kind of
thinking I might currently be attributing to others.

 

[Char Jackson]

If you had ever even glanced at one of the books you would have
immediately seen that the authors in no way treat their readers like
"dummies." They are clearly using it as a term of endearment, as
they state below. Do you really think the books would be popular if
the tone of the content was insulting? It's just an intentionally
silly title, as any curious reader will see.

http://www.dummies.com/Section/The-For-Dummies-Success-Story.id-323929.html

It doesn't really matter, of course, because they've been selling
millions of copies of their books to people who are not thin-skinned
and close-minded. People who actually look at the books before
passing judgment on them.

Thanks for your eloquent reply. You've stated my perspective better
than I would have, both in this post and in your follow-up some 90
minutes later. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

It's even more amazing how some people will go out of their way to find
"rudeness" where there is none.

I can only assume that you've never taken the time to look at the
contents of the book.

If you read the link Nil provided, you'll find "most bookstore chains
didn't want to carry the book at all, claiming that the title insulted
their customers and readers in general." So initially (and I find the
first was DOS, by Dan Gookin), the perception was quite widespread
("most").

I suspect the alliteration in the original title was what attracted the
authors/publishers, and once that had become established, the brand
grew. I still, however, see both sides of the argument: I remember, when
giving one of them to mum, having to say something like "I'm not saying
you're a dummy, but I think you'll enjoy this book" (which she did); if
the title hadn't been what it was, I wouldn't have had to say that.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Maybe they mean it as a joke, but it doesn't seem funny to me. (And
bear in mind that "can't you take a joke?" is the sometimes, not
always, the last refuge of people who have been insulting on
purpose, like men who make sexist comments to women [*cough*
Limbaugh] and then use that lame excuse when called on it.)

Now I can accuse you of equating me to Mr. Limbaugh.

No, I don't mean that at all, and I have no intention of making such
an accusation.

BUT...I *am* saying it to demonstrate an example of the kind of
thinking I might currently be attributing to others.

Good grief! When I posted links to those "Dummies" books, I never
expected such a negative response. I confess. I did not cite any
"Dummies" books in my doctoral thesis*, but that doesn't stop me from
picking one up if my post doctoral studies carry me into unknown and
unrelated territory. I don't even ask for a plain brown wrapper. Among
the thousands of titles available, there are still one or two subjects
of which I am completely ignorant.

*Okay, okay. Truth be told, there weren't any "Dummies" books in print
when I did my doctoral thing or I would have picked up "Creative
Writing for Dummies!"

 

[Nil]

Thanks for your eloquent reply. You've stated my perspective
better than I would have, both in this post and in your follow-up
some 90 minutes later. I think you've hit the nail on the head.

I'm glad my point came through, so I can finally drop the subject. If
someone is looking to be offended, there's not much anyone else can do
to prevent it.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Maybe they mean it as a joke, but it doesn't seem funny to me. (And
bear in mind that "can't you take a joke?" is the sometimes, not always,
the last refuge of people who have been insulting on purpose, like men who
make sexist comments to women [*cough* Limbaugh] and then use that lame
excuse when called on it.)

Now I can accuse you of equating me to Mr. Limbaugh.

No, I don't mean that at all, and I have no intention of making such
an accusation.

BUT...I *am* saying it to demonstrate an example of the kind of thinking I
might currently be attributing to others.

Good grief! When I posted links to those "Dummies" books, I never
expected such a negative response. I confess. I did not cite any
"Dummies" books in my doctoral thesis*, but that doesn't stop me from
picking one up if my post doctoral studies carry me into unknown and
unrelated territory. I don't even ask for a plain brown wrapper. Among
the thousands of titles available, there are still one or two subjects
of which I am completely ignorant.

*Okay, okay. Truth be told, there weren't any "Dummies" books in print
when I did my doctoral thing or I would have picked up "Creative
Writing for Dummies!"

Come on, Crash (if I may call you that), I was just being a bit
sardonic, in an attempt to make a point.

Or was it ironic or satirical? I can't keep those things straight.

Time to read Satire for Dummies, I guess.

Anyway, I am not insulted by the Dummies books, and in truth I was not
at all insulted by the remark about Limbaugh. In fact, I felt that Stan
Brown made a pretty good comparison to make his own point. I just
seized on that opportunity to make my own comparison to illustrate a
point.

Or are you just talking about this monster(tm) thread? In that case I'd
have to agree with you...

I confess that, in this thread, in between moments of getting annoyed I
am having fun as well

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I'm glad my point came through, so I can finally drop the subject. If
someone is looking to be offended, there's not much anyone else can do
to prevent it.

For goodness' sake: nobody's _looking_ to be offended. The point being
made is just that the series' names could _possibly_ have been better
thought about. To give the example I already have: when giving one to my
mother, I said something like "I'm not calling you a dummy, but I think
you might enjoy this book." It didn't stop me giving it to her - I
thought it was a good book - but if it had had a different title, I
would not have had to explain that I wasn't calling her a dummy. Does
that make clear why some of us think the name was perhaps ill-chosen?
(But most of us don't feel strongly about it!)

