[OS X TeX] Wrong latex getting used.

[Alain Schremmer]

On Mar 3, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Alex Hamann wrote:

>
> On 03.03.2009, at 19:28, Rolf Turner wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3/03/2009, at 4:11 PM, Michael Hanson wrote:
>>
>>> Having seen your response to Herb's attempt to try to ferret out  
>>> some
>>> relevant facts of your LaTeX usage
>>
>> 	I found Prof. Schulz's reply facile and patronizing, and of
>> 	no help whatever.

[...]

>> 	I took a great deal of trouble to compose a complete and
>> 	clear explanation of my problem.  Getting Schulz's response
>> 	was a bit like asking a question about stochastic differential
>> 	equations and getting in response a lesson in elementary
>> 	arithmetic.

I think that there is a little bit of confusion here.

(a) Many on this list are not "familiar with the concept of ``path'',  
have no idea "what its implications" are, and ask "stupid questions"— 
with myself being a prime example.

(b) The odds are thus that a question about "path" calls for a "stock  
answer" such as "did you check this and that".

(c) This list works because knowledgeable people, such as Schulz, are  
willing to put up with such "stupid questions".

(d) Many of these knowledgeable people give very generously of their  
time even though they obviously don't have that much time to give.

(e) Occasionally, their "speed reading" a question misses the point  
and if Schulz did, he is not the only one. By far.

(f) While it is indeed a bit irritating to have tried to be perfectly  
clear only to have one's posting misread—it has happened to me a few  
times from different people on this list—I don't see what is to be  
gained by expressing this irritation.

(g) Those of us who come to this list—and who, in general, are not  
able to be of help in their turn, such as myself—would not be happy  
to see knowledgeable people such as Schulz leave the list. And this  
has happened before.

(h) But while, for these knowledgeable people, their presence on the  
list is a loss, to people like me it is a gain. Vice versa, when they  
leave the list, they gain and people like me lose.

I am thus not asking you to be "charitable" to knowledgeable people  
like Schulz but to the "rest of us".

As it happens, though, and whether Schulz's response was of help or  
not—and being myself "terminally inept" I have no idea, it is  
certainly not the case that his answer could have be "facile" and,  
even less, "patronizing". Having been on this list for now a few  
years, I can vouch for that and, I am sure, many others can.

Regards
--schremmer