As I also said in that post, but some might not be familiar with the
word "alliteration" (and I'm not calling them a dummy!), the novelty of
the title of the first book might have been part of the reason it was
chosen: "DOS for Dummies", with the repetition of the D. A later book
could have been called "Windows for Wusses", and perhaps even "[The]
Internet for Idiots"; instead, they decided to stick with "for Dummies",
because the original book had become so well known.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

.... the older [studio] has a fixed position camera at five foot ten. I'm five
foot four-and-three-quarters, so I have to stand on a box, or I'd never reach
the Hebrides. Helen Young (BBC TV weather presenter), 10/2000.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

On 3/08/2012, Stan Brown posted:
Maybe they mean it as a joke, but it doesn't seem funny to me.
(And bear in mind that "can't you take a joke?" is the
sometimes, not always, the last refuge of people who have been
insulting on purpose, like men who make sexist comments to
women [*cough* Limbaugh] and then use that lame excuse when
called on it.)

Now I can accuse you of equating me to Mr. Limbaugh.

No, I don't mean that at all, and I have no intention of making
such an accusation.

BUT...I *am* saying it to demonstrate an example of the kind of
thinking I might currently be attributing to others.

Good grief! When I posted links to those "Dummies" books, I never
expected such a negative response. I confess. I did not cite any
"Dummies" books in my doctoral thesis*, but that doesn't stop me
from picking one up if my post doctoral studies carry me into
unknown and unrelated territory. I don't even ask for a plain brown
wrapper. Among the thousands of titles available, there are still
one or two subjects of which I am completely ignorant.

*Okay, okay. Truth be told, there weren't any "Dummies" books in
print when I did my doctoral thing or I would have picked up
"Creative Writing for Dummies!"

Come on, Crash (if I may call you that), I was just being a bit
sardonic, in an attempt to make a point.

Or was it ironic or satirical? I can't keep those things straight.

Time to read Satire for Dummies, I guess.

Anyway, I am not insulted by the Dummies books, and in truth I was
not at all insulted by the remark about Limbaugh. In fact, I felt
that Stan Brown made a pretty good comparison to make his own point.
I just seized on that opportunity to make my own comparison to
illustrate a point.

Or are you just talking about this monster(tm) thread? In that case
I'd have to agree with you...

I confess that, in this thread, in between moments of getting annoyed
I am having fun as well

Yes. I just tacked my general comment on to a recent post from someone I
sensed shared my opinion and had a sympathetic ear. I was not rebutting
you. I was deliberately trying to avoid prolonging this silly argument.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Gene E. Bloch wrote:
On 3/08/2012, Stan Brown posted:
Maybe they mean it as a joke, but it doesn't seem funny to me. (And bear
in mind that "can't you take a joke?" is the sometimes, not always, the
last refuge of people who have been insulting on purpose, like men who
make sexist comments to women [*cough* Limbaugh] and then use that lame
excuse when called on it.)

Now I can accuse you of equating me to Mr. Limbaugh.

No, I don't mean that at all, and I have no intention of making such an
accusation.

BUT...I *am* saying it to demonstrate an example of the kind of thinking
I might currently be attributing to others.

Good grief! When I posted links to those "Dummies" books, I never expected
such a negative response. I confess. I did not cite any "Dummies" books in
my doctoral thesis*, but that doesn't stop me from picking one up if my
post doctoral studies carry me into unknown and unrelated territory. I
don't even ask for a plain brown
wrapper. Among the thousands of titles available, there are still one or
two subjects of which I am completely ignorant.

*Okay, okay. Truth be told, there weren't any "Dummies" books in print
when I did my doctoral thing or I would have picked up "Creative Writing
for Dummies!"

Come on, Crash (if I may call you that), I was just being a bit sardonic,
in an attempt to make a point.

Or was it ironic or satirical? I can't keep those things straight.

Time to read Satire for Dummies, I guess.

Anyway, I am not insulted by the Dummies books, and in truth I was not at
all insulted by the remark about Limbaugh. In fact, I felt that Stan Brown
made a pretty good comparison to make his own point. I just seized on that
opportunity to make my own comparison to illustrate a point.

Or are you just talking about this monster(tm) thread? In that case I'd
have to agree with you...

I confess that, in this thread, in between moments of getting annoyed
I am having fun as well

Yes. I just tacked my general comment on to a recent post from someone I
sensed shared my opinion and had a sympathetic ear. I was not rebutting
you. I was deliberately trying to avoid prolonging this silly argument.

OK, thanks. I'm glad that's what it was.

And at this point I'm also ready to stop posting in this thread, but I
will read it, in case someone gets rude to me and I *must* reply

It's abundantly clear that the titles affect different people
differently, and that people are unlikely to change their minds -
including me...so it's easy to join you in letting it go.

 

[Ken Blake]

Or are you just talking about this monster(tm) thread? In that case I'd
have to agree with you...

I confess that, in this thread, in between moments of getting annoyed I
am having fun as well

I'm the one who started this thread (or at least this branch of the
thread) and by now I'm sorry that I did <g> My feelings on the
subject haven't changed, but they aren't strong enough that I want to
argue about it. Moreover, regardless of how strong my feelings are, I
almost never want to argue in a newsgroup. I say my piece and I'm
done.

So I suggest to all of you--let's end the thread here.